Comments by "EZ E" (@eze8970) on "“Germany Had No Interest in Heavy Bombers” – The Junkers Ju 89" video.

  1.  @SwingNeil  Fair point. The Wehrmacht was based around the medium/dive bombers it had. Also, heavy bombers may need difficult to obtain metals in their construction, which Germany always struggled with. As the Allies found, accuracy when bombing at higher ceilings and longer ranges was also an issue. The German X/Y beam transmitter wasn't developed until 1940, acceptable for cities, but you would still have the issues the Allies had trying to hit smaller targets. Slower, larger, unescorted bombers in daylight would have been shot down like the Allied bombers were in 1939/1940 when attacking German ports. The Allies struggled to use heavy bombers to support ground troops in Normandy, even with all the extra years cooperation & development. Basically, the Germans couldn't produce all the weapons they needed for a long term & strategic war. They went for their best compromise.
    4
  2.  @LucioFercho  Thank you for your info & reply. Sounds like the LW sent the wrong unit to Norway, if it was so specialised, but I appreciate not all crews were trained the to the same level. Like all technology, things moved quickly in WW2, so sounds like the LW squandered an advantage.
    1
  3.  @LucioFercho  Like the Defiant crews then, who were meant to be escorted by fighters, but ordered up in the BoB in a bad situation, to do a role they weren't developed for, against superior numbers. Shame these men had to lose their lives due to High Command's mistakes!
    1
  4.  @jackaubrey8614  I don't think these bombers would have posed any more of a difficulty than what actually happened. German 4 engine strategic bombers would have been slower, giving the radar based defence more time to react. Considering the size of the aircraft, the defensive armament is still very weak, only 2 x MG & 2 X 20mm cannon. The issue is with the fire control. German MG operators (like all nations who used a manually operated swivel mounted system), struggled getting their guns to bear in the aircrafts slipstream against opposing fighters. I can't say what type of powered turrets they were going to use, but the French/British had supposedly the best in the world pre-war. Trying to get a heavy 20mm cannon on target would be even worse, with the technology they had. Neither the RAF/USAF went higher than 0.5"/12mm calibre during the war, for good reason. When the RAF originally tried up gunning their 0.303" turrets to 0.5" approx mid war experiment, sadly the recoil buried the butts of the gun into the gunners chest. Yes, the RAF fighters were under armed, & didn't always bring the German bombers down - but, it was still effective enough. The Boulton Paul Defiant fighter only had 4 x 0.303s, but still took the German bombers down easily enough. There would have been less of these 4 engine bombers than twin engine type in a daylight raid formation, but with the same number of guns as the medium bombers, so it may be argued the number of guns for defensive fire is actually less (accepting though the 20mm cannons punch harder). The Americans had to use lots of 0.5" MGs to spray bullets to try & take out attacking fighters, the 20mm cannon rare of fire would have been a lot slower. As others have mentioned, German bombers would still have had accuracy & weather issues (like all nations). 4 Engine bombers wouldn't be much help to Wehrmacht forces in the ground support role, the Allies couldn't make it work in 1944 despite air superiority. The Germans used dive bombers as they were far more accurate. I'd agree night bombing cities could be more effective (baring weather & navigation issues), especially during the early war years, before radar armed fighters, & would have given them a greater range of targets. Just sending a bomber over a city gets the air raid sirens going, & workers going to shelters, stopping production.
    1
  5.  @LucioFercho  Thank you for your reply. It's possible about the 20mm cannon, BUT even the Luftwaffe didn't start putting them in the He177 until 1942, so in the 4th year of war. As stated, you also need a good mounting & aiming system to make them work, in the pre/early war years, I don't think any side had the tech to make it work properly. The Korean war was in the 1950s, way after the timeframe were talking. The US 0.50" was considered good enough for WW2. I don't think the Ju88 or Do17 had 20mm cannon to name 2, and it wasn't an official fitting in other twin engined bombers for crew armament, rather a occasional supplement. Again, you had to have proper mounting points & aiming systems. Even the US B29 bombers removed their 20mm cannon. The Defiant definitely wasn't a joke. It's type holds the record for RAF squadron kills in a day. It was usually outclassed by single seat fighters, especially if outnumbered, but it was never intended to combat them, it was a bomber destroyer. Any plane out of it's role will suffer. People usually only hear from old info about the 2 times Defiant squadrons lost heavily in the Battle of Britain, but there were months when they were downing more than they lost. Modern evidence has shown far better how they really fared. Weapons were changed from prototypes, but the 20mm wasn't really brought into LW service as a crewman standard weapon. The RAF struggled with even 0.50", & US didn't use them on their bombers. With the tech at the time, the 0.50"/12mm weapons were seen as best compromise between 'punch'/rate of fire/usability. The LW did use it's bombers in the tactical role, especially in the early years, it wasn't just the Stukas (& Henschel 123). The Luftwaffe was a mainly Tactical Airforce due to the German Army Doctrine (& General Wevers death). Yes, they bombed the rear areas to, but would be used as called upon, no different from the Allied twin engine types. In one of my Eastern Front books, the author, a German Soldier, describes how German bombers help repel a Soviet tank attack on the front lines. Later in the war, the Germans had more flexibility for ground attack, using Me 109s & FW190s and other types.
    1
  6.  @LucioFercho  Not all bombers seemed to get 20mm, some did, some didn't, & I can't find any bomber in WW2 armed just with 20mm defensive guns. The Allies started using them, but very late in the war. I'd imagine any gun from 0.5"/12mm above would make a fighter think twice. Although harder hitting, the 20mm would have a slower rate of fire. Defiant isn't just claims, German records were looked at to verify (this was over France/Dunkirk area). There were 2 discrepancies where the Germans did submit records. There were around 15 additional claims not substantiated (for Me110's), but on that day, the Germans Me 110 units didn't put in their reports/none found, but at least two were seen going into the sea, & the Me110 is a distinctive plane. I'd agree ALL sides did exaggerate claims, but we have to remember Defiant had a unique advantage in that 1) They had a pilot & gunner to witness claims, not just a fighter pilot who had his hands full trying to do everything 2) The gunner was focused just on the target, so saw better the gun effects 3) Defiant tactics were to try & at least use pairs, so they had four sets of eyes on target. 4) Due to the low calibre 0.303 guns, they had to go in close. They German mediums had an advantage over the Allied types in that some could dive bomb, for greater accuracy. I'd agree carpet bombing is the same. Thanks for info on US 20mm, seems odd that they had/kept such a poor weapon, but perhaps why the 0.50" was kept on so long, & is even used today. Jabo 109s were poor mans bombers, due to the heavy bomber losses, but not used as tactical ground support in the BoB , but yes, they became very effective/vital as such in Russia.
    1
  7.  @LucioFercho  Some bombers ended up with 20mm, others didn't. The US deemed it acceptable for it's needs for it's daylight formations throughout the war. All sides make claim errors, but Defiants would be less prone to, exactly for the reasons given. Also, as stated, German records were checked. Me110s had distinctive features, so wouldn't be mistaken for bombers at the close range the Defiant had to close to. You would need to keep well clear of a Me110 nose armament, & British fighter pilots would be aware of this & know what a Me110 looked like! It was the Defiants who had put the Me110s in the sea. I'd imagine the USAF thought the M2 0.50" was 'good enough', & like the Sherman, quantity overuled quality & possible delays in production. I'm very aware of SKG210, on their 2nd try, they destroyed a target near to me. As the BoB carried on, due to bomber losses, Goring sent various me109 units with bombs, & would lob them into London & other targets of opportunity, but they had to be escorted by other Me109s. Yes, later in the war the Fw190 became a more common Jabo. I didn't know about the bomb hit on Warspite, she had such long career, she was always getting hit! Thanks for info. I see the unit was JG77, I've seen the Me109 'Black 6' from that unit flying, good to hear what is actually sounds like (rather than the merlin engine types). GZ was a total waste of resources. German pilots lucky not to have had to sail in it or fight from it.
    1
  8.  @LucioFercho  It sounds like the Germans missed an opportunity (& even more so the Allies) in not having the 20mm earlier. It would have been better than the flamethrowers the LW used in the BoB & smaller calibre MGs. JU89 seemed a good plane for its time, but politics killed it off. All weapons have their specialised role. Comparing Garand to Stg44 isn't comparing like for like. Ref the Garand, wasn't this the rifle type that Patton/Eisenhower found lying on the ground in Normandy a month after the fighting, and it still fired & worked ok? Different weapons, different strengths. The stg44 was a very good weapon in its own right though. I don't think you are crediting the Defiant pilots & air gunners the credit they deserve, & ignoring the valid points I've made. Yes, on May 29th 1940 'all the stars aligned' for them (& they didn't lose any aircraft either, although some were damaged), they had fighter support, & a lot of the claims were bombers (Stukas & Ju88s), but the nature of the fighting supports their claims. The twin engine planes they fought were Ju88s & Me110s, which look very different. The other plane type, the Me109, was obviously none of the other types. What it did show was what the Defiant could do, if used properly, & were in the right place at the right time. That's not to say the supporting Hurricane & Spitfire didn't have losses, they did, but it allowed the Defiants to fight as intended. Were there still overclaims?, quite possibly, but the unique nature of the Defiant would have minimised them. GZ couldn't have been completed in time, as even with all WW2 to complete, it never was. Hitler's economy was about to collapse just before WW2, & Germany's economy couldn't cope with the demands on it. Not only do you have to complete the ship, you also have to redesign the land based aircraft to work in a marine environment (& if necessary temps/weathers different to western Europe), as well as train all the different sailors/airmen on a ship type & battle formation & tactics that the Kriegsmarine had never had before. Whilst the Kriegsmarine did some things very well (i.e armour & gunnery etc), the propulsion & other systems were over complicated, broke down, & the engines heavy on fuel, limiting combat capability, & over reliance on fuel ships. The Kriegsmarine had never commanded a carrier battlegroup at sea - To make it work takes years, as the Allies/Japan already knew. 'IF' working properly, within a properly supported carrier group, the GZ would have been a powerful ship, but Germany just didn't have the ships/time/materials/ experience. It was a vanity project that seemed a good idea at the time, but not properly thought through.
    1
  9.  @LucioFercho  From the video, it seems the Ju89 had a lot of potential, but the LW let it pass due to Wever's death, & internal Nazi Party politics, & adopted doctrine of LW supporting the Army, rather than having a true strategic bomber fleet. A two man 20mm crew seems mad, & would just add weight & complexity. It seems odd people would even discuss it. Ref American weapons, it may also be the weapons manufacturers lobbied for just their current products to be used (never forget the sway the manufacturers had over Army/Politicians), but not taking account of progress over time seems odd. Perhaps they thought their doctrine with 0.30" and other lighter mgs, their troops had enough firepower anyway, rather than introducing a new rifle type? I'd say shotguns aren't good, but may have a time/place, think I've seen them used in up to Vietnam to? You keep missing the points about the Defiants, whilst your general points are correct, the actions on May 29th were recorded. The German aircraft were identified by NOT ONLY by the defiant crews, but the escorting fighters as well. The Defiants didn't fight alone, so you had a number of Defiant crews identifying the same German targets. They caught the German bombers at a disadvantage, & when attacked, the German fighters tried rear & beam attacks, which worked in favour of the Defiants as well. Did the Defiants get 'lucky', yes, but they also made their own luck by skill & training. That's not to say that plane for plane, a single seat fighter wasn't better overall, even the Defiant crews came to see this. I'm going by Wiki here, but it says GZ was 85% complete by end of 1939, should be complete by Mid 1940, & with everything else ready, would need another 6 months for sea trials. By Norwegian campaign in 1940, the Fire control was sent to Russia, flak guns & secondary guns were taken off & sent to Norway for defence duties. After May 1942 Raeder wanted newer planes, which Goring said couldn't be made. I'd agree that Hitler thought he'd get more time before going to war with the Allies (or could dodge fighting them entirely), & was surprised about Britain's 3rd Sept 1939 declaration of war. However, he had to invade Poland in 1939 as Germany's economy was about to collapse. We then end up with it was commissioned too late, or with other more important German plans, shouldn't have been started;- 1) Germany's economy was such that it couldn't complete it's naval plans (or more importantly it's war economy), so Hitler should have cancelled something (GZ/ Tirpitz/Submarines etc?) to let others be finished. 2) Hitler knew Norway would have to be captured & defended, but didn't have the forces. IF weapons were going to be taken from GZ, delaying its completion, why continue to build it? 3) IF the GZ is so much of a threat as what you quoted above, WHY not complete GZ & mothball Tirpitz? 4) IF GZ is such a threat, why sell the fire control to the Soviets, again delaying completion? I think the GZ could have been a very good ship, but the German navy & economy just wasn't developed enough for it. It could have been far more successful than the German surface raiders, who didn't really met with much success. No other Navy used just 1 carrier & a capital ship, so it seems odd tactics above, you have a group for mutual protection, which then has logistical issues, especially for the Germans. Even if it was completed in say mid 1940, I don't think 6 months would have been enough for proper sea trials & getting over problems of machinery or crew. The German navy had problems with propulsion systems throughout the war. The RN ended up with the fiasco of the commander of HMS Glorious, despite years of carrier experience, the Germans may have had to same (although I can't ever see the Germans being as stupid as HMS Furious captain), however like the Bismarck captain & bad radio policy, this may have just as well happened to GZ to.
    1
  10.  @LucioFercho  Thank you for your reply. Seems like the Ju89 had potential, but we'll never know. I'd imagine the need for the German aircraft plants to produce numbers of other aircraft didn't help the 4 engine bomber cause, as even the Fw200 didn't reach high production numbers. The US has a 'woodsman' tradition, which then developed to 'sharpshooter' in their Wars of Independence. How long something has to be around to become a 'tradition' is open to debate. All countries can get carried away believing their products are the best. Shotguns have their place, but I'd agree they're not standard army issue for good reason. In WW1 trenches, I can see their use more. What 'fake' German atrocities are you referring to please? Again, I agree with your general points ref claims & aircraft recognition, in this days battle, the British claimed 50 planes, the Germans 29. The British lost 6 (& others damaged), while available German records state they lost only 14, but that was only Me109s & Heinkel 111s. The book author doesn't mention Ju88s, & says no records available for the Me110s, but 2 were seen going into the sea, & flames coming out of another's fuselage, by 12 Defiant crews who were attacked by them. Mission 1 6nr Me 109s dived on the 12 Defiants, & are the only German single seat fighter. 21 Me 110s dived on the Defiants. No other German twin engine plane would attack a Allied 'fighter'. The 23 surviving Defiant aircrew all stated they we Me110s. The Ju88s attacked later were attacking Allied shipping. There were no protecting fighters, & again, easily identified. Mission 2 Defiants spotted 40 Stukas (you cant mistake them), & 3 Ju88s bombing ships off Dunkirk (their Me109 escort being engaged by Hurricanes & Spitfires). Defiants caught the Stukas at sea level & 'walked down the line', in a beam attack exactly as they were designed to do. They then went after the Ju88s, claiming 1. Was the Defiant a viable concept? - For it's time - Yes, & did also go onto providing a RN & early RAF night fighter role. It was more manoeuvrable than the Me109/Me110, & had longer range than Hurricanes & Spitfires. It also used factory production capacity that wasn't being used for something else pre-war. The RAF needed something between the Blenheim & single engine fighters to combat bombers. Without the 2 times it suffered heavy losses (despite all the other times & months in combat it hadn't), it would have a combat record as good as other RAF fighters, even when not fighting in it's intended role.. Other RAF single engine fighter squadrons took heavy losses, but the Defiant got singled out (due to political pressure, by people in the RAF who didn't like it). The main issue was the WW1 concept not being fully adopted. Add in political wrangling, bad company practices & failure to provide it with equipment the Hurricanes & Spitfires already had, & that made it worse. Actual wartime conditions made the concept outdated though. I think ref GZ, Hitler had intended it to be ready before his economy crashed in late 1939 (& was struggling before then). That would have put a stop to far more than just one ship. My comments were ref economy failing was that it couldn't provide all the projects planned in original timeframes. Yes, Hitler was a 'land/Army' thinker. Although he could see strategic necessities (Soviet wheat/oil/other resources etc), he couldn't grasp others (how carriers were changing the face of naval war), so BBs were the main show of German naval strength. I can't help thinking Goring wouldn't want his LW used in a way he couldn't control as well. Perhaps he influenced Hitler's thinking on completing /not completing the GZ? German High Command did think about Norway due to the Iron Ore. Hitler's whole economic policy from day 1 was 'self sufficiency'. Germany also couldn't let the Allies take Norway, as it would be much easier to have the KM bottled up. Raeder just pointed this out, as it would be his problem to deal with. Both sides had learned lessons from WW1, & also feared a Soviet attack in the North. Germany's problem in WW1 had been lack of bases, Norway would give it's ships far more chances of breaking out into the Atlantic. Churchill had many 'mad' schemes, but trying to take & hold Norway definitely wasn't one of them. The Allies issue was they wouldn't/couldn't land before Germany attacked, & by then, it was really to late, not helped at all by Norway having a lot of forces in the North to hold off a suspected Soviet invasion. I think Germany's main naval issue was time. Hitler only had 1933 onwards to rebuild everything from scratch, & his priority was going East via land. Although Hitler could delay conflict with certain nations, his expansionist policies meant he would be fighting sometime - & his enemies knew it, so increased production to suit. Even if the GZ became operational earlier (which I doubt, just due to general delays & training - if the ship was finished earlier, didn't mean the planes or other elements would be etc), the KM would have faced the French & RN. The capital ships also didn't get much time to train in ocean waters, the Baltic can only provide so much experience. I'd say some of the KM raiders did ok (especially the Q Ships), but the capital ships didn't do so well, & generally, the policy failed. Hitler even wanted to disband the surface ships due to their poor performance. They did tie up lots of Allied ships though, which I think was more the point of the KM. The Army & LW were always going to take priority. The RN had to cover a huge area, with the technology & limited resources of the time, it's no wonder at times it couldn't find Raiders. Saying that, they still sank the Bismarck, which didn't help German confidence.
    1
  11.  @LucioFercho  Thank you for your detailed reply, it is a pleasure reading them. From the success of their medium bombers, the LW seems to have made a mess of strategic bombers, but this maybe due to lack of access to raw materials by the time they got round to them. To be fair, when implemented, dive bombing attacks were far more accurate than level bombing with the technology they had at the time. This, coupled with the LW being an Army support weapon did make sense, but as you say, you can push an idea to far. One of the reasons the British had developed their shooting was their experiences of fighting in the US War of Independence, & later on finding their way of beating Napoleons skirmishers (which had helped Napoleon win a lot of his battles). Ref storming a WW1 trench, you can only have your MP18 in 1918, so shotguns may have been used earlier, & kept being used. The MP18 does look effective, but troops would chose what suited them when sent in for specialist roles. A Defiant would be much more manoeuvrable than a Me110, & yes it was more than a Me109. On 16th June 1940, the RAF put a captured Me109 with a Test Pilot who was dedicated to German planes, & put it against a Defiant in a level fight. With the Defiant in front, it was able to turn inside the Me109 & get it's guns on target whilst doing so. With the Defiant behind, the Me 109 couldn't shake it in a turn, & the Defiant got it's guns on target. Where things changed was diving, where the Me109 was slightly faster for a while, or the biggest difference, climbing, where after about 90m the Me109 just pulled away. Note - This was with the Defiant equipped with a constant speed propeller, which helps dives & climbs - BUT which the 2 Defiant Sqns hadn't been equipped, so dive & climb performance would have been worse than in this test. When the Defiant 141 Sqn got hit hard in the BoB (losing 6 of 9 planes when attacked by 20-25 diving Me109s), it was bounced out of the sun by veteran Me109 pilots. The combat was watched from the 141 Sqn base. Another thing was 141 Sqn had never been in combat, had mostly inexperienced crews. An RAF Commander who didn't like them, pushed them into a role/situation where they should never have been in the first place. This commander had a veteran Hurricane squadron who could have gone instead, but he sent in rookie crews into a climbing attack against Me 109s! This isn't taking anything away from the skill of these German pilots (who knew all about the Defiant), but just helping to explain the situation. Despite the 'bouncing', the Defiants still got 4 Me 109s. Yes, possibly all 9 may have been shot down if they hadn't been rescued by Hurricanes & Spitfires, but odds of 20-25 to 9 when bounced aren't good for anyone! Generally the Defiants did as well as RAF single engine fighter squadrons. The Defiant 264 Squadron had lost 6 of 12 aircraft before over France, but for some reason, this is really mentioned, it's all just about the 'shock'' value of the BoB losses. Sadly, for a fighter without forward armament (so a position where the enemy would be more likely to attack), the Defiant crews weren't ever given the bulletproof cockpit glass the single seater RAF fighter were, all down to political infighting. You can still be more manoeuvrable, but that's not always enough in the varied fighting that occurred in 1940. The Defiant was never built to the concept of the WW1 fighters it got its background from. Yes, technology & lack of unescorted German bomber targets superseded it. One interesting thing on Me109 manoeuvrability though, I've always heard RAF accounts how the Hurricane & Spitfire could always out turn a Me 109, BUT, a German BoB pilot in his book, said he believed he could out turn them! He said by using the extending wing flaps & full throttle, he could do this. Was this generally unknown by the LW do you know, or if it was told to LW pilots as propaganda, but untrue? This German pilot survived the war. Perhaps the Germans didn't really explore this Me 109 ability, as they were taught more to dive & zoom, to make use of their superior speed in the early stages of WW2? Ref Norway, yes, Hitler would want it neutral, but there was also now the Soviets menacing the north. It seems like both sides had plans, just the Germans reacted quicker, with the advantage of closer bases & air support. Having Norway in the Allied camp would be a major advantage for them. Did Goring take away the GZ's LW pilots just for political reasons (I can imagine him doing so, he loved being a major player)? On a practical level, I think the LW pilots would also started finding a lot of problems dealing with aircraft out at sea. Just with radios/navigation etc. The Germans had enough trouble in the BoB sorting out their radios (as did most nations as it was new technology at the time). You seem to have something against Churchill? He was a soldier who fought on campaign, journalist, an escapee, politician, husband, father, empire & war leader, could see the 'real politic' with Hitler & Stalin, helped forge the alliance with the USA & helped win the war for the Allies. He had many, many faults (but don't we all?), but to keep calling him a 'tool' I'd say is unfair. Operation Berlin by the KM was successful, but both sides learned from it. The British reinforced their patrols & were a lot better prepared afterwards. A German CV in the Atlantic could be formidable, but then where does it go? There's a limited number of destinations, with most in RAF range? The main issue is that despite their intentions, the Germans don't really have the fuel OR ships for raiding. The ONLY reason they could raid is because France & the Low Countries fell, & Germany robbed them of their strategic fuel supplies - This was the main reason the Axis got as far as they did in Russia, Germany & Romania never produced enough themselves for the war effort. Fuel would become far scarcer after 1941, & the German Army couldn't supply itself properly with fuel by late 1942. Scharnhorst needed boiler work after Operation Berlin. Prinz Eugen got engine problems when out with the Bismarck. Bismarck & 7 of 9 supply ships got sunk. The 'channel dash', whilst brilliantly planned & executed by the Germans, still ended up with just more damaged ships. Would you send the GZ through the channel?
    1
  12.  @LucioFercho  Thank you for your reply. Dive bombing did have advantages, but yes, the LW took it too far. The British Army realised where it wasn't being as effective in the American War of Independence (especially in the woods), & tried to learn the lessons. This is why you have the 95th Rifle Brigade used in the Napoleonic wars onwards. They wore dark green uniforms as a form of camouflage. Their Baker rifle had a range more than double the British Army musket, & skilled shots to hit further than that. From that time generally, the British Army has always tried to have accurate rifle fire. Another reason may be that the Government & Quartermasters hated spending money, so wanted the soldiers to hit when firing. The shotguns were just for close quarter fighting, & their spread of shot was effective. Not necessarily as 'good' as the weapons you mention overall, but still good enough to get used for decades onwards. I don't see a reason why the captured 109 wouldn't be performing well. They had spares from other downed Me109s, & could reverse engineer everything anyway. A British mechanic would be as good as a German one (& vice versa). The Me 109 was piloted by a test pilot, not just someone thrown into the cockpit. He would have been very familiar with the plane! Did it also fly on the better octane fuel - I can't say. I agree they did a limited test in the time they had, but the Defiant pilot also had months of combat experience of 109s. Thanks for wing slat info, it confirms the Me109 would lose in a turning fight. As the Defiant is a heavier Hurricane/Spitfire, it would make sense it could out turn a Me109 to. However, we both know turning wasn't what the Me109 was about. I've already said that even the Defiant pilots (& the Squadron Leaders no less), viewed a single seat fighter as overall better. Thanks for Operation Paul info, I hadn't heard of it. I've said Churchill had many, many faults, but what World War leader didn't make mistakes? France was falling, & he was trying to show Britain was still fighting & stopping what he believed was crucial Iron Ore. I believe the truth should be published for all/any Operational failures. I still don't think this makes Churchill a 'tool', but we'll have to agree to disagree. Churchill was instrumental in getting the relationship going with the US, & making it work throughout the war, but privately & in the public US gaze. Would any other British politician have been able to do better? I'd agree the US controlled it completely, took a lot economically, & used it to weaken the British, so they could move into new areas of the world, but for the Bankrupt British, they had to take what they could get. Didn't Hitler say 'war is won by those who make the least mistakes'? The world can thank the Nazi hierarchy for the mistakes they all made. My point of radios wasn't about navigation, but on the radios themselves. Whilst radios had been around for a while, they were still new technology, & breaking down a lot. In the Spanish Civil War, Condor Legion pilots didn't want them in their planes due to large weight & unreliability. Even in the BoB, the LW still had issues getting units equipped with them, & inter unit cooperation. In Adolf Galland's unit, in the BoB, he fought his radio technical officer about the radios. It's one thing for a pilot to be over land, but the GZ pilots would all have to be even better if they were miles out to sea, with more chances of something going wrong. My comment on RAF range was that they could attack the few French naval bases (as they did historically). I wasn't talking about coverage at sea, where there were huge gaps. Thanks to your info, I do think the GZ 'could' have been very dangerous, although I think you downplay the difficulties of getting the ship working properly in the Atlantic. With France falling, years the RN would have found it very difficult to search the seas, although it had improved procedures by 1941, resulting in Bismarck & fuel ships sinking. If France hadn't have fallen, it would be unlikely she'd have sailed (no fuel). As France fell, with GZ available say mid 1940, then it would seem GZ would have had around 1 to 2 years before it would have been stranded in port for lack of fuel, (if it hadn't already been damaged/delayed in air raids in port by then, I'd imagine the RAF would have it as a priority target?).
    1
  13.  @LucioFercho  Thank you for your reply. I have enjoyed your detailed comments. Reading about the Fergusson, it seems a very good rifle, but due to fragility, not a great weapon on service, the fragility & cost may have been able to be designed out. You state the Me109 was worn out, but as stated, the RAF would have had more than enough time to use other captured engines/parts, or reverse engineer parts. Why use a plane that isn't representative? I'd never heard of Spitfire pilots not out turning a Me109. I've read loads of Hurricane & Spitfire personal accounts of pilots out turning & shooting down Me109s, & being instructed to get into a turning fight. I appreciate you said 'less skilled', but the experienced pilots would have told them what to do. The Me109 strengths were in dive & zoom tactics. I can only state what I've read about the June 1940 test, between an official RAF test pilot, & very experienced Squadron Leader, neither would have hung back wringing what they could out of their aircrafts. The Defiant was in the front line until end Aug1940, it was only withdrawn due to bureaucracy, p*ss poor production & RAF infighting - which effectively gave a fighting strength of only 2 squadrons. The crews DID NOT want to be withdrawn. It was outclassed (not helped by not being given equipment upgrades the Hurris & Spits were getting, due to the RAF infighting). We have to remember that when the Defiants had their big losses, they were dived on by a lot larger numbers of Me109s (3:1+). No plane type of any kind will do well against that. Interestingly, the only remaining Do17, recovered from a beach in 2013 (itself shot down by a Defiant in the BoB), now resides next to the only remaining Defiant in a museum. Churchill was a man of his time & politician, I'm not sure what you expect of him. Comparing him to Hitler & Stalin isn't fair at all. I've stated he made many mistakes, but who in high office didn't? Britain had to take what it could get in 1940. Apart from re-election, Roosevelt was in a very strong position via British relations, & used it. The US has always had an imperialistic policy, but they use other terms for their public consumption. Canopus, I cant see what happened in 1914 was a mistake. Yes, Churchill was a self serving politician, with an eye for history, which ones weren't? If you mean John Milne, I can't see what Churchill did to him? Britain's list of military failure up to end 1942 can't all be laid at Churchill's door, it's far broader than that. Yes, the Soviets took on 75% (?) of the Germany Army, but they couldn't have won without Allied help. The British blockade was critical in denying the German war economy, & keeping the Second Front alive. I agree Western history tends to write them out for political reasons. Britain couldn't do much until 1942, bankrupt & fighting Germany, Italy (keeping an eye on Vichy France & Spain) & then Japan. It was spread way too thin. The US also took time to mobilise, it didn't have the advantage of the Soviets scale of army (itself to counter German/Japan expansion, & Stalin's plan to invade others). If Britain & the US didn't have Japan to deal with, it could have aided more & finished Germany & Italy a lot sooner. If RN search methods hadn't improved, how else then did it find & neutralise the KM supply ships, which were critical to it's operations? The Bismarck commander's actions are typical of leaders (of all sides) not understanding the 'new' to them technology of the day - mistakes leading to loss. The sinking of the Prince of Wales & Repulse tragic farce is another example. Going back to the GZ again, & looking at the aircraft, the info I found says only 12 of the planned 20 Fi167 torpedo bombers had been built in 1940. The Me109s had been built, but weren't really suitable, a pitching deck is a lot different than a land runway. The Stukas had been built & tested on dry land by end 1939. I think again we have a time issue of getting the ship & crew fully ready for 1940, but possibly Baltic training only.
    1