Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Sun Jan 19, 2020 4:39 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:
SilverbladeTE wrote:
Heavy bomber fleets were nowhere near large enough to achieve their aims...BUT such numbers were impossible to reach, and even what they had was utterly ruinous in terms of costs/lives.


Actually, as soon as they started to hit factories precise enough (i.e. in 1943, when USAAF gained experience, and RAF perfected the Oboe blind navigation system), they pummeled the Ruhr pretty hard. The damage to the German industry was enormous. Basically, 1943 was the first year, when ALL German military buildup failed completely on ALL parameters; the total production still get up, but the finished products weren't (because, for example, what's the point of tank factory doubling the production of hulls, if the engine factory was bombed and could not provide engines even for quarter of those hulls?)


Actually, there is a quite a bit of info out there to support Silverblade's hypothesis. But let's visualize cutting Germany's production by a quarter when it is already coming up short and think of the results of that...

The most successful bombing raids were on the synthetic oil plants, which Germany didn't have enough of even before the raids. There are stories out there of, for example, a unit of Tigers sitting idol with no petrol.

Also it must be admitted, the allies were targeting civilians. The concept was that they wanted to demoralize them by "dehousing" them. Well, lots of dehousing happened, but it wasn't effective in breaking the workers will to work. Why they would have thought that would be effective after their own experience with the London blitz is beyond me...


Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:37 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2314
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

n7axw wrote:Also it must be admitted, the allies were targeting civilians. The concept was that they wanted to demoralize them by "dehousing" them. Well, lots of dehousing happened, but it wasn't effective in breaking the workers will to work. Why they would have thought that would be effective after their own experience with the London blitz is beyond me...


Don

-


Well, Germans were actually quite concerned about a decline of morale among the population. Whioe workers still worked, there is a difference between eager worker, doing its best for his country, and indifferent worker, who already xonsidered himself half-doomed. Both the quantity and qulity of German industrial output dropped hard.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:25 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Dilandu wrote:
SilverbladeTE wrote:was it an absolute limit on tech of the time, or just no one came up with such?

"cross shape" of an aircraft or winged missile would seem ideal for antennae at each far point on the vehicle, to set up a differentiating system? :)


It was a technical limit of what pre-Doppler vacuum-tube radio could do.


hm, thanks for the info! :)

does seem odd considering what they achieved with centimetric radar though
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:18 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

note that German war production suffered for a whole host of reasons

remember that they were undergoing a blockade, so a lot of critical metals etc they needed were running out by 1943
ironically, the Soviet Union had been one of their biggest supplier of some and failing to capture the USSR while the Royal Navy stopped most imports, really left them in a lurch

add in political issues, very bad planning, using transport to start the Holocaust etc it all bit heavily into German production
Nazi morons didn't want to use women for labour, to show how badly run things were!

while wrecking oil production facilities was of course very important, it's not necessarily the "most efficient" bombing, as usually they made a real mess of it since bomb accuracy was so terribly poor, daylight bombing extremely dangerous etc,
thus lost many craft and crew doing it, see the Ploesti oil field raid "Operation Tidal Wave" and others
such were obvious targets and so were heavily defended

as I've said, what was "efficient" was mining the inland waterways of Europe, or, fighter/bomber attacks, as these could be reasonably accurate and thus, effective
it's insane to drop 1000 tons of bombs with very few hits, lose hundreds of crew etc,
when 10 tons dropped actually on target by a smaller faster aircraft is a much better thing

much of the fuel and other production went by the very extensive canal and river system Germany used, hence Duisberg was one of the most busy ports in the world even though it was inland

mining such was extremely effective, you don't need a huge mine to sink a freshwater barge etc, the riverways are much easier targets to find an can be done at night, not defended etc and so they did a hell of a lot of effective damage for costs in men craft time etc

only fighter/bombers and such had much chance of hitting trains, and stopping the TRAINS was more important than wasting huge effort in mostly futile attempts to blow bridges with heavy bombers
rolling stock was crucial but limited, every train blown up had huge knock on effects...less transport, less tanks made, less fuel moved...it added up enormously as a knock on effect
if you blow a train on the move you are much more likely to destroy it and its load

the likes of the Typhoon aircraft, you could argue very well, did much better work hitting logistics of all types than used vs tanks
British missiles were too slow to be good enough vs tanks except in the hands of the few pilots who had the right skill/ability, but, in hands of a most pilots their warhead size and ability to lob them over obstructions in their curving arcs made them and the aircraft's 4 cannons, exceptionally effective against a train, as the train was forced to follow a predictable route...

I'd suggest that a 2 engined high speed aicraft: Mosquito, modified P38 etc (so it has range and speed to evade most interceptions plus size to carry a suitable war load),
armed with rockets or small fresh water mines and only cannons with no machine guns (bullet calibre are a waste of weight when damaging vehicles etc),
would have been a far better way to go for aircraft use and production in terms of damaging the enemy, than a big heavy bomber fleet
Douglas Invader is IMHO a very under appreciated aircraft


as I've said, there was a truly evil outlook in many on all sides, to destroy the enemy civilian population as THE #1 and ONLY acceptable way to deal with the enemy
not only was it immoral as hell, it was grossly inefficient
wrecking logistics is key and that can be done in much better ways than mass area bombing
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:06 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2314
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:as I've said, what was "efficient" was mining the inland waterways of Europe, or, fighter/bomber attacks, as these could be reasonably accurate and thus, effective
it's insane to drop 1000 tons of bombs with very few hits, lose hundreds of crew etc,
when 10 tons dropped actually on target by a smaller faster aircraft is a much better thing


Yeah, one problem: such aircraft need to survive the sky above Germany and hit the target accurately. If Germans did not need to worry about bombers leveling their cities they could put a lot more efforts into production of automatic guns to ensure protection against your suggested light bombers attacks.

would have been a far better way to go for aircraft use and production in terms of damaging the enemy, than a big heavy bomber fleet


Nah. Simply because nobody would allow them to loiter long enough over the Europe in 1941-1943. To attack the train, you need to find it first, because its position is not known beforehand. I.e. you would need time to loiter over railway, searching for the train. And nobody would allow you such time; German fighters would scramble and force you to flee or fight.

Heavy bombers have advantage of attacking fixed targets; they could spend only the very minimal time over Germany, just going to the target and dropping their bombs. Fighter-bombers, forced to loiter on low altitude and seek trains would spend a lot more time over Germany - i.e. face a lot more opposition.

In short, the first real solution of the problem became AZON in 1944, which allowed to strike targets precisely.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:23 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Dilandu
trains have to follow tracks....
All you need to do is fly along tracks until either you find a train, or decide time/risk is no longer worth it, and so, damage the track itself or other target of opportunity.

British RP-3 rockets were powerful enough to wreck a light bridge

I agree that spending money on guided bombs rather than huge bomber fleets would have been a smart thing to do
but it'snot the only thing that could or should have been done ;)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:18 am

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2314
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

SilverbladeTE wrote:Dilandu
trains have to follow tracks....
All you need to do is fly along tracks until either you find a train, or decide time/risk is no longer worth it, and so, damage the track itself or other target of opportunity.


And all the Germans need to do, is to set flak traps along the rails, or put a light flak platform on trains) Since they haven't need to worry about protecting cities from high-altitude bomber raids, they could cut on heavy flak's and increase production of light AA cannons.

SilverbladeTE wrote:British RP-3 rockets were powerful enough to wreck a light bridge


Yeah, a light wooden bridge. Against concrete or steel bridges even 1000-pdr bombs weren't often sufficient.

SilverbladeTE wrote:I agree that spending money on guided bombs rather than huge bomber fleets would have been a smart thing to do
but it'snot the only thing that could or should have been done ;)


Essentially, it was the only thing to do. You could either put your stakes on the volume, or accuracy. Heavy bombers have advantages of durability, high flight altitude, defenses and high capacity. They could reach targets through resistance. While fighter-bombers could not; if they meet the enemy fighters, the only solution for them is to immediately drop their load.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by phillies   » Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:33 pm

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1956
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 8:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

Dilandu wrote:
SilverbladeTE wrote:Dilandu
trains have to follow tracks....
All you need to do is fly along tracks until either you find a train, or decide time/risk is no longer worth it, and so, damage the track itself or other target of opportunity.


And all the Germans need to do, is to set flak traps along the rails, or put a light flak platform on trains) Since they haven't need to worry about protecting cities from high-altitude bomber raids, they could cut on heavy flak's and increase production of light AA cannons.

SilverbladeTE wrote:British RP-3 rockets were powerful enough to wreck a light bridge


Yeah, a light wooden bridge. Against concrete or steel bridges even 1000-pdr bombs weren't often sufficient.

SilverbladeTE wrote:I agree that spending money on guided bombs rather than huge bomber fleets would have been a smart thing to do
but it'snot the only thing that could or should have been done ;)


Essentially, it was the only thing to do. You could either put your stakes on the volume, or accuracy. Heavy bombers have advantages of durability, high flight altitude, defenses and high capacity. They could reach targets through resistance. While fighter-bombers could not; if they meet the enemy fighters, the only solution for them is to immediately drop their load.


Indeed, the Germans did do these things. However, to attack a railroad train -- these are all coal-powered steam locomotives, coal-burners -- you do not need a load. All you need is the 0.50 machine guns on the fighter plane. You strafe the locomotive, putting your rounds through the firebox. The water tubes are now full of holes, and massive repairs are needed before the locomotive works again. We did this regularly. The fights attack in formation, with wingmen strafing the rest of the locomotive to make the day of the AA gunners in rear cars.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by n7axw   » Fri Jan 31, 2020 2:23 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5349
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

And all the Germans need to do, is to set flak traps along the rails, or put a light flak platform on trains) Since they haven't need to worry about protecting cities from high-altitude bomber raids, they could cut on heavy flak's and increase production of light AA cannons.

SilverbladeTE wrote:British RP-3 rockets were powerful enough to wreck a light bridge


Yeah, a light wooden bridge. Against concrete or steel bridges even 1000-pdr bombs weren't often sufficient.

SilverbladeTE wrote:I agree that spending money on guided bombs rather than huge bomber fleets would have been a smart thing to do
but it'snot the only thing that could or should have been done ;)


Essentially, it was the only thing to do. You could either put your stakes on the volume, or accuracy. Heavy bombers have advantages of durability, high flight altitude, defenses and high capacity. They could reach targets through resistance. While fighter-bombers could not; if they meet the enemy fighters, the only solution for them is to immediately drop their load.[/quote]

Indeed, the Germans did do these things. However, to attack a railroad train -- these are all coal-powered steam locomotives, coal-burners -- you do not need a load. All you need is the 0.50 machine guns on the fighter plane. You strafe the locomotive, putting your rounds through the firebox. The water tubes are now full of holes, and massive repairs are needed before the locomotive works again. We did this regularly. The fights attack in formation, with wingmen strafing the rest of the locomotive to make the day of the AA gunners in rear cars.[/quote]


You ruin enough of the track to make it impassable and then bomb the train.

By the last six months or so of the war, the Luftwaffe was pretty much gone which meant that flak was the basic problem left for the bombers.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: The Navy of God against Charis naval superiority
Post by SilverbladeTE   » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:24 pm

SilverbladeTE
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 am

Something to start considering this issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Mafia

rockets DID take down light bridges and "light" doesn't necessarily mean "wood"
folk forget exactly how fast those RP-3 rockets were going when they hit, their mass/design
as was often pointed out it's the equivalent of a broadside from a destroyer. Anyone think a destoryer salvo wouldn't cause serious harm to a light bridge, hm?
American "Tiny Tim" rockets were more powerful and so much more likely to wreck such a structure but alas weren't very accurate
still, rockets were MUCH more accurate than bombs

exceptional pilots could use skip bombing though to very great effect and accuracy it should be said but those DO require suitable aircraft, NOT heavy bombers

remember, if you have numerous aircraft firing those rockets at shallow angle, the odds are much higher you will hit and do damage, enough damage the structural integrity gets compromised
whether the bridge drops, or, the weight of the next train going over collapses it, or it's left "unsound" and thus taken out of service until repaired, it's much better than mass bombing that get sno result

bombs were mostly useless, because they almost never hit, except when dropped by a dive bomber or very skilled fighter bomber pilot

the colossal loss in pilots, expensive aircraft etc in the "bomber mentality" was absolutely INSANE in WW2, exactly the same with the stupidity of tossing men against trenches in WW1
as I've noted, what is grossly, criminally overlooked, is the expense of those men (each man's training was worth FAR more than a typical bomber) and as people, these were often the brightest and best and losing them was terrible damage to the nation in the long term.
NOTE: British bomber crews had worse death rates than infantry in WW1

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results
;)

so, until you have a reliable accurate guided weapon, what would you do? wait years while doing nothing to the enemy?!

0.5 cals were too light really especially when they started armouring trains purely to protect them (not "armoured military trains", merely adding sheet steel, angle iron etc around the boilers)

America had a serious screw up in production of the 20mm cannon and then blockheads refused to fix this, so US forces had ot use inferior .50 cals which were good for somethings, but didn't have the power vs light armoured vehicles etc.
Though, Japanese aircraft were extremely lightly constructed with almost no defensive protections what so ever and thus .50 cal was perfectly good vs them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-S ... production
Top

Return to Safehold