Languish.org

Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2009, 02:35:29 PMI would have to rate the StG44 as the best.  It wasn't made in high enough numbers for them to make it a game-changer in the war,

'Spies said this in the combat rifle thread, and I disagree that the StG44 could have been a game changing weapon if produced in large enough numbers. The only two weapons I can think that could have fallen under that category would be the Me-262 or the Type XXI electric U-boats.

I also put the Panzer V on the list along with the panzerfaust, another visionary German infantry weapon. If forgot someone's favorite weapon system, tough, vote other and specify.

That's a tough one, but I voted for the Panther.  I think if the Me262 had gone in maybe 2 years earlier it would have been the biggest game-changer.

Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

I'd say Me-262.  A lot of problems can disappear or be mitigated when your infrastructure doesn't get bombed to shit all the time.

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

Panzerfaust was easily mass produced and maintained. :contract:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 04:28:55 PM
Panzerfaust was easily mass produced and maintained. :contract:

Yep, and it had one of the best cost/benefit ratios of any mass-produced weapon in history.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 04:28:55 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

Panzerfaust was easily mass produced and maintained. :contract:

The T-34 and IS-2's armor was sloped.  Unless the Germans had them in the very early part of the war (and even then the Russians wouldn't have had as many tanks back then, making it somewhat moot), they would have made an impact but not a huge one.  Guess again.

And Germany reached maximum production of war material in 1944, during the bombing campaign.  The "game changer" was German industrial policy; not on the same kind of war footing as the USA let alone the USSR until the game was over, and even then focused on over-engineered, breakable tanks and useless revenge weapons. 

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 04:28:55 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

Panzerfaust was easily mass produced and maintained. :contract:

The T-34 and IS-2's armor was sloped.  Unless the Germans had them in the very early part of the war (and even then the Russians wouldn't have had as many tanks back then, making it somewhat moot), they would have made an impact but not a huge one.  Guess again.

The Panzerfaust destroyed plenty of T-34s.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 04:42:35 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:39:09 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 04:28:55 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

Panzerfaust was easily mass produced and maintained. :contract:

The T-34 and IS-2's armor was sloped.  Unless the Germans had them in the very early part of the war (and even then the Russians wouldn't have had as many tanks back then, making it somewhat moot), they would have made an impact but not a huge one.  Guess again.

The Panzerfaust destroyed plenty of T-34s.

In an urban, German environment where the Soviets were pushing forward to take the city in the fastest possible time; and even then there were issues with penetrating the T-34's armor, not to mention the Soviet adoption of hillbilly armor by the end.

Game changing? Whatever moves the CRT to the right.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:12:59 PM
Game changing? Whatever moves the CRT to the right.

That would be the Me-262.  Arguing that the Germans increased production without it isn't the same as arguing that they couldn't have increased production even more with it employed a year earlier (when the allied bombers were not escorted all the way to the target with any serious numbers of fighters).

I would think the Type XXI the only real competitor.  The other options are minor improvements over their predecessors.

A) The Sg-44 if introduced at D-Day/Bagration would have had negligible effects on the course of the war. It would have killed a few more russians and WAllies.
B) Me-262 had little if no effect when it came in 1945. Had in arrived a year earlier that would still have been one year after the destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Not to mention that the allies had not pushed their own jet fighters, preferring their own reliable piston fighters. Arriving one year earlier it would have forced the allies to produce Gloucester Meteors instead of P-51s.
C) Type XXI U Boats. For the most part they arrived in 1945. By 1944 the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost for a full year already.  A better sub would not really have helped much since the battle of the atlantic was won by Bletchley Park, not by the North West Approaches Command of the RN.
D) Panzerfaust. Again, they arrive in numbers in 1945. And if they had arrived in 1944 they would still have arrived a full year after the war was lost. It would just have meant more losses for the ruskis and WAllies before the end of the war.
E) The Pz-5 _ Whatever type. Had they arrived in 1942 the outcome might have been affected. BUT (note the all caps) in 1942 the germans had little problems defeating russian armour, the Pz-4 variants were still sufficient for the task at hand (defeating T-34 with russian tactics with Pz-4s with german tactics). What really could have made an effect on the war was that if in 1943 the Germans start with Pz-5 with one full year of field testing AND in sufficient numbers to start the Battle of Kursk mid summer rather than AFTER the Russians have two months to prepare defenses.

Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2009, 04:28:08 PM
I'd say Me-262.  A lot of problems can disappear or be mitigated when your infrastructure doesn't get bombed to shit all the time.

The problem, of course, is that a Third Reich wihch could mass produce this is so unlike our Third Reich that I really don't know what kind of state it's in.

The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

Fritz-X vs Dreadnought still results in a 1-0 to the Fritz-X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Roma_(1940)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

:lmfao:

Quote from: Faeelin on April 10, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
The problem, of course, is that a Third Reich wihch could mass produce this is so unlike our Third Reich that I really don't know what kind of state it's in.

That would be the historical Third Reich of 1943.  There was nothing magially difficult about mass-producing the Me-262, and it in fact used fuel that was less refined than that of the piston aircraft it would have replaced in production.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 05:37:30 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2009, 05:12:59 PM
Game changing? Whatever moves the CRT to the right.

That would be the Me-262.  Arguing that the Germans increased production without it isn't the same as arguing that they couldn't have increased production even more with it employed a year earlier (when the allied bombers were not escorted all the way to the target with any serious numbers of fighters).

Or, if Hitler had envisioned, the Ardennes Offensive met all its strategic objectives which, as Max Hastings would say, was to buy time for the Me262's ramped up production to equalize the air war.

I thought one of the key problems with the 262 were the engines, specifically low quality turbine blades, which iirc fed off the problem of not having sufficient alloying metals. Weren't the engineering of the blades themselves not much cop either ? 

Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
A) The Sg-44 if introduced at D-Day/Bagration would have had negligible effects on the course of the war. It would have killed a few more russians and WAllies. 

agree

QuoteB) Me-262 had little if no effect when it came in 1945. Had in arrived a year earlier that would still have been one year after the destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Not to mention that the allies had not pushed their own jet fighters, preferring their own reliable piston fighters. Arriving one. year earlier it would have forced the allies to produce Gloucester Meteors instead of P-51s

Disagree.  The Me-262 in 1943 would have been devastating to the daylight bomber offensive, and the Meteor would have been helpless to intervene, being too short-ranged to escort bombers to the targets. I think this would have been game-changing, but not ultimately war-changing.

QuoteC) Type XXI U Boats. For the most part they arrived in 1945. By 1944 the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost for a full year already.  A better sub would not really have helped much since the battle of the atlantic was won by Bletchley Park, not by the North West Approaches Command of the RN.

Disagree.  No one at Blenchl;ey Park sunk a single U-boat, and their efforts would have been ineffective against U-boats that didn't need wolfpack tactics to be effective against convoys.  My reservation is that allied production was so dominant in this period that the additional losses could simply have been absorbed.

QuoteD) Panzerfaust. Again, they arrive in numbers in 1945. And if they had arrived in 1944 they would still have arrived a full year after the war was lost. It would just have meant more losses for the ruskis and WAllies before the end of the war.

Agree

QuoteE) The Pz-5 _ Whatever type. Had they arrived in 1942 the outcome might have been affected. BUT (note the all caps) in 1942 the germans had little problems defeating russian armour, the Pz-4 variants were still sufficient for the task at hand (defeating T-34 with russian tactics with Pz-4s with german tactics). What really could have made an effect on the war was that if in 1943 the Germans start with Pz-5 with one full year of field testing AND in sufficient numbers to start the Battle of Kursk mid summer rather than AFTER the Russians have two months to prepare defenses.

Agree, but think this would just have resulted in a Germancollapse later and in a different place.  The Germans would still have lost the Battle of Kursk, just not so disastrously.

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 07:05:37 PM
I thought one of the key problems with the 262 were the engines, specifically low quality turbine blades, which iirc fed off the problem of not having sufficient alloying metals. Weren't the engineering of the blades themselves not much cop either ?

True, but this wouldn't have changed by an earlier introduction.  The tech to make a reliable jet fighter simply was unavailable to any of the combatants.  The unreliable 262 would still have been preferable to an equal number of reliable Fw-190s, simply because the design was so much more capable.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 06:37:05 PM

QuoteB) Me-262 had little if no effect when it came in 1945. Had in arrived a year earlier that would still have been one year after the destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Not to mention that the allies had not pushed their own jet fighters, preferring their own reliable piston fighters. Arriving one. year earlier it would have forced the allies to produce Gloucester Meteors instead of P-51s

Disagree.  The Me-262 in 1943 would have been devastating to the daylight bomber offensive, and the Meteor would have been helpless to intervene, being too short-ranged to escort bombers to the targets. I think this would have been game-changing, but not ultimately war-changing.

But really aren't you agreeing with him since he is talking about the 262 in '44, not two years early and in service in '43 :P

Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 06:56:13 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

Fritz-X vs Dreadnought still results in a 1-0 to the Fritz-X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Roma_(1940)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

Wrong.  All sorts of ships survived the Fritz X, and the bomb missed as well.  And the one success was against a surrendered Italian ship.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:15:38 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 06:37:05 PM

QuoteB) Me-262 had little if no effect when it came in 1945. Had in arrived a year earlier that would still have been one year after the destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Not to mention that the allies had not pushed their own jet fighters, preferring their own reliable piston fighters. Arriving one. year earlier it would have forced the allies to produce Gloucester Meteors instead of P-51s

Disagree.  The Me-262 in 1943 would have been devastating to the daylight bomber offensive, and the Meteor would have been helpless to intervene, being too short-ranged to escort bombers to the targets. I think this would have been game-changing, but not ultimately war-changing.

But really aren't you agreeing with him since he is talking about the 262 in '44, not two years early and in service in '43 :P

We're talking about introducing it in fall of '43.

Quote
First combat Sept 44
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me262.html

19 Allied planes shot down in August
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262#Operational_history

An operational fighter squadron, the "Kommando Nowotny", was established out of Erprobungskommando 262 in September 1944, under experienced ace Major Walter Nowotny. Kommando Nowotny became operational on 3 October.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html#m5

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 07:23:26 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:15:38 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:09:42 PM

Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 06:37:05 PM

QuoteB) Me-262 had little if no effect when it came in 1945. Had in arrived a year earlier that would still have been one year after the destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1943. Not to mention that the allies had not pushed their own jet fighters, preferring their own reliable piston fighters. Arriving one. year earlier it would have forced the allies to produce Gloucester Meteors instead of P-51s

Disagree.  The Me-262 in 1943 would have been devastating to the daylight bomber offensive, and the Meteor would have been helpless to intervene, being too short-ranged to escort bombers to the targets. I think this would have been game-changing, but not ultimately war-changing.

But really aren't you agreeing with him since he is talking about the 262 in '44, not two years early and in service in '43 :P

We're talking about introducing it in fall of '43.

Quote
First combat Sept 44
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me262.html

19 Allied planes shot down in August
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262#Operational_history

An operational fighter squadron, the "Kommando Nowotny", was established out of Erprobungskommando 262 in September 1944, under experienced ace Major Walter Nowotny. Kommando Nowotny became operational on 3 October.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avme262.html#m5

It wasn't introduced in full numbers (enough to field a full squadron) till Jan '45.  ;)

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:00:37 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on April 10, 2009, 06:40:55 PM
The problem, of course, is that a Third Reich wihch could mass produce this is so unlike our Third Reich that I really don't know what kind of state it's in.

That would be the historical Third Reich of 1943.  There was nothing magially difficult about mass-producing the Me-262, and it in fact used fuel that was less refined than that of the piston aircraft it would have replaced in production.

I guess my objection is that it presupposes that the Allies don't bust out the Meteor by the thousands, that the Germans find the raw materials to produce teh alloyws they need, that nobody in the west notices that the Germans are getting ready to roll out thousands of jets, etc.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:15:38 PM
But really aren't you agreeing with him since he is talking about the 262 in '44, not two years early and in service in '43 :P

Since the bird entered service in April 1944, that would put hypothetical IOC in 1943, right? :huh:

The Luftwaffe accepted its 300th Me-262 in October, 1944.  If that had been October, 1943, things may well have been very different for the Allied Bomber Offensive.

The Mark 1 German Fanboi.  Though heavy and difficult to move it is only such weapons still attaking Allied armor and planes to this day.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
It wasn't introduced in full numbers (enough to field a full squadron) till Jan '45.  ;)

that would be... incorrect.  ;)

Numbers were there, but the desire to form all-jet squadrons was not, for obvious reasons (like mutual support).

Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2009, 07:30:47 PM
The Mark 1 German Fanboi.  Though heavy and difficult to move it is only such weapons still attaking Allied armor and planes to this day.

Can you send some of the drugs that induced this post to the rest of us, so we can understand it?

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:00:21 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

:lmfao:

Do you not believe?

Quote from: Faeelin on April 10, 2009, 07:27:02 PM

I guess my objection is that it presupposes that the Allies don't bust out the Meteor by the thousands, that the Germans find the raw materials to produce teh alloyws they need, that nobody in the west notices that the Germans are getting ready to roll out thousands of jets, etc.

Didn't the Meteor have a short range? How's it going to help the bombers over Germany?

EDIT: Tainted by Tim :w00t:

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 07:32:39 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:00:21 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

:lmfao:

Do you not believe?

300 Me -262s in 1943 > Another Bismark

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:28:49 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:15:38 PM
But really aren't you agreeing with him since he is talking about the 262 in '44, not two years early and in service in '43 :P

Since the bird entered service in April 1944, that would put hypothetical IOC in 1943, right? :huh:

The Luftwaffe accepted its 300th Me-262 in October, 1944.  If that had been October, 1943, things may well have been very different for the Allied Bomber Offensive.

300 me-262 fighters? i don't think so.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 07:36:10 PM
300 Me -262s in 1943 > Another Bismark

Perhaps, but a good battleship > 300 Me-262s in 1943.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:30:52 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
It wasn't introduced in full numbers (enough to field a full squadron) till Jan '45.  ;)

that would be... incorrect.  ;)

Numbers were there, but the desire to form all-jet squadrons was not, for obvious reasons (like mutual support).

:lol: okay gumbler.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 07:32:39 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:00:21 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 06:50:13 PM
The answer is:  A good dreadnought battleship.

:lmfao:

Do you not believe?

I believe a dreadnought being obsolete in WWII yes.

Quote from: Viking on April 10, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
A) The Sg-44 if introduced at D-Day/Bagration would have had negligible effects on the course of the war. It would have killed a few more russians and WAllies.

The StG-44 was introduced in April 44 wasn't it? A year in advance would mean it would be issued to the units designated for Operation Citadel.

Quote from: Faeelin on April 10, 2009, 07:27:02 PM
I guess my objection is that it presupposes that the Allies don't bust out the Meteor by the thousands, that the Germans find the raw materials to produce teh alloyws they need, that nobody in the west notices that the Germans are getting ready to roll out thousands of jets, etc.

The Meteor cannot save the bomber offensive.  The rest of this makes no sense to me; the Allies knew very well that the Germans had developed, by 1942, a practical jet fighter.  There were no mystery alloys that the Germans needed in 1943 and didn't have until 1944, but even if there were this would have been assumed by the OP.

If you were serious about looking at the impact of the Me-262, instead of just creating strawmen, you would note that the effective end of the daylight bombing campaign until the P-51 was available in numbers would have meant that vastly more patrol planes would have been released to patrol the Atlantic, and that the result would have been that Germany, denied the ability to absorb misplaced Allied production efforts, would have lost sooner.  :P

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:37:29 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:28:49 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:15:38 PM
But really aren't you agreeing with him since he is talking about the 262 in '44, not two years early and in service in '43 :P

Since the bird entered service in April 1944, that would put hypothetical IOC in 1943, right? :huh:

The Luftwaffe accepted its 300th Me-262 in October, 1944.  If that had been October, 1943, things may well have been very different for the Allied Bomber Offensive.

300 me-262 fighters? i don't think so.

1300-1400 were produced by wars end IIRC, although 500 were destroyed by allied bombing at factories and in transit.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
300 me-262 fighters? i don't think so.

Really?  On what date do you fix the delivery of the 300th Me-262 fighter?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 10, 2009, 07:43:52 PM

1300-1400 were produced by wars end IIRC, although 500 were destroyed by allied bombing at factories and in transit.

1433 is number i've found. And i've read where 300 at one time were operational, my question is 300 of them operational in Oct '44 which is Grumblers contention.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:46:41 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
300 me-262 fighters? i don't think so.

Really?  On what date do you fix the delivery of the 300th Me-262 fighter?

Well considering from all reports of what i 've read the Hitler was still gungho on them as bomber till Oct '44 when the Arado 234 was shown to be a real Jet bomber, i'd say the 354 Me-262's delivered by end of Oct were  primarly delivered as...wait for it.... bombers.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:48:34 PM
... my question is 300 of them operational in Oct '44 which is Grumblers contention.

That isn't my contention, but go ahead and tell us when the 300th ME-262 fighter was delivered.  Are you going to argue for November 1944, or December 1944?

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:40:05 PM
I believe a dreadnought being obsolete in WWII yes.

They're still morally superior.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:51:37 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:46:41 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:37:29 PM
300 me-262 fighters? i don't think so.

Really?  On what date do you fix the delivery of the 300th Me-262 fighter?

Well considering from all reports of what i 've read the Hitler was still gungho on them as bomber till Oct '44 when the Arado 234 was shown to be a real Jet bomber, i'd say the 354 Me-262's delivered by end of Oct were  primarly delivered as...wait for it.... bombers.

Well obviously were speculating an early introduction as fighters so I don't see why that matters.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:40:05 PM
I believe a dreadnought being obsolete in WWII yes.

They're still morally superior.

A lot of good that does them at bottom of the ocean.  :hug:

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 07:52:53 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:48:34 PM
... my question is 300 of them operational in Oct '44 which is Grumblers contention.

That isn't my contention, but go ahead and tell us when the 300th ME-262 fighter was delivered.  Are you going to argue for November 1944, or December 1944?

Ah the good old gumbler gambit :lol:

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:57:35 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 07:53:19 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 07:40:05 PM
I believe a dreadnought being obsolete in WWII yes.

They're still morally superior.

A lot of good that does them at bottom of the ocean.  :hug:

They don't end up at the bottom of the ocean.  Out of the 82 dreadnought warships that served the seven main powers of the war, only 20 were lost to enemy action.

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 07:05:37 PM
I thought one of the key problems with the 262 were the engines, specifically low quality turbine blades, which iirc fed off the problem of not having sufficient alloying metals. Weren't the engineering of the blades themselves not much cop either ? 

Yep.
Increasing production of the me 262 may not even have been possible, they were already scraping the bottom of the barrel in materials with what they did make.
The Nazi-tech fanboys may love the 262 but it was pretty crappy in the real world, it could only fly for half an hour or so at a time and maintainance was a bitch. The meteor was far better.

And of course the Germans don't exist in a vacuum. If they decide to put more effort into jet fighters earlier then the British too would step up their jet fighter project.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:28:55 PM

They don't end up at the bottom of the ocean.  Out of the 82 dreadnought warships that served the seven main powers of the war, only 20 were lost to enemy action.

:lol:

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:34:15 PM
And of course the Germans don't exist in a vacuum. If they decide to put more effort into jet fighters earlier then the British too would step up their jet fighter project.

Yeah, but that's irrelevant, as British jets can't escort Allied bombers over Germany.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:36:07 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:28:55 PM

They don't end up at the bottom of the ocean.  Out of the 82 dreadnought warships that served the seven main powers of the war, only 20 were lost to enemy action.

:lol:

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:36:31 PM

Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2009, 08:34:15 PM
And of course the Germans don't exist in a vacuum. If they decide to put more effort into jet fighters earlier then the British too would step up their jet fighter project.

Yeah, but that's irrelevant, as British jets can't escort Allied bombers over Germany.

True.
I guess then it becomes the grand old question of whether the strategic bombing campaign was worthwhile or not.
Would make for a interesting scenario to assume jet interceptors active from the start of the war- neither side can really bomb each other too effectivly.

You all know more about WWII than me, but to really turn things around for Germany, wouldn't there have had to be success on the Eastern Front? 300 jet fighters after Stalingrad seems unlikely to change the course of the war.

Had Germany defeated the Soviets quickly, they could have had the manpower to prevent a successful invasion of Europe. I don't know if jets could have turned the tide in the east, but fully mobilizing at the start of the war would have given Germany a better chance.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:38:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.

Out of those 82 dreadnoughts, 49 of them belonged to the USA and UK, who won the war.

Why did the Axis lose?  Because out of the two full-time Axis powers, they only had 16 dreadnoughts, and only one of them survived the war.

Not just a coincidence.

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
(why aren't there more threads along the lines of which Allied weapon if introduced earlier might have significantly shortened/affected the outcome of the war? )

Because that one is easy:  The atom bomb.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:49:04 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:38:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.

Out of those 82 dreadnoughts, 49 of them belonged to the USA and UK, who won the war.

Why did the Axis lose?  Because out of the two full-time Axis powers, they only had 16 dreadnoughts, and only one of them survived the war.

Not just a coincidence.

What was ratios of carriers for USA/UK vs Axis powers?

:P

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:52:48 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:49:04 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:38:44 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:37:19 PM

I'll take that as your surrender.  Victory belongs to me, and through me, to dreadnoughts.

Yeah as they were such a "game changing" force in WW2.

Out of those 82 dreadnoughts, 49 of them belonged to the USA and UK, who won the war.

Why did the Axis lose?  Because out of the two full-time Axis powers, they only had 16 dreadnoughts, and only one of them survived the war.

Not just a coincidence.

What was ratios of carriers for USA/UK vs Axis powers?

:P

Fleet carriers were 40 to 11.  However, carriers lack the fleet-enhancing powers of dreadnoughts.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:15:37 PM
Ah the good old gumbler gambit :lol:

Ah, the good ol' "I will attack the questioner instead of answering the question" gambit  :lol:

EPIC  FAIL.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 10, 2009, 08:44:43 PM
You all know more about WWII than me, but to really turn things around for Germany, wouldn't there have had to be success on the Eastern Front? 300 jet fighters after Stalingrad seems unlikely to change the course of the war.

Had Germany defeated the Soviets quickly, they could have had the manpower to prevent a successful invasion of Europe. I don't know if jets could have turned the tide in the east, but fully mobilizing at the start of the war would have given Germany a better chance.

Agree, but we have to work within the confines of the OP, or the question becomes meaningless.

I think we al agree that Germany would lose WW2.  The question becomes how would they lose, and it is a non-trivial one.

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 09:17:11 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 08:15:37 PM
Ah the good old gumbler gambit :lol:

Ah, the good ol' "I will attack the questioner instead of answering the question" gambit  :lol:

EPIC  FAIL.

I'm glad you admit to failing, it's character building for you.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 09:27:36 PM
[I'm glad you admit to failing, it's character building for you.

Lame, even by Languish standards.  I feel for ya, though.  You had no choice but to pretend your ass was not chapped.  :hug:

Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2009, 09:31:57 PM

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 09:27:36 PM
[I'm glad you admit to failing, it's character building for you.

Lame, even by Languish standards.  I feel for ya, though.  You had no choice but to pretend your ass was not chapped.  :hug:

:lol:

Now just feeling sorry for ya. I've already said when I thought there was enough interceptors to field a wing (started in Oct '44 with 40 Interceptors, fully operational in Jan '45), since you insist on changing the question, the only one waiting around looking foolish is you grumbs.

Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2009, 09:37:41 PM
Now just feeling sorry for ya. I've already said when I thought there was enough interceptors to field a wing (started in Oct '44 with 40 Interceptors, fully operational in Jan '45), since you insist on changing the question, the only one waiting around looking foolish is you grumbs.

You still haven't said anything relevant to the question.  Even the bomber variants of the Me-262 were effective interceptors.

Wanna try again and state a point that is not a personal attack?

Introduced a year earlier? Type XXI and Me-262 go right out, the East was lost already. I suppose Panzer V.

Of course, we do not know when a German Bomb would have been available. No realistic estimate would put it at before May 8 1946 though. :nerd:

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 08:50:36 PM

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
(why aren't there more threads along the lines of which Allied weapon if introduced earlier might have significantly shortened/affected the outcome of the war? )

Because that one is easy:  The atom bomb.

Yep, unlike the Axis, the Allies did manage to use a game-changing weapon in the War.

Incidentally, while it is true that if the ME-262 had been introduced earlier and in larger numbers, the Allies could have countered by stepping up their own jet fighter programs, the Meteor wouldn't have been the answer, as some here have stated--its performance was inferior to that of the ME-262.  The P-80, on the other hand, would have kicked ass.

Other.  A whole shitton of STuG III's (that's a shitton more than the shitton that were actually built), instead of whatever crazy super heavy tanks they were coming up with.  This is not actually my idea....there's some website that talks about how this would have won the war for the Nazis, etcetcetc.  Can't find it atm, but that's okay.  It's not that important.  "Other" obviously needed a vote.

Gotta figure Panthers available in decent numbers for Fall Blau would have made a world of difference.

At least they do in every tactical game I've ever played.

Other: some German scientist dude not making the calculation mistake and assuming you need a ball of uranium the size of Neil's ego to build a single nucular bomb. Because the only thing that could save Germany was an early atomb bomb to scare off the West.

Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2009, 02:15:53 AMnucular

:P

Quote from: mongers on April 10, 2009, 08:40:33 PM
Look who else is having this debate:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=47463 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=47463)

:bleeding:


(why aren't there more threads along the lines of which Allied weapon if introduced earlier might have significantly shortened/affected the outcome of the war? )

Centurions and Pershings arriving one year earlier would have made a significant difference. Both were shipped to germany in january 1945. Had they arrived in January 1944 they could have had equipped Armoured divisions in June 1944.

Flower Class Corvettes arriving one year earlier would have made a significant difference.

But to render the entire problem moot, Spitfire I's (and V's and VII's and IX's) arriving one year earlier would have made a significant difference. Same for Grants, Shermans, B-29s, Atom Bombs, Mosquitos etc.etc.

The really interesting question remains, had one of the german superweapons, assuming it worked as advertised, saved germany from losing or significantly shortened the war had it been introduced one year earlier.



From my wargaming experience the answer is clear. The Dornier Pfeil, the Do-335. I advance built all three of them in a World in Flames game and they provided the vital air cover for the Kriegsmarine (by reacting into the 3 box with the fleet) that allowed it to cut supply to the D-Day forces in northern france, allowing Mannstein to blitz the allies face down and out of supply into the shingle on the beaches.

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 09:07:41 PM
Fleet carriers were 40 to 11.  However, carriers lack the fleet-enhancing powers of dreadnoughts.

Well, it would have been interesting if Germany had more battleships than it did. The sub question would become moot if Germany had 25+ more Graf Spee ships to raid. Or, if they had something bigger which allowed them parity (or at least the ability sortie without having to sneak) with the Allies navy.

Quote from: Strix on April 11, 2009, 07:04:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2009, 09:07:41 PM
Fleet carriers were 40 to 11.  However, carriers lack the fleet-enhancing powers of dreadnoughts.

Well, it would have been interesting if Germany had more battleships than it did. The sub question would become moot if Germany had 25+ more Graf Spee ships to raid. Or, if they had something bigger which allowed them parity (or at least the ability sortie without having to sneak) with the Allies navy.

It certainly would have changed the way Britain was able to use their fleet.  The war in the Med would have been radically different.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 10, 2009, 08:44:43 PM
You all know more about WWII than me, but to really turn things around for Germany, wouldn't there have had to be success on the Eastern Front? 300 jet fighters after Stalingrad seems unlikely to change the course of the war.

Had Germany defeated the Soviets quickly, they could have had the manpower to prevent a successful invasion of Europe. I don't know if jets could have turned the tide in the east, but fully mobilizing at the start of the war would have given Germany a better chance.

As I alluded to earlier, many unrelated problems get at least some relief when you have air superiority (or at least deny air superiority over your own territory).

As to the Me-262 debate, I would have to see when the greatest losses of experienced german pilots happened - if the large scale introduction came before this time than it indeed could have caused major changes.  Perhaps not winning the war, but changing allied tactics and the bombing campaign. 

The engine limitations, iirc, often were exacerbated by novice pilots opening the throttles too fast, changing throttle speeds too quickly, etc.  Having more experienced pilots in control would have multiplied the impact even more.

Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html)

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280 (http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280)

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

Quote from: Queequeg on April 10, 2009, 04:25:20 PM
Something that could have been easily mass produced and was easy to maintain, so not really any of the above.

Heh. Mass production in general should be the answer, citing the obvious ammunition incompatibility anecdotes.

Quote from: Ape on April 11, 2009, 05:30:01 PM
My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html)

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280 (http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280)

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

Interesting, I'd never heard of this plane before. Nice find Ape. Jet fighters being introduced in appreciable numbers that early would definitely be a devastating blow to the allied bombing campaign.

Quote from: Ape on April 11, 2009, 05:30:01 PM
Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html)

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280 (http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280)

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

The problem with the He-280 was that it wasn't as good an airframe as the Me-262, and the long pole in the tent was producing a reliable and powerful jet engine (by which time the Me-262 was available and clearly the superior aircraft).

I would agree that the -280 could have been produced on a "good enough" basis far earlier than the -262.  The interesting result might have been an acceleration of the development process for the jet engines, because the Luftwaffe would have gotten widespread operation experience with them; another possible outcome, of course, would be the abandonment of the jet program entirely if the -280 program proved a severe disappointment.

Quote from: Ape on April 11, 2009, 05:30:01 PM
Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

Those production defects could most likely be ascribed to the bombing campaign and other hardships in Germany. As for the actual performance of the XXI, I don't think it is too far fetched to say it may have been able to send 3 times as many fishes a convoy's way. Had it been available much earlier in numbers and coupled with rigorous torpedo testing and development in the 30's (specially had the Germans traded for the Type 95 with the Japs) it could have isolated the British Isles, freeing tons of divisions (and aircraft wings) stuck in France and Norway and leaving Stalin without a shitload of supplies. Even taking into account Bletchley Park, which in the face of bad enough odds could not win the war by itself, because the more you use such knowledge, the higher the probability that the enemy will take notice.

Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2009, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Ape on April 11, 2009, 05:30:01 PM
Is the type XXI introduced without flaws? Such as the hydraulics for the periscope working properly? Or that the massproduced parts fit together perfectly ? Then it might change the course, doubt it though at that points the WAllies was producing enough shipping to make up for losses.

My own personal favourite is that the He-280 is produced in significant numbers. He-280 what plane was that you say.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/he280.html)

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280 (http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/He162.html#He280)

Plane first flew in march 30th 1941, if we assume the same timeline for the Me-262, even with the Augsburg delay and the "Can it carry bombs" fiasco for the Me-262, the He-280 would have been out on operational units in April 1943.

The problem with the He-280 was that it wasn't as good an airframe as the Me-262, and the long pole in the tent was producing a reliable and powerful jet engine (by which time the Me-262 was available and clearly the superior aircraft).

I would agree that the -280 could have been produced on a "good enough" basis far earlier than the -262.  The interesting result might have been an acceleration of the development process for the jet engines, because the Luftwaffe would have gotten widespread operation experience with them; another possible outcome, of course, would be the abandonment of the jet program entirely if the -280 program proved a severe disappointment.

I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but from the links Ape provides while it doesn't look quite as fast as Me-262, it's certainly fast enough.  In what ways was the airframe inferior?

Other.

Nuclear arms.
If Hitler hadn't viewed nuclear physics as "Jewish science", Germany might actually have a bomb.
Other than that, I believe more V2s destroying civilian targets in the West could have been effective.

As for the war on the ground (and the air), my view is that nothing would really have changed the final outcome of the war once both the Soviet Union and the United States were at war with Germany, bar extreme civilian losses in the West or a complete collapse of the Allied Expeditionary Force at Normandy.

Quote from: Norgy on April 12, 2009, 11:06:41 AM
Other than that, I believe more V2s destroying civilian targets in the West could have been effective.

Why?  Was terror bombing ever militarily useful?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 12, 2009, 10:51:14 AM
I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but from the links Ape provides while it doesn't look quite as fast as Me-262, it's certainly fast enough.  In what ways was the airframe inferior?

The -262 was faster, climbed faster, dove faster, had much more endurance (the -280 had a max air time of about 45 minutes, and would be much less using full power) and more heavily armed (and even with the heavier armament carried more rounds per gun).  The -280 had less wing loading and therefor presumably was more maneuverable in a dogfight, but these were not dogfighting aircraft.

As i noted, the -280 could probably have been produced on a "good enough" basis, but operational losses would have been high (engines had a distressing tendency to fly apart or burst into flames) and the ejection seat mechanism would likely have surprised and killed a fair number of pilots before it was disabled or removed. It is an open question as to whether or not it would have been perceived as a success, had it entered production.

Quote from: Neil on April 12, 2009, 11:19:05 AM

Quote from: Norgy on April 12, 2009, 11:06:41 AM
Other than that, I believe more V2s destroying civilian targets in the West could have been effective.

Why?  Was terror bombing ever militarily useful?

My assertion is based on the perhaps flawed premise that the western Allies would have a lower tolerance of huge civilian casualties than the Germans and Soviets. Of course, it is all counter-factual, since the V1 and V2 attacks on allied territory did not break the resolve to continue the fight and force Germany's unconditional surrender. I doubt that the Germans could ever have turned the tide, but at some point in 1942-43, a negotiated peace could have been an option, if the Allies were subjected to enough casualties.

In the end, it is all speculation, and a negotiated peace with Hitler remaining the German head of state is quite unthinkable.

Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2009, 02:15:53 AM
Other: some German scientist dude not making the calculation mistake and assuming you need a ball of uranium the size of Neil's ego to build a single nucular bomb. Because the only thing that could save Germany was an early atomb bomb to scare off the West.

This.  Though the Germans would have problems delivering it to anyplace anyone cares about(besides England).

The Axis of WW2 were pretty much like the South in the Civil War.  Destined to lose(not enough people/production to overpower their enemies, who are determined to win at all costs).

Quote from: Tonitrus on April 12, 2009, 12:12:48 PM

Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2009, 02:15:53 AM
Other: some German scientist dude not making the calculation mistake and assuming you need a ball of uranium the size of Neil's ego to build a single nucular bomb. Because the only thing that could save Germany was an early atomb bomb to scare off the West.

This.  Though the Germans would have problems delivering it to anyplace anyone cares about(besides England).

The Axis of WW2 were pretty much like the South in the Civil War.  Destined to lose(not enough people/production to overpower their enemies, who are determined to win at all costs).

Destined to lose is too strong a statement, both the South and the Germans could have won. It was very unlikely but not impossible.

EDIT: Even if you disagree though, that's not the question I asked. I asked which weapon introduced a year earlier would have had the most positive impact on the German war effort. That's not the same as asking whether any of them could have won the war for Germany.

I didn't include the Atom bomb because their project never got close IIRC.

According to Churchill, the obvious answer would be having a fleet of a few hundred regular ocean-going u-boats at the start of the war, rather than only gradually building up their force (thus allowing the Allies to adapt and survive).

Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2009, 10:43:38 AM

The problem with the He-280 was that it wasn't as good an airframe as the Me-262, and the long pole in the tent was producing a reliable and powerful jet engine (by which time the Me-262 was available and clearly the superior aircraft).

I would agree that the -280 could have been produced on a "good enough" basis far earlier than the -262.  The interesting result might have been an acceleration of the development process for the jet engines, because the Luftwaffe would have gotten widespread operation experience with them; another possible outcome, of course, would be the abandonment of the jet program entirely if the -280 program proved a severe disappointment.

No doubt about it, and I never said to abandon the Me-262. But as you say it was a "good enough" for the time, having German jetfighters available  in early 43 contrary to late 44 could potentially keep the strategic bombing campaign from destroying the Luftwaffe late -43.

And as you said it would increase experience in jetfighters among the pilots that when the Me-262 comes around the retraining of pilots will not be as harsh.

Definityly more bloody for the WAllies both in the airwar and later after overlord with not as much allied airpower available to attrition the German forces in Normandy with constant airattacks.

Winnable for Germany? Doubt that little change would make it so as the war was won and lost in the east, but it would level the odds somewhat.

Everybody forgets the Schwimmwagen.

Quote from: Ape on April 13, 2009, 10:21:13 AM
No doubt about it, and I never said to abandon the Me-262. But as you say it was a "good enough" for the time, having German jetfighters available  in early 43 contrary to late 44 could potentially keep the strategic bombing campaign from destroying the Luftwaffe late -43.

What I said was that it could have been produced on a "good enough" basis, but I didn't say that it would necessarily be good enough.  It is possible that the -280 by itself would be enough to destroy the Luftwaffe by late '43, without much Allied help.

QuoteAnd as you said it would increase experience in jetfighters among the pilots that when the Me-262 comes around the retraining of pilots will not be as harsh.

Or, the opposite.

QuoteDefinityly more bloody for the WAllies both in the airwar and later after overlord with not as much allied airpower available to attrition the German forces in Normandy with constant airattacks.

Or, perhaps, more aircraft available for interdiction and ground force attrition because of the Allied move away from the strategic bombing campaign, plus more Allied troops available due to the earlier Allied win in the Battle of the Atlantic (using the LR planes that could not longer fly over Germany).

QuoteWinnable for Germany? Doubt that little change would make it so as the war was won and lost in the east, but it would level the odds somewhat.

Or, make the odds worse.  That is the problems with these kinds of "what-if"s:  the Allied Bombing Offensive was, in fact, a misuse of Allied resources.  Had the Germans precluded that waste, they might have been harmed more than helped. 

Plus, a German decision to send a plane into the sky with no legs and an unreliable engine may have done the cause of Luftwaffe jet fighters (and the Luftwaffe as a whole) more harm than good.

It is just so hard to say - certainly much harder than arguing for the Me-262 to be commissioned a year early.

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2009, 10:27:50 AM
Everybody forgets the Schwimmwagen.

Not to mention the Himmelstürmer.  German rocket troops FTL  :(

Ironically enough, the search for a "game changing weapon" was one thing that did the German cause more harm than good - constantly searching for improved weaponry wasted resources better spent in making large numbers of the weapons that they already had.

This is very visible with tanks - constant upgrades made some awesome tanks (when they worked, which was not always) - but the allies had many, many more not-so-awesome tanks.

Disagree, the Germans would have won the war if only they had been able to deploy some Ratte land cruisers.  :(

Anyway, the more I read about Hitler's obsession with wonder weapons, the more convinced I become that Hitler was an early prototype of Tim.

Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:57:34 AM
Anyway, the more I read about Hitler's obsession with wonder weapons, the more convinced I become that Hitler was an early prototype of Tim.

:lol:

There are some differences, surely.















For example, Hitler was a vegitarian.

On a serious note - someone remarked (I think it was Keegan) that the more the war turned against Hitler, the more obsessed he became by military minutae - perhaps as a stress reliever.

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 12:04:04 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:57:34 AM
Anyway, the more I read about Hitler's obsession with wonder weapons, the more convinced I become that Hitler was an early prototype of Tim.

:lol:

There are some differences, surely.


For example, Hitler was a vegitarian.

Hitler had a girlfriend  :P

Quote from: Ape on April 13, 2009, 12:07:09 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 12:04:04 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:57:34 AM
Anyway, the more I read about Hitler's obsession with wonder weapons, the more convinced I become that Hitler was an early prototype of Tim.

:lol:

There are some differences, surely.


For example, Hitler was a vegitarian.

Hitler had a girlfriend  :P

Nasty.  :lol:

But the similarities are striking.  For example, Hitler was obsessed with King Kong, which is essentially an animated monster movie... I see a strong parallel with Tim's love of anime.  Similarly, Tim is obsessed with Turtledove, and Hitler was obsessed with just-as-ludicrious alternate histories of the world such as the Aryan racial ancestor theories.  Finally, Tim has a bum leg, and Hitler had a bum ball.

I truly believe that if Hitler were resurrected and became a Languishite, he would end every post with  :w00t: and would post a glut of news articles that he found APOLEING.  :)

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 12:04:04 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:57:34 AM
Anyway, the more I read about Hitler's obsession with wonder weapons, the more convinced I become that Hitler was an early prototype of Tim.

:lol:

There are some differences, surely.















For example, Hitler was a vegitarian.

Off to the camps with you. <_<

Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:08:40 PM
But the similarities are striking.  For example, Hitler was obsessed with King Kong, which is essentially an animated monster movie... I see a strong parallel with Tim's love of anime.  Similarly, Tim is obsessed with Turtledove, and Hitler was obsessed with just-as-ludicrious alternate histories of the world such as the Aryan racial ancestor theories.  Finally, Tim has a bum leg, and Hitler had a bum ball.

I truly believe that if Hitler were resurrected and became a Languishite, he would end every post with  :w00t: and would post a glut of news articles that he found APOLEING.  :)

PDH wants a paper on that in two weeks.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 02:16:52 PM
Off to the camps with you. <_<

Of all the shit being slung at you, you find the most offensive is the insinuation you are not a vegitarian?




;)

Quote from: Ed Anger on April 13, 2009, 02:23:00 PM

Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:08:40 PM
But the similarities are striking.  For example, Hitler was obsessed with King Kong, which is essentially an animated monster movie... I see a strong parallel with Tim's love of anime.  Similarly, Tim is obsessed with Turtledove, and Hitler was obsessed with just-as-ludicrious alternate histories of the world such as the Aryan racial ancestor theories.  Finally, Tim has a bum leg, and Hitler had a bum ball.

I truly believe that if Hitler were resurrected and became a Languishite, he would end every post with  :w00t: and would post a glut of news articles that he found APOLEING.  :)

PDH wants a paper on that in two weeks.

I'll just do what his other students do - download some crap from the Internet.  :)

Timmy knows I'm messing with him.  :hug:

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:24:29 PM


I'll just do what his other students do - download some crap from the Internet.  :)

:D

I felt like I was wasting my time looking up actual sources for an economics paper where there was Wiki just sitting there.

I'm not surprised he is offended by the Vegetarian slur

Study: Is Vegetarianism a Teen Eating Disorder? (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1889742,00.html)


But do remember, I'm pretty sure Timmay doesn't hate  :Joos

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 02:16:52 PM
Off to the camps with you. <_<

Of all the shit being slung at you, you find the most offensive is the insinuation you are not a vegitarian?




;)

Vegitarians are scum!  :mad:

QuoteI wont pretend I wont lie I love the taste of steak and BBQ beef ribs. But I need to get healty and I have watched some videos on how they keep and slauter the poor animals I wont be endulging anymore. It was diffrent when I did not know, I knew they killed them but meat was in a package and I did not think about how it got there. ignorance is bliss. But knowlege is power. I am becoming a member of PETA, Learning how to cook all over again. I am also ill and take at leat 20 pill a day so I needed this. Good luck to anyone else doing this.

Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 11:46:23 AM


It is just so hard to say - certainly much harder than arguing for the Me-262 to be commissioned a year early.

True, true, but a nice WI nontheless  :cool:

BTW you have any idea if the Me-110 could have been made into a dedicated fighter-bomber? Say change the four MG17 and the two 20mm MG/FF in the nose for a pair of 37mm FlaK 36, the same that the Ju-87G carried and dump the rear gunner to save weight. Would it have been feasable? Would the airframe support it? And throw in a few hardpoints to carry bombs and later ATG rockets under the airframe if it would be possible.

The reason I'm asking (other then actually having a soft spot for the Me-110) is if it would be possible for the Germans to have a Mosquito type plane early in the war. The Me-110 actually had decent maxium speed (560 km/h, same as the Bf-109) what made it a bad fighter was from my understanding it's lack of maneuverability, it also had decent cruising speed (480km/h), and certainly much better then the Ju-87 maxiumum speed (402 km/h).

Quote from: Ape on April 13, 2009, 04:36:40 PM
BTW you have any idea if the Me-110 could have been made into a dedicated fighter-bomber? Say change the four MG17 and the two 20mm MG/FF in the nose for a pair of 37mm FlaK 36, the same that the Ju-87G carried and dump the rear gunner to save weight. Would it have been feasable? Would the airframe support it? And throw in a few hardpoints to carry bombs and later ATG rockets under the airframe if it would be possible.

The reason I'm asking (other then actually having a soft spot for the Me-110) is if it would be possible for the Germans to have a Mosquito type plane early in the war. The Me-110 actually had decent maxium speed (560 km/h, same as the Bf-109) what made it a bad fighter was from my understanding it's lack of maneuverability, it also had decent cruising speed (480km/h), and certainly much better then the Ju-87 maxiumum speed (402 km/h).

Don't know that much about the Bf-110, other than what you have noted, and the knowledge that it was always on the very of being replaced by the Me-210, which (somewhat like the He-280) was always "almost ready" but never actually ready.  I don't know that the -110 was a "Mosquito-like" aircraft, though, as it was slower than contemporary fighters and could not operate well at altitude.  It did have a very impressive total payload, though, of over 10,000 lb (fuel, ammo, and, potentially, bombs), and that was better than the Ju-88 (at a little over 9,000).

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 04:21:58 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 02:16:52 PM
Off to the camps with you. <_<

Of all the shit being slung at you, you find the most offensive is the insinuation you are not a vegitarian?




;)

Vegitarians are scum!  :mad:

Why take offense at the notion that you are *not* one, then?  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 05:23:01 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 04:21:58 PM

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 02:16:52 PM
Off to the camps with you. <_<

Of all the shit being slung at you, you find the most offensive is the insinuation you are not a vegitarian?




;)

Vegitarians are scum!  :mad:

Why take offense at the notion that you are *not* one, then?  :lol:

I took offense at the notion that when one compares me to Hitler you said "There are some differences, surely."

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2009, 05:29:20 PM

I took offense at the notion that when one compares me to Hitler you said "There are some differences, surely."
[/quote]

What, are you of the opinion there are no differences?   :D

Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 05:35:48 PM

QuoteI took offense at the notion that when one compares me to Hitler you said "There are some differences, surely."

What, are you of the opinion there are no differences?   :D

There are lots of differences!  :contract:

Hitler is a German, who spoke German.  Tim is a Mexican, who speaks Mexican and English.

Hitler is a fantastic dancer. Tim..well, we just don't know. I assume he isn't, being Hispanic.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcalf.cn%2Fattachment.php%3Faid%3D101602%26amp%3Bnoupdate%3Dyes%25C2%25AChumb%3Dyes&hash=d0c90d8808c351d26cd61a9f216d6365731b6280)

I sometimes wonder if the mere presence of these wonder weapon programmes serve as a moral booster.  Without them, the Germans might not have resisted as long as they did.  It provided hope in a hopeless situation.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 13, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
I sometimes wonder if the mere presence of these wonder weapon programmes serve as a moral booster.  Without them, the Germans might not have resisted as long as they did.  It provided hope in a hopeless situation.

I think that, along with the terror some of the weapons produced, was an intangible benefit to otherwise wasteful endeavors.

Quote from: Ape on April 13, 2009, 04:36:40 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 11:46:23 AM


It is just so hard to say - certainly much harder than arguing for the Me-262 to be commissioned a year early.

True, true, but a nice WI nontheless  :cool:

BTW you have any idea if the Me-110 could have been made into a dedicated fighter-bomber? Say change the four MG17 and the two 20mm MG/FF in the nose for a pair of 37mm FlaK 36, the same that the Ju-87G carried and dump the rear gunner to save weight. Would it have been feasable? Would the airframe support it? And throw in a few hardpoints to carry bombs and later ATG rockets under the airframe if it would be possible.

The reason I'm asking (other then actually having a soft spot for the Me-110) is if it would be possible for the Germans to have a Mosquito type plane early in the war. The Me-110 actually had decent maxium speed (560 km/h, same as the Bf-109) what made it a bad fighter was from my understanding it's lack of maneuverability, it also had decent cruising speed (480km/h), and certainly much better then the Ju-87 maxiumum speed (402 km/h).

The Me-110 has got a lot of flak because post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design. It was conceived when there was no radar and in consequence the task of the bombers was much easier, because they could choose when and where to strike and do it without any forewarning. The answer of the Luftwaffe at this problem was to take the initiative and hunt enemy bombers over their bases, actually the opposite of an escort fighter. That explains pretty much everything about the strong and weak points of the plane, its long range, firepower, high top speed and its low maneuverability too. Probably its worst point was the rear gunner, a really big mistake (that ironically made the Me-110 easy to convert into a radar-equipped night fighter)

Regarding the possibility of making the plane a dedicated fighter-bomber / light bomber... well, I think it would have been much better to design one from scratch. For starters, the Me-110 fuselage is very narrow, unlike Mosquito's roomy fuselage, a point vital for flexibility. Besides, that was was the Junkers 88 was supposed to be and probably would have been without added 'improvements' like dive bombing capacity.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 13, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
I sometimes wonder if the mere presence of these wonder weapon programmes serve as a moral booster.  Without them, the Germans might not have resisted as long as they did.  It provided hope in a hopeless situation.

The Japanese didn't give up either despite not having wonder weapons.

Quote
The Japanese didn't give up either despite not having wonder weapons.

They have the Bushido code.

Wrong.  They had balloon bombs.  :cool:

Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 05:37:00 AM
Wrong.  They had balloon bombs.  :cool:

Actually, their wonder weapon was called Kamikaze.

Quote from: Alatriste on April 14, 2009, 02:57:48 AM
The Me-110 has got a lot of flak because post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design. It was conceived when there was no radar and in consequence the task of the bombers was much easier, because they could choose when and where to strike and do it without any forewarning. The answer of the Luftwaffe at this problem was to take the initiative and hunt enemy bombers over their bases, actually the opposite of an escort fighter. That explains pretty much everything about the strong and weak points of the plane, its long range, firepower, high top speed and its low maneuverability too. Probably its worst point was the rear gunner, a really big mistake (that ironically made the Me-110 easy to convert into a radar-equipped night fighter) 

I always get nervous when some internet poster starts explaining that the reason why a system is under-appreciated is because "historians" have failed to understand something that the poster somehow knows.

The Bf-110, insofar as I have seen from my general readings on WW2, was built to the specifications for a long-ranged escort fighter that had the capacity to carry internal bombs for close air support (the latter requirement later eliminated).  If you have a source for your assertion that the Bf-110 (not the Me-110, BTW) was designed to attack enemy bombers at their bases, I would love to hear it.

The second crewman wasn't a "mistake," he was a requirement for long-ranged aircraft (which would need a navigator).  Given the aircraft's extreme load-carrying capability, the inclusion of a second crewman cost very little in the way of performance.

The reason why the Bf-110 has a poor reputation isn't because "post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design," but because contemporary Luftwaffe officers felt that it was an inadequate design even for its designed mission, and had planned to replace it before it had been in production for a year.  that it survived long enough to become a decent night fighter was not due to the excellence of its design, but due to a lack of a replacement.

QuoteRegarding the possibility of making the plane a dedicated fighter-bomber / light bomber... well, I think it would have been much better to design one from scratch. For starters, the Me-110 fuselage is very narrow, unlike Mosquito's roomy fuselage, a point vital for flexibility. Besides, that was was the Junkers 88 was supposed to be and probably would have been without added 'improvements' like dive bombing capacity.

The Ju-88 also lacked internal volume and had to carry its ordnance externally, for the most part.  I would argue that the Luftwaffe simply underestimated the need to get tonnage on target, so all of their aircraft had small bomb loads for their role.  I would agree, though, that the Bf-110 didn't have the excess volume necessary for the fast bomber role, and that adding more ordnance externally would slow it down to the point where the "schnell" turned to "snail."

grumber, don't tell me you didn't know that random people on the Interweb are smarter than respected historians! :o

Also, random people on the internet will only deign to date supermodels.  Everyone else has some unacceptable flaw, no matter how minute.  :)

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2009, 06:44:58 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on April 14, 2009, 02:57:48 AM
The Me-110 has got a lot of flak because post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design. It was conceived when there was no radar and in consequence the task of the bombers was much easier, because they could choose when and where to strike and do it without any forewarning. The answer of the Luftwaffe at this problem was to take the initiative and hunt enemy bombers over their bases, actually the opposite of an escort fighter. That explains pretty much everything about the strong and weak points of the plane, its long range, firepower, high top speed and its low maneuverability too. Probably its worst point was the rear gunner, a really big mistake (that ironically made the Me-110 easy to convert into a radar-equipped night fighter) 

I always get nervous when some internet poster starts explaining that the reason why a system is under-appreciated is because "historians" have failed to understand something that the poster somehow knows.

The Bf-110, insofar as I have seen from my general readings on WW2, was built to the specifications for a long-ranged escort fighter that had the capacity to carry internal bombs for close air support (the latter requirement later eliminated).  If you have a source for your assertion that the Bf-110 (not the Me-110, BTW) was designed to attack enemy bombers at their bases, I would love to hear it.

The second crewman wasn't a "mistake," he was a requirement for long-ranged aircraft (which would need a navigator).  Given the aircraft's extreme load-carrying capability, the inclusion of a second crewman cost very little in the way of performance.

The reason why the Bf-110 has a poor reputation isn't because "post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design," but because contemporary Luftwaffe officers felt that it was an inadequate design even for its designed mission, and had planned to replace it before it had been in production for a year.  that it survived long enough to become a decent night fighter was not due to the excellence of its design, but due to a lack of a replacement.

QuoteRegarding the possibility of making the plane a dedicated fighter-bomber / light bomber... well, I think it would have been much better to design one from scratch. For starters, the Me-110 fuselage is very narrow, unlike Mosquito's roomy fuselage, a point vital for flexibility. Besides, that was was the Junkers 88 was supposed to be and probably would have been without added 'improvements' like dive bombing capacity.

The Ju-88 also lacked internal volume and had to carry its ordnance externally, for the most part.  I would argue that the Luftwaffe simply underestimated the need to get tonnage on target, so all of their aircraft had small bomb loads for their role.  I would agree, though, that the Bf-110 didn't have the excess volume necessary for the fast bomber role, and that adding more ordnance externally would slow it down to the point where the "schnell" turned to "snail."

Hmm yes the Messerschmitt Bf-110 (which if we are to be anal, is correct) might not be ideal as a fast attack plane due to the issues raised.

The problem with the Ju-88 was not only the lack of internal bomb load, but it's rather slow speed, the same problem all german medium bombers had. Which was the reason I looked to the Messerschmitt 110 if it could be instead of used as a fighter and instead be utilized as a fast attack bomber.

Quote from: Ape on April 14, 2009, 06:17:53 PM
... Which was the reason I looked to the Messerschmitt 110 if it could be instead of used as a fighter and instead be utilized as a fast attack bomber.

As I said, I don't really know.  It was certainly use that way at times, but I don't know how much its speed was be affected by a significant external bomb load.  It certainly seemed to have plenty of load-carrying capacity (at least compared to German medium bombers).

Quote from: derspiess on April 13, 2009, 11:38:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 13, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
I sometimes wonder if the mere presence of these wonder weapon programmes serve as a moral booster.  Without them, the Germans might not have resisted as long as they did.  It provided hope in a hopeless situation.

I think that, along with the terror some of the weapons produced, was an intangible benefit to otherwise wasteful endeavors.

Was morale a big problem in the Third Reich (serious question.  I don't know.)

Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2009, 01:13:12 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 13, 2009, 11:38:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 13, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
I sometimes wonder if the mere presence of these wonder weapon programmes serve as a moral booster.  Without them, the Germans might not have resisted as long as they did.  It provided hope in a hopeless situation.

I think that, along with the terror some of the weapons produced, was an intangible benefit to otherwise wasteful endeavors.

Was morale a big problem in the Third Reich (serious question.  I don't know.)

That's a big question. The least that can be said is, Hitler and the Nazis never forgot that the Great War ended when the sailors mutinied (of course by then the war was lost anyway, but they thought otherwise). They always feared morale could fail once again.

Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2009, 06:44:58 AM

Quote from: Alatriste on April 14, 2009, 02:57:48 AM
The Me-110 has got a lot of flak because post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design. It was conceived when there was no radar and in consequence the task of the bombers was much easier, because they could choose when and where to strike and do it without any forewarning. The answer of the Luftwaffe at this problem was to take the initiative and hunt enemy bombers over their bases, actually the opposite of an escort fighter. That explains pretty much everything about the strong and weak points of the plane, its long range, firepower, high top speed and its low maneuverability too. Probably its worst point was the rear gunner, a really big mistake (that ironically made the Me-110 easy to convert into a radar-equipped night fighter) 

I always get nervous when some internet poster starts explaining that the reason why a system is under-appreciated is because "historians" have failed to understand something that the poster somehow knows.

The Bf-110, insofar as I have seen from my general readings on WW2, was built to the specifications for a long-ranged escort fighter that had the capacity to carry internal bombs for close air support (the latter requirement later eliminated).  If you have a source for your assertion that the Bf-110 (not the Me-110, BTW) was designed to attack enemy bombers at their bases, I would love to hear it.

The second crewman wasn't a "mistake," he was a requirement for long-ranged aircraft (which would need a navigator).  Given the aircraft's extreme load-carrying capability, the inclusion of a second crewman cost very little in the way of performance.

The reason why the Bf-110 has a poor reputation isn't because "post-war historians didn't understand the concept behind its design," but because contemporary Luftwaffe officers felt that it was an inadequate design even for its designed mission, and had planned to replace it before it had been in production for a year.  that it survived long enough to become a decent night fighter was not due to the excellence of its design, but due to a lack of a replacement.

QuoteRegarding the possibility of making the plane a dedicated fighter-bomber / light bomber... well, I think it would have been much better to design one from scratch. For starters, the Me-110 fuselage is very narrow, unlike Mosquito's roomy fuselage, a point vital for flexibility. Besides, that was was the Junkers 88 was supposed to be and probably would have been without added 'improvements' like dive bombing capacity.

The Ju-88 also lacked internal volume and had to carry its ordnance externally, for the most part.  I would argue that the Luftwaffe simply underestimated the need to get tonnage on target, so all of their aircraft had small bomb loads for their role.  I would agree, though, that the Bf-110 didn't have the excess volume necessary for the fast bomber role, and that adding more ordnance externally would slow it down to the point where the "schnell" turned to "snail."

Will try to find reliable info, but IIRC in September 1939 the 110 was still entering service in numbers, some designated Zerstorer units were still equipped with Bf109, and the plane was originally conceived as a a kind of long range interceptor (and the Bf109, as a short range interceptor, almost a point defence weapon... of course I'm speaking of a date circa 1935-1936)

Regarding the second crewman, perhaps he was meant as navigator (the British did the same with their carrier-borne 'fighters', for example, and the Russians when moving fighter units oftenly used a bomber as a guide aircraft for them) but it was still a mistake!

I certainly went too far with the 'roomy' thingie but the Ju-88 was oroginally meant to be an extremely fast bomber that wouldn't need defensive weapons, i.e. the German equivalent of the Mosquito.

Some food for tought

"From 1938 onwards the Luftwaffe had developed the Me 110 twin-engined fighter; called the "heavy" or "destroyer" fighter (Zerstörer). The role of this fighter was theoretically to be the pursuit of enemy formations over the Reich or returning over their own territory... The twin-engine fighter was something new in German pre-war concepts and in the Staff lectures its experimental nature was constantly emphasized."

From "The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force 1933-1945", issued by the Air Ministry (A.C.A.S. , 1948) quoted in "Luftwaffe fighter-bombers and Destroyers' by John Vasco




"The genesis of the Messerschmidtt 110 evolved out of a requirement of the German Air Ministry in the early months of 1934 for a twin-engined heavy fighter. which would be given the name 'Zerstörer', literally 'Destroyer', which would cleave a path ahead of bomber formations, and that could also carry out the role of strategic reconnaissance and bomber"

"Luftwaffe fighter-bombers and Destroyers" by John Vasco, page 2




"In the history of aviation there can be few aircraft that have been maligned more unjustly than the Bf 110".

Alfred Price (Profile 207 - Messerschmidtt Bf 110 Night Fighters, page 41)




"But it is also true - and this is important because it is rarely mentioned - that the primary rôle of the Bf 110 was "the pursuit of enemy formations operating over the Reich or returning over their own territory". The aircraft was mainly intended as a "destroyer" of bombers, not fighters".

Ibid., page 42

Quote from: Alatriste on April 16, 2009, 05:33:39 AM
Some food for tought

Indeed, especially as to what these works say incorrectly as for what they say correctly.

Quote"From 1938 onwards the Luftwaffe had developed the Me 110 twin-engined fighter; called the "heavy" or "destroyer" fighter (Zerstörer). The role of this fighter was theoretically to be the pursuit of enemy formations over the Reich or returning over their own territory... The twin-engine fighter was something new in German pre-war concepts and in the Staff lectures its experimental nature was constantly emphasized."

From "The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force 1933-1945", issued by the Air Ministry (A.C.A.S. , 1948) quoted in "Luftwaffe fighter-bombers and Destroyers' by John Vasco

The Bf (not Me)-110 was already in service when Vasco/ACAS claims the Germans started to "develop" it.  Not sure what to make of this out-of-context quote.  Perhaps it is stating that the -110's role was being reconsidered, and shifted from long-range escort to defensive interceptor.  or it may be just plain wrong.

Quote"The genesis of the Messerschmidtt 110 evolved out of a requirement of the German Air Ministry in the early months of 1934 for a twin-engined heavy fighter. which would be given the name 'Zerstörer', literally 'Destroyer', which would cleave a path ahead of bomber formations, and that could also carry out the role of strategic reconnaissance and bomber"

"Luftwaffe fighter-bombers and Destroyers" by John Vasco, page 2

This is consistent with what I have seen.  Again, though, a naked quote, and so it isn't clear to me that Vasco realized that what he says here contradicts (at least on the surface) what he is quoting from the Air Staff.

Quote"In the history of aviation there can be few aircraft that have been maligned more unjustly than the Bf 110".

Alfred Price (Profile 207 - Messerschmidtt Bf 110 Night Fighters, page 41)

"But it is also true - and this is important because it is rarely mentioned - that the primary rôle of the Bf 110 was "the pursuit of enemy formations operating over the Reich or returning over their own territory". The aircraft was mainly intended as a "destroyer" of bombers, not fighters".

Ibid., page 42

This would be more interesting if the author were not writing about the night fighter, which was not maligned at all (but the author can claim it was, so that he can 'set the record straight").  The problem with the claim that the criticism of the Bf-110 was "unjust" is that the criticism came from the pilots of the Bf-110, who were in a far better position to determine the justice of their criticism than an ex-RAF bomber aircrewman who was only six years old when the Bf-110 left service.  Price seems to confuse just criticism of the Bf-110 in its original role as unjust criticism of it in the night-fighter role.

Let me set the record straight.  All the German weapons in World War II were cooler and neater than anything the Allies could ever dream of.  They basically were the shit, and anyway pictures of them in a game, either on cardboard or some sort of little animated picture thingy on the computer makes everything cooler.

I just wanted to set the record straight.

Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2009, 07:56:15 AM
Let me set the record straight.  All the German weapons in World War II were cooler and neater than anything the Allies could ever dream of.  They basically were the shit, and anyway pictures of them in a game, either on cardboard or some sort of little animated picture thingy on the computer makes everything cooler.

I just wanted to set the record straight.

Damned right. German white on black counters in wargamers are just so cool. Add some SS runes, and I get a boner.

WRONG.  The M-26 Pershing was the SHIZNIT.  :mad:

Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2009, 07:59:23 AM
WRONG.  The M-26 Pershing was the SHIZNIT.  :mad:

:mad:

The Pershing, no matter the game, isn't worth 2 Hetzers and a flamethrower squad.

A single german sniper can rout the 8th Guards Army.

If he is one of those names snipers in SL, he could fucking take win the scenario himself.

Really, the Germans were idiots - they needed to have their wargame stats on the battlefield.

Game Changing Weapons of the United Nations

M1 Garand

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wwiiguns.com%2Fstore%2Fimages%2FHudson_m1garand_modelgunreplica_wwii_0804_5ea.jpg&hash=cb8fb7566e88db525f6a0fadbb44810d0f4a09be)

B29 Superfortress

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wingsoverkansas.com%2Fphotos%2Fstearman-boeing%2Fb29-superfortress.jpg&hash=7d7a7b9f6ce4f2ab0cb7886c02e7285f261da6e9)

C47 Dakota/Skytrain

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.combatreform.com%2Fc47paradrop.jpg&hash=c941b1aff60c70e0b9a2851ec6258b66cd7d5dad)

Liberty Ship

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hnsa.org%2Fships%2Fimg%2Fjobrien.jpg&hash=0738decdcf51700784b25bc51c949c5c37bebbd1)

T-34

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.battletanks.com%2Fimages%2FT-34-76B-2.jpg&hash=f77f6d5763edd99ddbcc15fd9e8d801613e2e0d5)


Il-2

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freewebs.com%2F007sniper%2FSturmovik.jpg&hash=69c94b44a90c3d1f29ae2b73cfbbd34bad684950)

Katyusha

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wio.ru%2Fgalgrnd%2Frocket%2Fkatyusha.jpg&hash=75fe8956248773d4f3d6a27d7e1e243f0ba010c8)

Radar

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.subbrit.org.uk%2Frsg%2Fsites%2Fw%2Fwartling%2Ftype7.jpg&hash=d7179c17a3c060853b6cac3d6fd85814de6f8128)

Asdic

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.junobeach.org%2Fe%2F4%2Fimg%2FPA-139273sm.jpg&hash=f8c00f8a11b48c11a6f2602af395b1907858b222)

Colossus

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F4b%2FColossus.jpg&hash=3ac7af878834e0ebed6c81c69bddac461e8168a0)

Oi! naughty!

 :lol:

QuoteColossus

I liked that movie.

and I almost forgot

The Atom Bomb

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.desktopnexus.com%2Fwallpapers%2F18574-bigthumbnail.jpg&hash=baa30d2501800401c07748f4d6e4726be324daeb)

Quote from: Viking on April 16, 2009, 10:09:04 AM
and I almost forgot

The Atom Bomb

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.desktopnexus.com%2Fwallpapers%2F18574-bigthumbnail.jpg&hash=baa30d2501800401c07748f4d6e4726be324daeb)

The middle bulge of that mushroom cloud looks like the clown from It.

It is the Clown from It. This is photoshopped

http://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/18574/

Quote from: Viking on April 16, 2009, 10:16:18 AM
It is the Clown from It. This is photoshopped

http://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/18574/

LOL, I am dumbass. I thought it was just a weird coincidence.

The STG44 is pretty decent in CODWAW.

BTW, that is a cool clown/mushroom cloud photoshop.

Quote from: PDH on April 16, 2009, 10:03:53 AM
Oi! naughty!

The most fearsome weapon of all.  :cry: