Impact of the R4M if it was ready earlier?

[TheMarcksPlan]

he US would respond and change tactics, weapons, something

What changes the physics/arithmetic of bomber area and rockets?

That is how these discussions usually go. ... Then comes objections that get brushed aside

On AHF it usually goes exactly as in your reply: An Axis-favoring contingency then the usual crowd saying "The Allies would think of SOMETHING." Of what? Make an argument instead of whining that nobody's allowing you to make argument. Boring, time-wasting.

and then take into account the percentage of those sorties which failed to get into a favourable firing position?

I
I
I
I
V

That assumes 100% of R4M-carrying sorties actually close on the bombers, which wouldn't be true. Even if only 10% reach a firing position, that's still >1,000 HB's lost. Not a war winner but significant.

Even if I specifically address your objection, you guys will still whine that I didn't. What % of sorties do you think would reach a firing position?

[TheMarcksPlan]

So 145,603 sorties resulted in around 4,182 USAAF HB losses. Or around 0.0287252323097738 HB losses per German fighter sortie. Meanwhile, using the same assumptions, the USAAF was inflicting around 0.01602648475413 Luftwaffe losses per fighter sortie. Terrible performance by the USAAF fighter jocks right?

Can anybody relate this quote to the matter being discussed in any manner?

[T. A. Gardner]

What change the physics/arithmetic of bomber area and rockets?

Nothing. But what if the US changed tactics? Would these rockets work against a bomber corkscrewing like an RAF bomber would when under attack? Would the formation be harder to attack if every plane were fitted to make smoke from their engine exhaust?
Another might be to switch weapons. For example, the US might put a lot more effort into making glide bombs work.



Those were tested in late 1944 on a few occasions with indifferent results but the theory was workable. The bombs are released by the attacking planes somewhere around 40 miles from the target and they glide in to hit the city they're aimed at.
Another might be that the US decides to go all in on returning V-1 (JB-2 / Loon) fire on Germany at a rate of several thousand a month both ground and air launched. Now the bombers don't have to go anywhere near their targets, are unlikely to get intercepted--just as Luftwaffe bombers launching V-1 were--and they can fire these 24/7 against targets.

On AHF it usually goes exactly as in your reply: An Axis-favoring contingency then the usual crowd saying "The Allies would think of SOMETHING." Of what? Boring, time-wasting. Make an argument instead of whining that nobody's allowing you to make argument.

They would, just as the Germans tried to think of alternatives to their plight. Scenarios such as this one are dynamic and you have to consider the other side's response to the change in weapons and tactics.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Scenarios such as this one are dynamic and you have to consider the other side's response to the change in weapons and tactics.

Obviously.

Equally obviously, this is not a change of tactics:

something or a lot of things to nullify the effect of this weapon as much as possible

...but is rather a faith-based assertion that, no matter what, nothing could have been different.

This at least approaches a counterargument:

But what if the US changed tactics? Would these rockets work against a bomber corkscrewing like an RAF bomber would when under attack?

Not sure. How much corkscrewing is possible in US bomber boxes? Seemingly not much. Maybe the US abandons the boxes? Is that worse or better than R4M's effects?

Would the formation be harder to attack if every plane were fitted to make smoke from their engine exhaust?

Is that possible? Why not do it anyway, seems this makes it harder for conventional attack? USAAF lost tens of thousands of men to German fighters. I'd be pretty pissed had there been a solution so easy.

Another might be that the US decides to go all in on returning V-1 (JB-2 / Loon) fire on Germany at a rate of several thousand a month both ground and air launched.

As you well know, V weapon accuracy was horrendous. There's so many other reasons not to do this but accuracy alone ends basic US bombing concept.

Now the bombers don't have to go anywhere near their targets

Given V-1 range you're abandoning hitting anything far from the North Sea. No Oil or Transport campaigns - the only ones that really worked.

--------------------------------------------------------

A reminder:

I AM NOT CAPABLE OF STOPPING YOU FROM MAKING AN ARGUMENT.

I don't find any of your hypotheses viable but at least now you're making hypotheses (not quite arguments).

[Peter89]

This is becoming childish (again).

It takes a near-religious belief to say that the only possible reality is the one we are living in now (predestinatio).

Anything else, alternative timelines are not bound by probabilities or chances. There is no way to say that from A moment + known laws of nature = B moment is a necessity, if we do not accept the idea that this is a singular timeline. From a multi-universe POV it is impossible to prove that something is impossible, because everything is possible if enough variables are changed in the past. And well, history provides a heap of examples of unlikely events, thus, there will always be a historical reference to something that could not be foreseen. It is literally in our nature, as our genetic code is something of a 1/x0m chance. Our very DNA was extremely unlikely in that discreet moment of decision.

On the other hand, when one tries to describe alternate worlds with the evidence-based certainity and the descriptive language of the science of history, then it would be wiser not to take offense when some people try to drag him back to this boring singular reality our current selves are living in now.

[Michael Kenny]

For example, the US might put a lot more effort into making glide bombs work............Those were tested in late 1944 on a few occasions with indifferent results but the theory was workable.

In wunderwaffe -speak that means it is a spectacular success and it can be put into production for immediate service with no more testing or pilot training required.

[TheMarcksPlan]

This is becoming childish (again)

when one tries to describe alternate worlds with the evidence-based certainity

This is silly.

What If the Japanese had 10,000 F-15's in 1941?

To argue over whether that would be better or worse for the Allies than OTL requires no "evidence-based certainty;" it's a matter of reasonableness.

It would be unreasonable to deny that Japanese F-15's would be harder to defeat than Japanese Zeroes.

Likewise, it would be unreasonable maintain a faith-based line and assert that against F-15's the WW2 Allies would successfully:

...respond and change tactics, weapons, something or a lot of things to nullify the effect of this weapon as much as possible.

[Politician01]

Sigh.....

I (the OP) request the moderators to immediately close this thread. The Anglo fetishists are at it again with their little ASB fantasies and deliberate attempts to derail the discussion because they simply cannot stand that Germany was superior and more advanced than the weak and incompetent Anglos and the only reason they had any chance was because of the titanic resource and manpower requirments of the Eastern Front.

Regardles we are done here. This discussion will bear no fruit. Close this thread - NOW!

[TheMarcksPlan]

Germany was superior and more advanced than the weak and incompetent Anglos

Just want to clarify that I don't agree with this statement.

Germany had clearly lost the overall technology race OTL and the Anglos had a lot of good soldiers.

Nonetheless, to invade across an ocean and to establish offensive air supremacy are much more difficult than to defend a continent - particularly when simultaneously trying to cross another ocean and invade a different continent. Just as Germany could not have invaded North America, neither could the Allies have invaded Europe or owned its skies, absent the Soviet Union.

Close this thread - NOW!

I do agree with Politician that the usual suspects have derailed this thread into accusing anybody asserting an Axis-favoring contingency of being, basically, Wehraboos (wunderwaffe believers, we forbid arguments, etc.).

However it's a bad precedent, IMO, for the mods always to close threads whenever the usual suspects turn things into a cluster by hurling poorly motivated accusations against people who just want to discuss history and its contingencies.

Glenn239, for example, is making many valuable points about the R4M here. And again, note that Glenn239 is someone who believes the Axis never had a chance, even if they beat the SU.

Let's reward rational, non-partisan dialogue and try to ignore the bad stuff.

[Michael Kenny]

hey simply cannot stand that Germany was superior and more advanced than the weak and incompetent Anglos

Superior?
https://vimeo.com/601258424

[Richard Anderson]

Basic arithmetic. If each German fighter sortie inflicted c. 0.0287252323097738 USAAF bomber losses, then everything else being equal, to inflict a loss of an additional ">10k HB's" would required c. 10,000/0.0287252323097738 or an additional 348,126 German fighter sorties. How do they do it?

Some of the multiple assumptions driving this are:

The R4M would be deployed in lare numbers to the FW 190-equipped Jagdwaffe in "early 1944".
The R4M will increase the Allied loss per sortie, but loading the R4M on FW 190 will not increase the loss of FW 190 to Allied fighters.
The R4M-armed FW 190 could duplicate the anti-bomber tactics of the Me 262.
The use of the R4M-equipped Me 262 resulted in significant casualties to the HB force over and above what the cannon-equipped Me 262 achieved.
The Germans can quadruple the number of sorties they fly by increasing the production of aircraft.
The Germans can quadruple their supply of aviation gasoline by importing Soviet crude oil and low-octane gasoline.
The increased number of sorties in heavily-laden aircraft flown by inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots will not result in a target-rich environment for Allied fighter pilots.

There's probably more I'm missing.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Even if I specifically address your objection, you guys will still whine that I didn't. What % of sorties do you think would reach a firing position?

Half my objection to your ‘basic arithmetic’ or did you address how many of those total sorties were directed against HBs?

Regards

Tom

[TheMarcksPlan]

There's probably more I'm missing.

Yep you're missing the premise of the argument to which you're responding.

Glenn239's argument is that each German sortie that reached an R4M firing position would add .25 bombers to its per-sortie kill rate. The baseline (non-R4M) sortie kill-rate is irrelevant to Glenn239's argument.

Basic arithmetic. If each German fighter sortie inflicted c. 0.0287252323097738 USAAF bomber losses, then everything else being equal, to inflict a loss of an additional ">10k HB's" would required c. 10,000/0.0287252323097738 or an additional 348,126 German fighter sorties.

Nope the basic arithmetic would be:

[baseline sortie kill rate] + .25 * [percentage of sorties reaching an R4M firing position].

Your calculation simply ignores everything after the "+".

Your calculation would be valid were you to prevail at arguing that R4M's would have precisely zero effect on Allied bomber losses.

As is, however, your calculation simply assumes that you have already won that argument, which is question begging.

I.e. it assumes as a premise something that the argument seeks to prove.

Basic arithmetic must be allied to basic logic to work.

[Peter89]

This is becoming childish (again)

when one tries to describe alternate worlds with the evidence-based certainity

This is silly.

What If the Japanese had 10,000 F-15's in 1941?

To argue over whether that would be better or worse for the Allies than OTL requires no "evidence-based certainty;" it's a matter of reasonableness.

It would be unreasonable to deny that Japanese F-15's would be harder to defeat than Japanese Zeroes.

Likewise, it would be unreasonable maintain a faith-based line and assert that against F-15's the WW2 Allies would successfully:

This is not so.

If we abandon the logic that from moment A can only be followed by moment B, then anything is possible; in the past and in the future as well. On these grounds, no one can "prove" you that Japanese F-15s are impossible in WW2. What if the Greek or the Chinese steam power comes into an earlier fruition and the industrial revolution happen in Japan 1000 years before OTL thanks to a stray inventor who gets ashore in Japan?
(Don't tell me that Colombus had more chance of discovering and colonizing America!)

[TheMarcksPlan]

Even if I specifically address your objection, you guys will still whine that I didn't. What % of sorties do you think would reach a firing position?

Half my objection to your ‘basic arithmetic’ or did you address how many of those total sorties were directed against HBs?

Regards

Tom

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V

LW flew 182,004 sorties in the West during 1944. If ~25% those were Fw-190 sorties that could have carried R4M's, that's ~45k sorties.