Zanadu

The expansion CD arrived. I installed it. I got the latest downloads. I checked 'register new game'. The new a/c were NOT available, although my pilots have plenty of xp according to the a/c information list. I checked 'manage pilots' and found no way to creat Soviet of Polish pilots. So what didn't I do???

AS to ceiling of the Spit being higher, wing loading (where the Spit has the advantage) is a major factor there as well as engine power.

I was referring to the site you've quoted, which has a tabulation (titled: PARTIAL CLIMBS AT FULL POWER FROM LEVEL FLIGHT UNDER MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS CRUISING CONDITION ...) comparing climb of the P47C to that of the Spit IX and the P38F. Comparing the last two to each other, the Spit has a good advantage from sl to 10K, but above that the P38 is very slightly better. As climb rate changes are largely the result in variations of available power, it sees to me that this indicates that power available to the P38F with its turbo sc was maintained at least as well as that of the Spitfire. Besides, after Mage, its fun to argue a point with someone who offers counterarguements instead of just repeating himself and demanding that you agree with him.

I would point out, in view of the climb data, that the Spitfire IX does have the 'turbo' special effect, although engine performance of the P38F clearly improves more with increased altitude than that of the MkIX. It's ability to operate effectively at higher altitudes than the F4Fs and Zeroes, let alone the P40s was one of the major reasons the P38 (starting with the F) was so successful. The core coolers certainly simplified the operational handling of the engine-supercharger system, and improved efficiency as well, but even the pre-J Lightnings had the edge over Corsairs, Hellcats with their mechanical blowers (not as good as the one on the Merlin) at the higher levels. The only US mechanical supercharger in a class with the RR units on the Merlins and Griffins was the one developed for the R2800 in 1944, and used on the F4U-4 and P61C.

The leading edge air cooling system was certainly one of those things that looked really great on paper, but proved to be much less than ideal in practice. Moreover, eliminating it had only a minor effect on drag, but opened up the wing leading edge for additional fuel tankage. I've seen the P38F-G info and found it very interesting. The manuevering flaps mentioned on the G were actually retro-fitted to the Fs as well and gave the Lightning the ability to match horizontal turns with anything the Germans had, including the '109. I also found the info on the P47C trials interesting. The results of climb trials between the P47C, Spitfire IX and P38F showed that while the Spit IX had an solid edge over the P38F in climb up to 10K ft., above that the F was not only equal in climb rate, but actually slightly superior.

Just played on local. I see you have re-valued the AI a/c. It really seemed silly to have an AI leader valued at 50 with far more skills than one of mine valued at 150. My leading Zero pilot took a pair of Bettys past a pair of Corsairs with a moderately good leader and a pair of P47s with no skills at all, and took down 644xp.

And for the bombers that should have been B24 not B25. D**n I must be half asleep today.

Sorry. Should have said of the 'Fighter a/c listed...' as the B17 and B25 both used turbo superchargers.

Just got the new download (1 Oct.). Two items. Under German a/c stats, there is still a blank where the FW190A should be, and there is still an entry labeled FW190A where the '190D should be. Why doesn't the P38F have the 'trubo' feature, as it DID have a Turbo-supercharger. Even a REAL turbo rather than the two stage mechanical blowers used by the P51, Spitfire and '109K. In fact, of the a/c listed ONLY the P38 (all models except the Lightning I built for the British) and the P47 had actual turbo supercharging.

Defiant. Hmmm. I guess it would get no shot when neutral or tailing, one burts when advantaged, three bursts when disadvantaged and two burst when tailed (his own tail in the way). Sound about right??

I've alway thought the He100 was a particularly slick-looking machine. If you want a super piston-engine type, others for consideration would include the He219, and Do335 twine engine fighters for the Germans, the Spitfie Mk21 and DeHavilland Hornet for the UK, the P51H, P82 (twin Mustang), F8F1 (fastest climbing piston fighter ever), F7F and P47M for the US. All of these were either actually used in combat, or were closer to combat than the Japanese Shinden (J7W). And, of course, I'm still campaigning for the George (N1K2-J). It wasn't particularly fast, but had a very nasty combination of ruggedness, firepower and agility.

With the expansion coming out (I expect mine any day, I'm still on dial-up so don't feel like trying to download it) I think it's time to restart the wish list. I propose, for comment and consideration: The F4U-4. A Corsair with a Supercharger (and performance) nearly equal to a MkXIV Spitfire. The P39 Airacobra (for the Soviets, who used more that the US did). The German He100 (referred to by the RAF as the He113), a Battle of Britain 'might have been' that was faster, and longer ranged than the '109, but served only in propaganda photos and defending the Heinkle factory. The Westland Whirlwind, a fast, very heavily armed twin engine fighter which saw limited service with the RAF, but could have been a major factor if the British had been willing to invest more engineering effort on the RR Peregrine engine.

Well, I guess there's no point in my trying to explain the concept of 'debate' to Mage at this late date.

Mage I have university degree in history, and my grades in the subject were quite adequate, thank you. I would be interested in know where your numbers came from, and how current the sources. There is still a lot of propaganda numbers put out by the old Soviet Union before its fall, that have long been discredited since the original records were opened. They understated Soviet wartime casualties by something over fifty percent. The Eastern front is not my specialty and I don't have the proper souces at hand, but it is my understanding from past reading that the ratio of losses in actual combat between Soviet and German troops for the war overall was on the order of eight or ten to one, and for the Barbarrosa period, about fifteen to one. It was about three to one between US troops and the Germans. My statements on German tactics are correct. My knowledge of Soviet doctrine is limited to more recent periods (1970s-80s), but their lack of a proper NCO corps leads me to doubt that they were anywhere near the level of the Germans.

Mage If the Germans had the superiority in troops and equipement you claim, they would have won. They had superior combat doctrine for both infantry and armor throughout the war. Only the British came close in infantry doctrine, by copying the German tactical system, substituting the Bren gun for the German MG. Only the US came close in Armor tactics, also by shamelessly copying the Germans. I notice that your British professor claims the Soviets improved their armored forces by introducing radios. Unfortunately they didn't go nearly far enough. A WW2 Soviet tank company (ten tanks) had only four ratios, and three of those were only receivers (the platoon leaders) while only one (the company commander) had a transmitter-receiver. That means that six of ten tanks was limited to following their leader and shooting at what their leader shot at. Better than no radios at all, but far behind the flexibility of any force in which ALL tanks had transmitter-receivers. It also means that the loss of the company commander removed the entire company from higher-level control. The German army managed something that was probably unique for the armed forces of a totalitarian state -- retaining and encouraging a high level of individual initiative in its troops at all levels, right down to the private soldier. Generally, dictatorships try to discourage the people who carry the guns from thinking very much. The WW2 Soviet system certainly did.

There are several points in Mage's last, that I actually agree with. "Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower". Soviet tactics did improve, but continued to be 'extemely wasteful of manpower' by the standards of either the Germans, or the western Allies right up to the end of the war. Totalling up the labor force of the areas under German control, however, is both simplistic and deceptive. Due to the unwillingness of the Germans to use women in industry (as all the other powers did) the Germans were limited to working their factories one, or at the most, two shifts rather than three for much of the war. When they finally, really went to a wartime industrial footing in 1943, they had to make large scale use of slave labor from occupied countries. This brought in all kinds of problems trying to prevent sabotage by the workers (which was common) and reduced the efficiency well below a simple counting of numbers. As to the manpower available for military service, the Germans could make use of only a very small percentage from the occupied countries, while at the same time, had to maintain occupation forces in those countries, using up German manpower. This is, of course, over and beyond the increasing manpower requirements of other fronts. Again, I remain convinced that the failure of the intitial German offensive was caused by their forces being insufficient to the needs of dealing with the defending Soviet forces (poorly handled, but numberous) as well as the need to occupy huge areas of captured territory, and provide logisitcal support for offensive operations. That decided the outcome of the war. From there on, the balance of numbers and quality shifted inevitably to the Soviets. During 1942 the two sides were fairly evenly matched. After the summer of 1942 the balance was more and more overwhelmingly with the Soviets.

Mage: I said they were 'de-facto allies' and they were. Under the 'non-aggression' pact, Germany and the USSR gave each other free hands against various of their neighbors, and engaged in the co-operative invasion and destruction of Poland, of which the USSR occupied about one third. The agreement also included provisions under which the USSR provided various industrial raw materials to Germany, which it continued to do right up to the night 'Barbarossa' was launched.

To Mage Neither side started from zero. The Soviets lost a very great number of a/c in 1941, but were also producing them faster than the Germans. Early war German a/c production was quite low. By the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940 (when the USSR was still a de-facto ally of the Germans) the British alone were out producing them in a/c. German a/c production went up radically during late 1943 and all of 1944, and a disproportionate amount of their total wartime production came very late. Besides, I have pointed out, by the mid 1943, German a/c losses were higher in the west, and nearly as high in Italy as their losses on the Soviet front. The Soviets were fighting only a fraction of the Luftwaffe by mid 1943 rather than the great majority of it, as they were in 1941.

To Mage. US (and Bristish) industrial capacity was a major factor on the Soviet front, although only about 10% of Soviet a/c came from the west. German air losses in the west --primarily the result of the USAAF bomber offensive -- surpassed those on the Eastern front in the first half of 1943. As far as the Soviets were concerned, a Gruppen withdrawn to defend Germany against the B17s and P47s was the same as a Gruppen destroyed. It was no longer something they had to deal with.

Good job finding the numbers, Stalin. And, actually, the German production figures are somewhat deceptive in judging real air strength. A disproportionate percentage were produced very late in the war, when the Luftwaffe didn't have pilots to put in them, or enough fuel to keep the pilots they did have in the air. During the last months, the Germans didn't make much effort to repair a/c with more than minor damage, just parked them and drew replacements. They had the fighter a/c coming out their ears, but that didn't help them put enough in the air to do any real good. Non-fighter types were often deliberately parked in the open to bait straffing allied fighters into 'flak traps' as due to the lack of pilots and fuel, they weren't useful for anything else.

Actually, the Germans did not have superior resources and manpower. If they had, they would probably have won the war. The root cause of the failure of the 1941 German offensive to decide the war was that the Germans simply underestimated the number of troops needed to deal with the huge area they were invading, and the logistical difficuties of supplying what they did have. Europe is actually a pretty small area, geographically, and Euopeans often fail to grasp the problems that result from the distances encountered in a larger area, like the old USSR, or North America. For the war over all, German troop losses were a small fraction of the Soviet losses. The Soviets won largely by the application of overwhelming manpower that the Germans couldn't match. They applied the same concept in the air as on the ground. Their a/c were designed for production in massive numbers -- and were. The Germans had a larger industrial base, but they were also fighting the British and, above all, the industrial power of the US. In the early '40s, US industrial capacity was far, far greater that that of German, captured territories included.

It's clear enough that Soviet a/c production exceeded TOTAL German a/c production for the war, and while the Germaan's had most (but not all) of their combat air units on the Russian Front in 1941, these were increasingly diverted to other fronts, and (particularly) home defense as the war went on. By 1943 the Soviets clearly outnumbered the Luftwaffe over the Eastern front, and by 1944 the numberical difference was rapidly becoming overwhelming. It seems to be that 'Mage' is getting very badly bent out of shape because he doesn't approve of some wording. That sort of thing is always worth of debate, but evidence and argument don't really require so much increase in blood pressure.

Just a couple of comments on the data on the new a/c types. I assume that the reference to the Lancaster in the description is actually to the B17. The B24 wasn't actually an improvement, but a compedative a/c with a slightly different set of qualities. The B24 could carry a somewhat heavier bombload, and carry it farther. It was also slightly faster in most subtypes. On the other hand, the B17 handled better, as well as being much less physical work to fly, and so could hold tighter formations. It also had a higher ceiling and handled the higher altitudes much better than the Liberator. The B24's sturctural stength was built into the spine of the a/c, with the lower fusleage more lightly constructed. This saved weight, and contributed to the increased bombload and range, but in a 'wheels up' emergency landing, the chance of the crew getting injured or killed was much greater than in a B17 with its strong, tubular fusleage and low mounted wing to take the punishment. Also, the long, narrow wing of the B24, with its thick, Davis type airfoil shape was more efficient in cruise than the wider cord wing of the B17, but would loose lift suddenly at low speed -- making it much harder to handle with one or more engines out, and another reason that it was much more dangerous to ride a crippled Liberator down, than a Fort. In a badly damaged a/c, B24 crews usually bailed out if they could, rather than risk the landing attempt, while B17 crews usually stayed with the plane.

Very interesting. I assume that the referrence to the 'Lancaster' in the B24 piece actually refers to the B17. Note that the B24 had two serious problems. First, the thick, Davis-style airfoil shape tended to lose lift suddenly at low speeds making it much harder to handle with an engine out than the B17. Second, the main structual strength of the a/c was along the spine of the a/c. The lower fuselage was fairly lightly built, and in a belly landing the plane tended to end up looking like a smashed bug, and the flight engineer's turret crashing down onto the flight deck directly behind the pilots, and, not uncommonly, onto them. On the other hand, it was slightly faster than the B17, had a slightly greater bombload and rather greater range. Also, its gun positions had somewhat better fields of fire.

The escort and intercept missions become available when you get enough xp to access the bomber-type a/c. Don't be in too big a hurry. Getting kills, or even damaged is risky until you have a better a/c, and maybe a skill or two. Better to take the xp's for surviving the mission than get killed by his wingman as the price for a kill.