Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Viper17 on February 18, 2002, 02:29:08 PM
-
HAs anybody looked up info on it. It had terable defence. a good bombload yes but it allso almost never got to the target because of one thig. It was not a 2 engend bomber. IT WAS A 4 ENGINED BOMBER. the engens were placed behind one another they were VERY PRONE to catching fire. The onlytime they were used efectivly was to bomb russin factorys on raids. They had 50% casualtys because of engen fire, fighters and AA fire. They were a big drane on materials when germany should have bene concentrateing on fighters not bombers to sap materials. If your gonna give facts give the right ones.
-
So we can't have it because of material shortage? Or unreliable engines, which isn't modelled in AH? (remember the N1K)
-
He 177 A5 varient, the one most produced, worked out most of these buggs, while it did suffer from problems with it's engines this alone is not a creadable criteria for not putting it in AH lots of planes in AH had engine problems, AH does not model this. The He 177 would give the Axis a good heavy buff, somthing that would be usefull for scenarious, the only other decent axis heavy the P 108 was not produced in very large numbers, although a good plane all around. Also the He 177 was well defended 20mm MG 151 in the tail 3 13mm MG 131 in turets, 20mm mG 151 in the front ventral tray, MG 131 in real ventral tray, and a MG 131 in the nose, is not well defended?
-
Im saying most axis AC did not have good Defenceive power. I mean if your gonna model something have it be an early war ac not an latewar super buff. I bet you if they did model it peole would still use it. If they model the Spit and Hurra Mk1's for the engin to cut out they can model the engins to catch fire. In my mind they should give us the Fw200 Condor. Because on the He177 if one engin dies that whole side is gone. But in the case of the condor it had 4 engins so if one or two cut out no big deel.
-
Well, the condor had 4 engines but it wasn't considered to be all that durable. Frankly, all the WW2 German Uber bombers lumped together probably played a less significant role in the scheme of things than, say, the Martin Baltimore on the allied side. However, as a game concession, particularly for the CT, germany could use at least one of the "heavies" and the 177 would be the most exotic. I would like to see the 111, though, for the BOB planeset.
Charon
-
some infos on the 'greif' (http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/bomber/he177/he177.html)
even more info (http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/he-177.htm)
- add: 75% of the prototype he177 were lost to either engine fire or engine vibrations leading to structural disintegration. all versions of the he177 lacked fire-proof bulkheads in the engine nacelles so common to most aircraft constructed by that time. most aircraft sooner or later encountered engine fires caused by leaking fuel leads and critical oil cooler failures due to bubbles developing in the oil when flying at alt´s > 16kft.
related trivia: during operation steinbock in early ´44, göring watched the start of i./kg40 at chateaudun airfield. a total of 14 aircraft were to start against targets in the uk, 13 actually took off, 8 returned soon after because of engine failures(!), 2 were lost to enemy fire and a whopping total of 3 returned to chateaudun. göring must have been pretty p***ed.
my point is: if a plane is introduced to ah, it should be introduced with both its highs and lows. if the engines take on fire quite easily in real flight, they should do so when flying virtually.
-
Originally posted by jan
my point is: if a plane is introduced to ah, it should be introduced with both its highs and lows. if the engines take on fire quite easily in real flight, they should do so when flying virtually.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
I would like to see the He 177 added to HA, but first of all I would like to see a Cant Z 1007 for Italy and a Japanese CV strike aircraft, the He 177 would be nice but I would put it 3rd on my list for buffs.
-
Who is this Viper character and what is he doign reading LW books? ;) He-177 was very well defended. ACtually later model GE buffs were modeled with increase in defenseive firepower. JU-290, Ju-188, ME-323, DO-217 (later models) jsut to name a few. Buffs did play an important part for germany albeit in a fdifferent role then what the allies amassed. I find the statement about the blatimore quite laughable. And who is to say that if u lose an engine in the 177 you cant dump ord and fuel to loose weight, mind you that that 1 engine was actually 2. A lot of the problems that haunted the 177 were fixed and when u look up combat records it's attrition to mechanical failure was fairly close to its allied counter parts. Reading one line about 1 mission does not justify it being a complete failure or always caught on fire. Mentioning prototypes is another Fopah. How may B-29 prototypes caught fire during testing? :rolleyes: Or while flying over Japan?
-
viper obviously hasnt had to suffer flying the ju88 in the MA :)
I have said before the he177 was prone to fires in the engine so id be glad to see it modeled correctly.-that doesnt mean every single 30.cal or greater caliber bullet hits it and it burns! :p
another early war bomber for LW? whilst the allied get the b29 I suppose? :). well what about those who pay the same as you getting an aircraft they would like to see? In axis vs allies it will be a real balancer for stategic strikes which is sorely needed.
I dont agree that any aircraft that saw action should be ignored and not modeled in AH.It is after all a game of aircraft essentially with hopefully each country having similar numbers of combatants in a huge game of checkers with bases.Its hardly accurate to real capture of territory during WW2 so why on earth must players who like to fly a certian aircraft be told they cant have one model or the other because it didnt work too well???? sheesh no other aircraft in AH's MA have spontanious engine fires/poor fuel/gun jams/fragile radiators etc so why lay heavy on one particular type?
There were more he177s than f4uc's produced, more than niks too i think.
realise i didnt say LW because i can see this heading to the Luft remarks.
In a scenario or snapshot etc, FINE restrict its numbers,model the fires,make it as real as you like but for MA and to a lesser extent the CT you cant restrict one model and ignore similar traits on others.you want engine fires modeled? Ok fine but i want gun barrel wear and heating.
I have an unreliable axis bomber with reliable guns, you have reliable allied plane with hispanos that tend to jam.or 50 cals that overheat if you continuosly fire them?
:p :p
hmm i think not eh?
(p.s.especially as the 30mm mauser were also VERY prone to jams ;) shhhhhhhh)
-
Don't understand why you should modell another early war buff for LW when what LW needs is a late war buff that can actaully kill something else then a butterfly wich happens to fly by it.
He177 had very good defencive armement and with AH's buff guns it'll be a killer.
Also, model our Fritz X 1400 missiles!
-
I believe these guys want LW to fly early war bombers like Ju-88 from 1940 so they can shoot 'em down easier and boost their ego that way :)
-
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh
-
I'd still prefer a Ju188, but the He177 would be neat.
Tu-2S would be a better addition first. We also need a Japanese carrier strike aircraft, say a D4Y2 Suisei "Judy" or better yet a B6N2 Tenzan "Jill". I'd like a B7A1 Ryusei "Grace", but I think that might be asking for too much. There are many, many Japanese aircraft that could be added nicely to the planeset.
-
The engine itself wasn´t the problem of the fire, it was the engine installation.
The engine was too close placed near the main spar of the wing. The oil pipe had to make a sharp turn, this caused foam in the warm oil. An oil centrifuge was installed to solve the problem later.
The exhaust gas pipes were too close to the gear, small amounts of hydraulic oil leaking out of the gear could catch fire.
And inside the "V" of the engine, between the 2 inner rows of cylinders, temperatures were high. Heinkel didn´t install metal sheets to protect the engines, so here again oil leaks could catch fire.
niklas
-
Yha, installation was so bad it almost looked intentional. Huge number of planes were lost due to fires, other then that, it was a pretty damn good heavy bomber, had some successful missions.
-
I think this Viper guy is a troll. Nobody makes that many spelling mistakes in a single post.
-
Yup he177 is nice bomber in virtual skies. It gave balance to WB freehost.
Mg151/20 in tail eliminates all low 6 attacks before they even start. He177 is quite fast and VERY good looking with its wide wings. :D
It forced allied pilots to learn some tactics to attack buff.
I think it would be one of best bombers in AH if implemented.
-
Ok for one im not a TROLL im a sped kid. My problem is with spelling. For 1 I do Fly the 88 in the MA. I rarly if everget shot down in it. I handels PROBIBLY like if not beter then the ME110. You can Destroy a Fighter hanger or a VH in one hit. Then you can fly it like a fighter. Please dont turn this into a beat-up-on-Viper because of his spelling. Then by the time the B-29 made it to Japan all bugs were worked out.:o
-
I find the statement about the blatimore quite laughable.
Just like Germany's strategic bombing campaign. Yes, german bombers like the Ju-88, He-111, Do-17/217 and the percentage of 177s that completed missions and percentage of Ju-188s that were not recon platforms did serve a useful tactical role, and even flew the occasional strategic mission. But there wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. Even the Blitz wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. In fact, to have a successful strategic bombing campaign against Ural or North American targets, Germany would have had to develop an aircraft of B-36 proportions. Just didn't happen.
If you add up the number of Ju-188s and He-177 that were fielded operationally as bombers, and look at what they were used for, well, you're back at the Martin Baltimore. Now, don't make me bring up the A-20 or B-25 :)
How may B-29 prototypes caught fire during testing? Or while flying over Japan?
How many Japanes cites were burned to ash by B-29s? It's a bit counter productive to compare the thousands of operational B-29s that flew missions from 1944 onwards to the service career of the He-177. That comparison highlights what a footnote the He-177 actually was. It's strange that the Russians chose to make a virtually identical copy of the B-29 and its engines instead of the He-177 -- obviously they just couldn't get a handle on how to manufacture the He-177s war-winning dive brake system :)
However, for the role players who can't stomach flying an allied bomber, and for the CT where there is a significant imbalance -- AH "needs" a German "heavy bomber." It might as well be the He-177 or Ju-188.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
In fact, to have a successful strategic bombing campaign against Ural or North American targets, Germany would have had to develop an aircraft of B-36 proportions. Just didn't happen.
uhm yes it did happen.
-
For Charon ;)
Messerschmitt Me 264
Strategic bomber. The Me 264 could lift 39400l of fuel and 1800kg of bombs for an attack on the USA -- merely of propaganda importance. Drawings were made for a jet-engined development and even a coal-fuelled version was considered. Only two were built.
Type: Me 264
Function: bomber
Year: 1943 Crew: 6 Engines: 4 * 1410hp Junkers Jumo 211-J
Speed: 565km/h Ceiling: Range: 14000km
http://users.visi.net/~djohnson/prototyp/me264.html
Edit: Added link and taunt :p
-
Staga, didn't it fly within sight of New York once and turn back? I have always wondered why they didn't make a Doolittle Raid out of it, at least to tie down US air defenses for a period of time.
Even in greater numbers it would have have had the same general range and payload limitations that the B-29 would have faced trying to bomb Germany from the USA. I suppose the Pennsylvania steel works [edit: and I think there was some petroleum production and refining as well] would have been vulnurable, but not much else.
Charon
-
Supposedly it flew to within 12 miles of New York undetected.
-
Great link. Hilarious powerplant option.
Perhaps the most unusual powerplant idea was for a steam turbine that was to develop over 6000 horsepower and drive a 5.334 meter (17' 6") diameter airscrew. Fuel would have been in a mixture of powdered coal and petroleum. the main advantages to this engine would be constant power at all altitudes and simple maintenance.
I wonder how much water it would have to haul around?
Charon
-
Remember old Hughes (AFAIR) steam-car prototypes from hmm... maybe thirties? After steam was used in cylinders it was cooled back to liquid in condensers inside of the doors etc. One of the reasons that car never passed prototype status was it was too dangerous for passengers in a car crash or leak in pressurised condenser system. Guess they thought people wouldn't like to be boiled in a crash...
Edit:
Uups, guess that car was Doble...
http://detnews.com/AUTOS/9605/22/mirror/mirror.htm
-
Just like Germany's strategic bombing campaign. Yes, german bombers like the Ju-88, He-111, Do-17/217 and the percentage of 177s that completed missions and percentage of Ju-188s that were not recon platforms did serve a useful tactical role, and even flew the occasional strategic mission.
Define strategic?
Hitting railheads, troops concentrations, railways, airfields and such these are not strategic? DId they do it enmass as the allies? No they didn't Germany's doctrine was the blitzkrieg, when that stalled and Russia was pushing them back they really had no use for a heavy bomber anymore.
But there wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. Even the Blitz wasn't a strategic bombing campaign. In fact, to have a successful strategic bombing campaign against Ural or North American targets, Germany would have had to develop an aircraft of B-36 proportions. Just didn't happen.
If you add up the number of Ju-188s and He-177 that were fielded operationally as bombers, and look at what they were used for, well, you're back at the Martin Baltimore. Now, don't make me bring up the A-20 or B-25
Don't make me bring up the numbers as well, how many planes did the germans shoot down? What were the odds again? The Ju-88 series was the best twin engine plane in that war period, as a bomber night fighter or recon it excelled in each role. The He-177 only true enemy was its engine's I agree not fighters. When they start implementing the real affects of the engines and the quirks of each plane, what will out AH skies look like? Bunch of C-47's flying around. No more N1k's, no more pull the lead out of my bellybutton 50 cals spraying forever, face it if we want cpmplete realism there wopuldn't be to many people flying. Who wants to pay for when you are flying 30 minutes into the flight your in a low alt dogfight and your engine seizes?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How may B-29 prototypes caught fire during testing? Or while flying over Japan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many Japanes cites were burned to ash by B-29s? It's a bit counter productive to compare the thousands of operational B-29s that flew missions from 1944 onwards to the service career of the He-177. That comparison highlights what a footnote the He-177 actually was. It's strange that the Russians chose to make a virtually identical copy of the B-29 and its engines instead of the He-177 -- obviously they just couldn't get a handle on how to manufacture the He-177s war-winning dive brake system
Payload my friend payload. Tu-4 nuclear capable.
However, for the role players who can't stomach flying an allied bomber, and for the CT where there is a significant imbalance -- AH "needs" a German "heavy bomber." It might as well be the He-177 or Ju-188.
Not for the role players, each country should be represented is all we are asking. He-177 was produced in modest numbers for a german heavy bomber, same goes for the DO-217.
Charon
-
I submit the following for thought:
The German equivilant of the heavy strategic bomber was called a U-boat.
-
Tah Gut, you're thinking too much here :)
Ok,
Define strategic? Hitting railheads, troops concentrations, railways, airfields and such these are not strategic?
Tactical and/or interdiction, not strategic. German bomber forces did the best they could with what they had to work with (equipment and operational disadvantages). Still, they never achieved the level of dominance the allies achieved before D-day in all these areas. Did the allies’ numbers play a role? Of course, but so what? It was a real war and not a Hollywood movie, and the allies delivered victory.
DId they do it enmass as the allies? No they didn't Germany's doctrine was the blitzkrieg, when that stalled and Russia was pushing them back they really had no use for a heavy bomber anymore.
Can't argue here. Germany never had the resources to match the allies in such areas anyway. Tactical operations of lesser and lesser significance, and the ability to apply only local air superiority, were unavoidable outcomes after a quick victory failed in Russia.
Don't make me bring up the numbers as well, how many planes did the germans shoot down? What were the odds again?
I'm not sure I follow this one. Is this a reference to the individual scores of the Top scoring German fighter pilots? If so, I'm frankly surprised the numbers weren't higher. For most of the war they flew in a defensive manner either over the homeland or over the front, where capture wasn't assured in a shoot down; they were not taken out of combat after a handful of combat missions; they had some leeway about pressing an engagement against the odds (fighter sweeps on the Russian front spring to mind); they fought the initial part of the war at an advantage in experience, equipment, tactics (it took the Brits two years to drop the Vic, and the Americans a year to pull our heads out of our rectum with the P-38 and P-47); they could actually find enemy aircraft to shoot at; and they were able to achieve local air superiority on the Eastern front throughout the war, regardless of the overall odds. I do find Lt. Guenther Scheel's 70 missions/71 victories impressive, though I believe the allies had some pilots with similar kill/sortie ratios. Or maybe it was just those Aryan genetics. In any cases I'll trade victory over individual scores any day of the week.
The Ju-88 series was the best twin engine plane in that war period, as a bomber night fighter or recon it excelled in each role.
In an apples to apples comparison I would vote for the Mosquito. Arguments could also be made for the B-25, TU-2 and the A-26 based on different, subjective and technological criteria, IMO. The Ju-88 is certainly in the running and a Ju-188 would be a nice addition. A Do-217 would probably be a more historical choice for addition.
Payload my friend payload. Tu-4 nuclear capable.
And what makes a good strategic bomber, nuclear or otherwise, in 1944-47? Range and advanced performance in speed and altitude (since the typical mission was beyond fighter escort range) while carrying a payload of 10,000 pounds or more. Had the Russians needed a 66,139 lb dive bomber, that went against their philosophy of reliability first, I'm sure they would have produced a copy of the He-177. As it was, they wanted a plane that could win a war.
Not for the role players, each country should be represented is all we are asking.
As a game concession for the CT, sure. I still don't see why for the MA, since your He-177 is just as likely to be shot down by an FW-190 as anything else. If the Stuka is added I would feel no need to push for an A-24 (ALLIES NEED A DIVE BOMBER). Except, of course, for the fact that the Dauntless changed the course of history in that other little skirmish that was going on at the time.
Sachs, I agree with you. The game needs a German bomber with advanced performance and defensive armament. But, I don't buy into the whole Nazi war machine mythology that always seems to overlook the shortcomings.
I give the German field commanders/NCOs, and some general staff officers credit for being on the cutting edge (particularly early in the war). Training and morale were also high at the enlisted level (particularly early in the war). Some German equipment was revolutionary, much was average by comparison to its rivals (the early successes in Russia were using the MKIII, not the Panther or Tiger), and some (including the V programs) were pointless wastes of resources. In the end, Hitler was proven conclusively to be a moron, and Germany's Master Race soldiers raised their hands to surrender like those in every other country (except Japan :) ) when the only card left to play was death. The mythology ultimately fails for me because the cause was so totally, morally bankrupt. I can respect a Galland for his skill as a combat leader or Hartmann for his skill and precision as a pilot, but I can never admire them for actively helping to propagate such enormous suffering. [edit: I can admire the Me109 for its technological features 1939-1943, but understand why it may have had SOME shortcomings compared to aircraft developed 4-5 years later] I have much more admiration for the allied pilot shot down on his first sortie somewhere far from home in his obsolete P-39.
Charon
-
AH should add the Stuka as the next German bomber, it would be much more useful in Scenarios and the CT than the He177.
I bet the Stuka would be more popular in the MA than the He177 despite the fact that the Stuka is a death trap. The call of the siren, few can resist....
-
There's already one german divebomber from 1940 in AH. How many hours do players use in scenarios or in CT if compared to playing hours in MA?
Why should axis get another early war death-trap when there were also bombers which came operative 1942-1943 with better speed and/or defending armament?
And last: Why don't allies ask if HTC could model Bristol Blenheim, Boulton Paul Defiant, Short Stirling or Vickers Wellington? I haven't ever seen anyone asking HTC to model these even if they were the work-horses of RAF in early years of WW2.
Anyone?
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
Supposedly it flew to within 12 miles of New York undetected.
That was the six-engined Ju 390 (IIRC) of which three were built. Only two Me 264s were made.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine
guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Originally posted by Staga
And last: Why don't allies ask if HTC could model Bristol Blenheim, Boulton Paul Defiant, Short Stirling or Vickers Wellington? I haven't ever seen anyone asking HTC to model these even if they were the work-horses of RAF in early years of WW2.
Anyone?
I'll take one Blenheim and one Wellington please. The defiant OTOH is just way too goofy.
-Sikboy
-
From http://www.uboat.net:
The Ju-390
Two prototypes flew of a radically modified derivative, the Ju 390. The idea behind this was simple: The wing center section panels, complete with engines and landing gear, where fitted twice. The fuselage was elongated. In this was the four-engine Ju 290 was modified into the six-engine Ju 390. The Ju 390V1 was equipped as as a transport aircraft, and the Ju 390V2 as a long-distance maritime patrol aircraft. They flew in August and October of 1943. The V2 was delivered to studmuffinr.5, and it demonstrated its potential by flying from Mont-de-Marsan to a point 20km from New York, and back.
From warbirdsresourcegroup:
Endurance in Recce configuration: 32 Hours :eek:
-
Thanks Tony and Staga. I suppose they didn't bomb because they were on an operational test mission at the time (maybe not carrying bombs) and that wasn't in the mission plan, or perhaps because (as the 264 link noted) Hitler didn't want to "stiffen" American resolve by a strategically pointless attack attack.
Charon
As for the early war allied stuff... Bring it on!
The only issue with the Wellington, Hampden, Whitley, Stirling etc. is that they were quickly shifted to the night/strategic role after a handful of raids put the writing on the wall.
The Blenheim 1 and 4 would be great additions (add the 4 in Finnish colors perhaps) and would create a reasonably well matched Battle of France/BoB setup for the CT. The Germans would even have a slight advantage for a change with the Ju-88 and a HE-111 or Do-17. Throw in the Stuka and some naval convoy action and things get even more interesting.
Now that I've finished my move in to the new house, and straightened out my Internet connect (6 weeks of toil) I can get back to pissing off the wife by flying my usual 30-40 hrs./month or so in the MA and CT. An early war setup would be great. And the CT is looking better and better.
Charon
-
Because of vipers ranting and whining we'll now get BOTH the He-177 AND the Me-264 for sure! thanks!!!
-
Me-264? hmmm.... okay. I'll take it :)
small comparison:
B-29 (Me-264 V-3
Engines: Four 2,200-hp (4xBMW801 1700hp)
Weight: 105000lb (100416lb, 123568lb max.overload) )
Wing Span: 141.3ft. (141,1ft.)
Length: 99ft. (66ft.)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 365 mph (339mph)
Cruising Speed: 220 mph (218mph)
Ceiling: 31,850 ft. (26240ft, top ceiling 47500ft)
Range: 5830miles (9315miles, with 3000kg bombload 7208miles)
-
Hi Charon,
>Well, the condor had 4 engines but it wasn't considered to be all that durable. Frankly, all the WW2 German Uber bombers lumped together probably played a less significant role in the scheme of things than, say, the Martin Baltimore on the allied side.
Here's what Eric Brown has to say on the Condor:
"To assess the Condor's value to Germany as a war machine is not difficult because, in concert with the U-boat, it so nearly brought Britain to her knees in 1940-41"
Unless I missed something, the Reich never was nearly brought to its knees by the Baltimore :-)
(Eric Brown was FAA pilot early in the war, flying a Martlet from the Audacity against the Condor, and later was posted to the RAE at Farnborough as a test pilot.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
well at least my ranting and raveing was not in vane:p But the stuka would be my main mount then:D
-
Here's what Eric Brown has to say on the Condor:
"To assess the Condor's value to Germany as a war machine is not difficult because, in concert with the U-boat, it so nearly brought Britain to her knees in 1940-41"
Unless I missed something, the Reich never was nearly brought to its knees by the Baltimore :-)
(Eric Brown was FAA pilot early in the war, flying a Martlet from the Audacity against the Condor, and later was posted to the RAE at Farnborough as a test pilot.)
Well Ho Hun, given his role in the war I'm not surprised he feels that way. Would It be better if I changed Baltimore to "Lockheed Hudson" or "Short Sunderland" instead :) I think my Condor comment was more focused on the durability issue, which I believe prevented it from being used as a conventional bomber. I seem to remember the bellybutton kept falling off the thing if it was landed too hard. Unlike other pre-war German airliners, it was probably actually designed as an airliner :) The debate here focuses more on the German heavy bomber campaign than maritime patrol, and the relative need to bring a he-177, Ju-188 or Do-217 into the game, which I support.
The real threat posed by the U-boat menace is another topic for debate. I recently read a rather revisionist treatment "HITLER’S U-BOAT WAR" by the late Clay Blair Jr., where he asserted that the threat was overblown when you add up the numbers, even in the darkest days. I'm not sure I agree, but he does detail practically every U-boat mission as he did with the U.S. fleet boats in "Silent Service". He also covers tonnage under flag, new production, etc. to suggest that it never was as dire as Churchill stated. Actually a bit too dry of a read, but worth it for those so interested.
He also asserts that the U.S. naval defeat during the "happy times" and the U.S. "failure" to follow the British advice were more of a hissy fit that was overblown by the Brits than anything else. He pointed out that US DD assets were needed in the Pacific at the time to help stem the active Japanese advance and were not avail for Atlantic use regardless of what the British would have liked. He also blames Roosevelt's fixation with PC vessels (too small to be effective) as a major source of the shortage of effective escorts on the East Coast. Again, I'm not sure if I know enough about it to comfortably agree, but he does make a compelling argument that the Navy did the best that it could in both theaters (and did not "Snub" the British advice) with what was on hand at the time. He has a reason to be potentially biased, but I know he didn't pull any punches in Silent Service when assigning the blame for the torpedo fiasco.
[Edit: in looking over some of the reviews on Amazon to see some review perspective, I was reminded that the Luftwaffe was a somewhat reluctant partner according to Blair, that coordination was ineffectual early on becasue the aircrews failed to provide accurate reports, and that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into supporting the U-boat war.]
Charon
-
Hi Charon,
>Frankly, all the WW2 German Uber bombers lumped together probably played a less significant role in the scheme of things than, say, the Martin Baltimore on the allied side.
>Would It be better if I changed Baltimore to Lockheed Hudson" instead
No.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)