Impact of the R4M if it was ready earlier?

[Tom from Cornwall]

Not all these 182,000 sorties are against heavy bombers though are they? Isn’t that total LW sorties in West?

Regards

Tom

[TheMarcksPlan]

On these grounds, no one can "prove" you that Japanese F-15s are impossible in WW2.

You're not following the logic.

TMP: IF Japan had 10,000 F-15's in WW2, this would be worse for the Allies and it is unreasonable to deny this proposition.
Peter: It's possible that Japan could have had F-15's?

To dispute my proposition properly and logically, you have to argue that there's a reasonable argument that 10,000 Japanese F-15's would not have been worse for the Allies than OTL.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Not all these 182,000 sorties are against heavy bombers though are they? Isn’t that total LW sorties in West?

Regards

Tom

Oh my god, Tom:

If ~25% those were Fw-190 sorties that could have carried R4M's, that's ~45k sorties.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Oh my god, Tom:

Oh my god, TMP?

Were all Fw190 sorties directed against HBs?

Sorry if I’m being really dense here, I’m genuinely baffled that you don’t understand my question.

Regards

Tom

[TheMarcksPlan]

Oh my god, Tom:

Oh my god, TMP?

Were all Fw190 sorties directed against HBs?

Sorry if I’m being really dense here, I’m genuinely baffled that you don’t understand my question.

Regards

Tom

I don't know exactly how many sorties were flown against HB's but I very transparently posited an assumption for that figure, which seems reasonable to me (yes the 25% covers HB sorties by Fw-190's). Do you think there more or fewer than 45k sorties against HB's?

[Tom from Cornwall]

To dispute my proposition properly and logically, you have to argue that there's a reasonable argument that 10,000 Japanese F-15's would not have been worse for the Allies than OTL.

Well…

Without the right training isn’t it likely that those F-15s would end up crashed into the perimeter fence?

Regards

Tom

[TheMarcksPlan]

To dispute my proposition properly and logically, you have to argue that there's a reasonable argument that 10,000 Japanese F-15's would not have been worse for the Allies than OTL.

Well…

Without the right training isn’t it likely that those F-15s would end up crashed into the perimeter fence?

Regards

Tom

Well... Without the fuel how would they crash? Shouldn't you ask that first?

And what about spare parts? Without those they can only use their planes a few times.

And what about the instruction manuals? If the F-15's arrive without those maybe don't even know how to put fuel into them, assuming they have fuel?

And what about translated instruction manuals? Without those, maybe when the F-15's arrive the Japanese don't even know they're fighters?

[Ружичасти Слон]

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.

it's a matter of reasonableness

Yes. Everything must to be about reasonableness or credibility .

And that was be bigest problem on what you was write again again again .

You was want peoples to believe what you was write was reasonableness or credibility . But reasonableness or credibility must to be assess on what was happen on real history . Was it be reasonableness or credibility on Japan f15 on 1941.year? No. Not reasonableness or credibility.

But everytime somebody was refer on real history you was complain and moan about everything .

When you decide was not be possible on real history then you decide for to change some other point on history . Example. For to win on Soviet union you was change tactics was change army commanders was change politics decisions was change manufacters was change Red army tacrics and red army numbers was change some things back on begin 1930s.years.

Every change you was make mean less reasonableness or credibility . At end of tmp imagination story on Germany win on Soviet union was have 0 reasonableness or credibility .

So what you want tmp ?

You have dilemma .
When you want peoples for to discuss reasonableness or credibility must to discuss real history .
When you want peoples for to discuss tmp imaginations storys must to accept was have almost 0 reasonableness or credibility .

So what you want tmp ? Reasonableness or imaginations storys ?

[Tom from Cornwall]

I don't know exactly how many sorties were flown against HB's but I very transparently posited an assumption for that figure, which seems reasonable to me. Do you think there more or fewer than 45k sorties against HB's?

Thank god!

And thank you for explaining rather than just hectoring, much appreciated. I’m obviously too dumb to note your ‘transparent posit’!

I simply don’t know whether there are statistics to support or refine your assumption. I had assumed, wrongly, that you had a sound figure of 1944 LW sorties for each type or just for single-engine fighters and then were perhaps using a sound estimate of the percentage of LW single-engined fighters that were Fw190s to produce your 45k figure. I was just asking if you considered that some of those OTL sorties were not anti-HB and thus not germane to this discussion.

That’s all I was doing. I’m actually interested in R4M from an historical perspective. Didn’t know much about it, made curious, been researching in Bomber Command ORBs for evidence of its impact, etc, interested also to see how the technology subsequently evolved both sides of Iron Curtain.

Seems though that you have lost your temper somewhat with me so I’ll duck out till I’ve got some evidence to chip in.

Regards

Tom

[Tom from Cornwall]

Well... Without the fuel how would they crash? Shouldn't you ask that first?

Downhill runways!

Regards

Tom

[Peter89]

On these grounds, no one can "prove" you that Japanese F-15s are impossible in WW2.

You're not following the logic.

TMP: IF Japan had 10,000 F-15's in WW2, this would be worse for the Allies and it is unreasonable to deny this proposition.
Peter: It's possible that Japan could have had F-15's?

To dispute my proposition properly and logically, you have to argue that there's a reasonable argument that 10,000 Japanese F-15's would not have been worse for the Allies than OTL.

I do follow the logic TMP.

The problem is not understanding but the fact that these changes are made in the past and not in the future; Japan might buy 10,000 F-15. I would say that is possible. But when you say that what if it happened in the past...

What do you think, which one is realistic?

1. Japan has 10,000 F-15 in WW2
2. Japanese can use them in combat
3. both
4. neither

You imply: both. I say: one has a very, very little chance, both have practically 0 chance.
I think you are on a good track now. To have 10,000 F-15 (Me 262, FW 190, etc.) does not mean you have 10,000 operational aircrafts. It also does not mean that you have 10,000 operational aircrafts after the first ferry flight to their bases. Having mentioned the Japanese, out of the 54,000 aircrafts they have lost in WW2, only 20,000 was lost in combat. Most of them were destroyed without Allied help. My point is, that 10,000 F-15s, despite their absolute and complete technological advantage, might not benefit the Japanese a bit. Why? Because they lacked the infrastructure to operate those planes.

And if you want to "change" this fact so they could operate those planes, it would mean such an alteration of history that would push this theory into the fantasy world.

By the way... while you may have arguments with others about this, I have an open mind, and in general, my own theories about predestinatio.

[TheMarcksPlan]

And if you want to "change" this fact so they could operate those planes [F-15's], it would mean such an alteration of history that would push this theory into the fantasy world.

Okay so Japan having 10,000 F-15's is up for discussion but supporting infrastructure is fantasy land? This is a very idiosyncratic definition of reality.

And it's a game you're playing to avoid facing the logical proposition I've challenged you with, to wit:

IF Japan had 10,000 F-15's in WW2, this would be worse for the Allies and it is unreasonable to deny this proposition.

...which I'll now modify (it was implicit all along but whatever) to play along with your game to:

IF Japan had 10,000 F-15's in WW2 [and the infrastructure to operate them], this would be worse for the Allies and it is unreasonable to deny this proposition.

...are you really going to say that 10,000 F-15's is reasonable but those planes plus infrastructure is not?

Or can you for once admit that logical analysis has brought you to view something differently?

[Peter89]

Or can you for once admit that logical analysis has brought you to view something differently?

Yes, I admit openly that 10,000 F-15 might not be realistic either.

But... I can't prove it.

[Michael Kenny]

Sigh.....

I (the OP) request the moderators to immediately close this thread................Regardles we are done here. This discussion will bear no fruit. Close this thread - NOW!

This type of topic ('What If'-aka 'what can we do to let Germany win WW2') was discussed a while back and it would appear a decision had been made that whilst it generates a lot of heat it also increases 'engagement'. It is all about clicks and increasing traffic and seeing how it worked for Facebook who are we to dispute the logic.

[Takao]

Sigh...

15,000 Japanese F-15s would not be worse for the Allies.

Why?

Because the Allies have 30,000 F-22s.

This is fantasy land after all.