Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
for start all figures mean single engine fighters.
Strenght = production + stock - losses +repair. germans
strenght in november 800 aircraft (your source )
production from july to november 755 aircraft ( your source )
stock in july 1,107 aircraft ( murray page 52 )
losses from july to november ( 663 destroyed + 259 damaged)
repair 140 aircraft ??
800= 755 +1,107- (663 + 259) +140
reasonable enogh ?
Now try to do the same for the british , I for one I had given up , there is so much contradictory info
posted in your sources that even math does not stand it.
british strengt in november was 1000 fighters production was 1908 fighters ( july, august, september, october ) stock at the begining of july was 900 fighters losses were acording to some figures posted here 900 fighters repair not specified but significant .
1000 = 1908 + repair
:confu:
the discrepancy is to high to miss.
british strengt in november was 1000 fighters production was 1908 fighters ( july, august, september, october ) stock at the begining of july was 900 fighters losses were acording to some figures posted here 900 fighters repair not specified but significant .
1000 = 1908 + repair
:confu:
the discrepancy is to high to miss.
Your formula is wrong, no wonder you are confused.
first because the left does not equals the right in what you wrote.
secondly aircraft returning from repairs are added to strength not substracted. ( ie damage has bean fixed and aircraft can return to duty )
Wrt to aircraft damaged I have only partial data, august and september :
cat 1. ( minor damage repairable at unit level ) 257 single engine fighters + 15 twin engine (Blenheim, Beufighter )
cat 2. (damage repairable at depot or contractor ) 380 single engine fighters + 4 twin engine (Blenheim, Beufighter )
cat 3. ( total loss or canibalised for spares) 736 single engine fighters + 22 twin engine (Blenheim, Beufighter )
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(long thread), but why just "pocket battleships"? Why didn't Germany build more "Q" ship raiders? Just as much damage done to the enemy's cargo ships and much harder to find and identify. Used in concert with U-boats...........
Besides, who doesn't believe Germany lost their "cojones" at Jutland?
Personally, I wouldn't be sending servicemen to their deaths in what is essentially a futile gesture, Monash.
They're not to blame for the timing of the war, like WWI designed to maximize the chances of Germany's army succeeding before the opponents had re-militarized.
Agreed Clackers I doubt you, I or any rational/realistic person would have have ordered them to sortie in the manner described either but then we are talking about Hitler who was arguably neither of these two things a lot of the time! -and who in the end did order them to sortie anyway - just not any great effect. In any event I posed the question only as a theoretical execise i.e. could the available German captial ships have been used morre effectivley (stricktly measured in terms of tonnage sunk) than they were. Since the thread started out questioning the use of captial ships v u boats as commerce raiders it also seemed to me the one scenario likley to give them a limited chance of success -even though they would have probably have ended up engaging RAN assets and not merchant marine.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(long thread), but why just "pocket battleships"? Why didn't Germany build more "Q" ship raiders? Just as much damage done to the enemy's cargo ships and much harder to find and identify. Used in concert with U-boats...........
True Atlantis in particular had a great run of successes. I was actually going to suggest that in terms of tonnage sunk for resources invested the Q-boats were a much better option for the Germans than their capital ships, of course it would have become more and more difficult to get them out to sea past the British blocakade as the war progressed but in the first year or two?
If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
*One reason for the discontinued "Q" ships was the USN started arming the merchants (Liberty ships). If you think about it, a "Q" ship would have been out gunned several times over if it tried to overtake one of the convoys. That is if the escort itself didnt take it out.
On top of that all they would have to do (for a sub) is to tail the Q ship to its tanker and get both at once.
It became an intrical part of the plan to sink the German tankers as much as it was with the Japanese in the Pacific.
In both cases neither Germany or Japan could replace those ships fast enough to be effective in the Atlantic or the Pacific considering all German ships (cruise liners included) in port were confiscated.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this(long thread), but why just "pocket battleships"? Why didn't Germany build more "Q" ship raiders? Just as much damage done to the enemy's cargo ships and much harder to find and identify. Used in concert with U-boats...........
Besides, who doesn't believe Germany lost their "cojones" at Jutland?
I think we were on the right track way back when, when we decided that the "E" boots (Schnellboots), along with the Unterseeboots, would've made a good combination, without a lot of waste of resources; the Germans could've "picked their battles", so to speak and, theoretically, come out on the winning side every time.
"There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment