The Allies never get air superiority

You started this t

You started this thread, how does Germany gain absolute air supremacy over Europe?.

 

If you read the thread, and that was quite a while ago that I started it, I made it clear or thought I did that part was PFM. The method Germany achieves air superiority or just air parity where the Allies don't have air superiority wasn't the point of the thread. It was to examine how the Allies would respond and if it would make a difference in the war's outcome.

The answer is it wouldn't. The Allies still win even if Germany clearly is contesting the air.

Of course, the reality is Germany had no real option to gain air superiority in 1940 once France fell, any more than they had one in 1944 with the introduction of jets. At best they could contest the airspace over their own territory and occasionally for brief periods operate a bomber offensive against some targets in one of the theaters they were operating in.

 

That, in essence, is an example of the actual utility of and reason for historical what ifs. They help us understand why things happened the way they did and are not intended to show how history could have been changed - fundamentally, because something did not happen, we cannot know what the end result of such a change would actually have been.

Sadly, all too many times a what if also becomes an excuse for someone to try to show off how much more clever they were than those stodgy old idiots back then...and of course hindsight has no impact on just how wonderfully clever they are. That is the curse of too many what ifs and why I have such an issue with those that are floated where it is rather obvious the poster is not quite as clever as they think, because they have a flawed or limited understanding of the background leading up to their point of departure. Then, when someone points out the flaws in their reasoning, too many of the inveterate what iffers fall back on ad hominem, circular reasoning, and confirmation bias to "prove" they are right...although too many seem unaware they cannot "prove" anything about something that did not happen.

Note too that what if as fiction is an entirely different animal from a historical counterfactual.

 

I think of "what-ifs" all the time...Both related to and not related to WW2. I have had an attraction to time since i was a child. The biggest problem with what-ifs is that all the parameters are not taken into consideration...You change one thing, and many things change or alter as a result. Someone dying or not dying could dramatically change history...Think of all the things that someone does in their day to day lives...People they talk to etc etc...Imagine if that did not happen - Or Imagine if it did happen when that person should be dead...
If Hitler had died of disease as a child...Think of the MILLIONS of things that wouldn't occur in the future...
Put simply you can't just change one parameter without the flow on/butterfly effects...
Something at the front of time travellers minds - I know, i just lost my audience.

 

I understand the dynamics of a "what if". I get that, but what I find frustrating is that and it is not just related to this site but many other sites that at one point I have been a member, is that their are as I have come to know 2 types of folks.
1, the first type are the ones that look at the basis of a thread and try to come up a scenario to fit the narrative, they enthusiastically embrace a good "what if".
2, the second type are the ones that at all costs try to shut down any thread proposed, they are the ones that bring pure cold hard facts to the table. These folks can't embrace a good "what if ". Unfortunately theses folks are rigid in their dogma.

As I said once before if you can't participate in a positive way on the subject of Alternate History then don't participate. Then again the directors of this website could shut down the Alternate History section. That would make certain folks happy.

 

I agree to a point…But it has to be a genuine what-if IMO..and there aren’t too many.
My offering to the subject was: What if allied bombers used Gatling guns in their tails instead of the 2 or 4 configuration?
Mechanised, a zip line of tracer would put most enemy pilots off a behind shot relying on deflection shooting only…And for the brave, their reward would be raked by 303/50cal bullets…The tail gunner using the tracer to zero in on the fighter…

 

Overall air parity across the entire European/Mediterranean theater would not preclude either side from concentrating superior force in a sector for a particular operation. However, the air superiority thus gained would be transitory as the other side shifts its own forces.

For example, the Allies might be able to pull off amphibious landings, assisted by deception operations, but would be less able to conduct extensive preinvasion bombardments or to isolate the ground battlefield from German reinforcements.

Germany's central position was ideal for the employment of air power. It was the Allies' massive numerical superiority which enabled the Luftwaffe to be defeated. Parity would not make the two sides equal; it would favor Germany.

 

Can’t really agree with the last two lines…Depends if you count the new jets…Depends if you take into account the comparatively poor training the new German pilots were getting compared to the Allies…Whether you count Aviation fuel etc into the statement.

 

Valid points in reality, but wouldn't the hypothesis of parity include resolving issues like fuel and training?

 

What about the Germans having aero engines configured to diesel. This at least can be made out of non fossil fuel oils, any opinions.

 

Sorry, but this whinging is getting old.

1. What good is this? Do you really expect that if people spout absurdities with zero basis in reality and declare it a "what if" that everyone else will then clamor "what a great idea", "I wish I could have thought of that", and "no one ever thought of that before"?

If the idea is absurd or even just flawed, criticism is valid.

2. What is your problem with pure cold hard facts?

I pointed out that your idea of ramping up production of fighters over bombers was exactly what the Germans did...and failed at. Would you rather ignore that pure cold hard fact and burble on about what a neato idea you have or would you like to assimilate that pure cold hard fact and use it to evaluate what would be necessary to make your idea work? Like, say, the Germans decide to prioritize fighter production earlier, say around 1934, so that they have an unbalanced air force in 1939 unsuited for offensive warfare but well suited to defend Germany.

What might the result of that be?

So positive participation in Alternate History is the goal of Alternate History? I thought it was open, frank, and honest discussion about what the result of changes in history might be?

 

What would have happened had Heinkel, which had a jet fighter in 1942 it was the He-280, it's first flight was in 1941 if I recall correctly. What happens if Heinkel began mass building these aircraft instead of bombers. So by mid 1943 several dozen are delivered to squadrons and by mid 1944 there are several thousand in service with most serving in in the west.

Would RAF and USAAF continue to send over bombers in massed formation while suffering up 50% losses. By mid 1945 Germany has switched over to jet aircraft, they are a generation ahead of both Britain and USA.

 

Ok, here is the whole nine yards.

Germany even at peak production could not out produce the Western Allies combined.

Germany could never win a war of attrition

Germany could never train enough pilots than what the Western Allies combined.

Germany could never produce enough aviation fuel for the aircraft than what the Western Allies could combined.

I'll give you an example. Heinkel told Speer that they could build at peak rate of 5,000 yes 5,000 Salamander jet fighters per month. Heinkel did build a lot of airframes but a lot were at various stages of build. The failure was that there was a shortage of jet engines, then Germany had run out or was in short supply of jet fuel. But the critical factor was that the Luftwaffe ran out of pilots that had battle experience.

Also I read somewhere a while back that seasoned Luftwaffe pilots were not rotated back to the flight schools to pass on their battle experience, unlike what the Western Allies did.

But what was the final nail in the coffin for the Luftwaffe was Goering, he may have lead the Flying Circus during ww1, but as supreme commander of the Luftwaffe he failed because he just could not care less about the men he sent to their deaths. Goering was a pathological drug user, not only that but he embezzled millions of reichmarks out of the RLM and Luftwaffe budgets

Goering was one of the most corrupt Nazi out there, aircraft manufacturers poured in millions of reichmarks into his pockets to curry favour to win contracts, also Goering had a passion for offbeat aircraft designs. Goering had no love for jet aircraft.

 

Good question. The He 280 was a test bed and did not have the range or endurance needed and had its own structural and reliability issues. The Me 262 was more advanced and fit the requirements better, but it too was dogged by reliability issues.

So it may have ended up a wash.

 

What I understand that the Heinkel designed and built jet engines were better that the Junkers and BMW jet engines. I suspect that Heinkel would have ironed out the problem in due course.

I do stand by my comment on Goering, he was more trouble than he was worth. Goering loved the Bf-109. He hated the Fw-190. He showed apathy towards jet aircraft. However I went back and I was correct on one thing and that on Hitler's insistence that 5% of Me-262's were designed as interceptors and played that role, while 95% of Me-262's were built as fighter bombers and such played that role.

 

They did use diesels on aircraft like the Ju-86 and BV-222, none of the high performance types AFAIK. Also AFAIK processes like coal gasification that could produce diesel could also produce gasoline; diesel was less refined which could be beneficial.

 

The premise of this thread is the Germans achieving - and, I assume, maintaining - parity with the Allied air forces, which implies that they have some combination of more resources and better management.

Parity does not necessarily mean that both sides’ air forces are mirror images of each other, rather that they have comparable capabilities. Something like the Germans resolving their issues with jet aircraft and engines might be part of that.

 

Then you have Hitler as the main problem with the jets that were built, as I stated that Hitler interfered in the building and role allocation of the Me-262. Hitler insisted that 5% of all Me-262's were built as interceptors, while at Hitler's insistence that 95% of Me-262's were built as fighter bombers. Messerschmitt complained that this was disastrous decision, the problem was that Hitler told Messerschmitt that if they complained, they would be arrested and thrown into prison, so they kept quiet.
Imagine if that was reversed and that 95% of Me-262's were interceptors and taking on the Allied bombers.

 

I think role allocation is the key point. Most WWII fighters, even the highest performing ones, doubled as fighter-bombers. Ground attack versions like the A-36 or FW-190F/G hardly differed from standard fighters.

Do we have any solid information on the proportion of Me-262 aircraft or sorties devoted to bomber missions?