<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Flying fortresses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=flying-fortresses</link>
	<description>Airpower and British society, 1908-1941</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:09:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Airminded &#183; Turnabout is fair play</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-90062</link>
		<dc:creator>Airminded &#183; Turnabout is fair play</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-90062</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;ve poked a bit of fun at French aircraft design here from time to time, with a post on the fugliest aircraft of the Third Republic and another recoiling in horror at the aeroplane which should not be. But turnabout is fair play, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;ve poked a bit of fun at French aircraft design here from time to time, with a post on the fugliest aircraft of the Third Republic and another recoiling in horror at the aeroplane which should not be. But turnabout is fair play, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-81101</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:10:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-81101</guid>
		<description>Chris:

Sorry, I didn&#039;t mean to imply that at all -- I didn&#039;t really have anything intelligent to add so just hand-waved, I&#039;m afraid.

Don:

Indeed, quantity has a quality all its own, as Stalin is supposed to have said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris:</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that at all -- I didn't really have anything intelligent to add so just hand-waved, I'm afraid.</p>
<p>Don:</p>
<p>Indeed, quantity has a quality all its own, as Stalin is supposed to have said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don Smith</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80938</link>
		<dc:creator>Don Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:39:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80938</guid>
		<description>Chris ... lately I&#039;ve been reading (ever so slowly a few pages a day) Don Caldwell&#039;s JG-26 war diaries and whilst I take your point above (the one about training &amp; procurement LOL) I&#039;m not so sure I&#039;d say &quot;largely&quot; in that context.  The &quot;feeling&quot; I have reading this two volume diary is of inexorable weight - that is, sheer weight of numbers &amp; materiel.  

For example re JG26.  From &#039;40 through &#039;43 JG26 had an enviable and favourable claim/loss rate (and that&#039;s confirmed two sighting or crash site claims as was the German approach, markedly unlike the Allies, but that&#039;s another story).  But day after day they (indeed Western defenses at large) were up against the sheer weight of American production.  You can be a great marksman but when it&#039;s a staffel or two against 300, 500, 800 enemy aircraft - what can you do?  And of course the same on the ground and sea, and the Eastern front.

My view is that the war was inevitably lost from taking on two huge enemies (Russia, USA).  That view BTW not based on this single reading!  It might have gone quicker or slower, and perhaps that pace affected by procurement and training, but Germany was on a hiding for nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris ... lately I've been reading (ever so slowly a few pages a day) Don Caldwell's JG-26 war diaries and whilst I take your point above (the one about training &amp; procurement LOL) I'm not so sure I'd say "largely" in that context.  The "feeling" I have reading this two volume diary is of inexorable weight - that is, sheer weight of numbers &amp; materiel.  </p>
<p>For example re JG26.  From '40 through '43 JG26 had an enviable and favourable claim/loss rate (and that's confirmed two sighting or crash site claims as was the German approach, markedly unlike the Allies, but that's another story).  But day after day they (indeed Western defenses at large) were up against the sheer weight of American production.  You can be a great marksman but when it's a staffel or two against 300, 500, 800 enemy aircraft - what can you do?  And of course the same on the ground and sea, and the Eastern front.</p>
<p>My view is that the war was inevitably lost from taking on two huge enemies (Russia, USA).  That view BTW not based on this single reading!  It might have gone quicker or slower, and perhaps that pace affected by procurement and training, but Germany was on a hiding for nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Williams</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80934</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80934</guid>
		<description>NB - I agree entirely that the Luftwaffe lost the war largely because their screwed-up training and procurement process had no chance of coping with a far richer enemy, not because of the minor tactical point I made above. Please assume hereafter that just because I mention _a_ factor, I am not claiming that it is _the_factor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NB - I agree entirely that the Luftwaffe lost the war largely because their screwed-up training and procurement process had no chance of coping with a far richer enemy, not because of the minor tactical point I made above. Please assume hereafter that just because I mention _a_ factor, I am not claiming that it is _the_factor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Shafer</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80926</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Shafer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:35:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80926</guid>
		<description>I will check out the record for the Russian IMs in 1914-1917. I have some data if I can find it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will check out the record for the Russian IMs in 1914-1917. I have some data if I can find it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Holman</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80914</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Holman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80914</guid>
		<description>Love it -- there&#039;s a different theory from each commenter, myself included! I&#039;ll be a wimp and say you&#039;re all right. 

But to return to Ian&#039;s initial point ... was there ever an example of the fortress concept working in practice? Ie bomber formations successfully defending themselves without fighter escort. Not in WWII, I don&#039;t think. The Gothas in WWI? I don&#039;t that counts -- even though British fighters shot down only 6 Gothas, the Gothas shot down only 2 fighters ... and after a few daylight raids they switched to night bombing, which is suggestive in itself. Maybe the Russians?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love it -- there's a different theory from each commenter, myself included! I'll be a wimp and say you're all right. </p>
<p>But to return to Ian's initial point ... was there ever an example of the fortress concept working in practice? Ie bomber formations successfully defending themselves without fighter escort. Not in WWII, I don't think. The Gothas in WWI? I don't that counts -- even though British fighters shot down only 6 Gothas, the Gothas shot down only 2 fighters ... and after a few daylight raids they switched to night bombing, which is suggestive in itself. Maybe the Russians?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Shafer</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80866</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Shafer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:58:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80866</guid>
		<description>Also:

I agree about the D-551 being a racer prototype, however I did get an e-mail from a Jean Emile Cassin from France that told me that the French had built 3 operational D-550s with 6 wing MGs (7.5 mm) and a 20 mm high velocity moteur-cannon.  M. Cassin told me the three 550s actually fought from May 27 to June 21, 1940, and one may have been responsible for 15 or 16 kills of Me-109Es. He told me the name of the pilot and I believe it was Doriot.

Two D-550s were apparently destroyed by French pilots before being captured by the Nazis and the last one was hidden in a building and apparently destroyed by Allied bombs prior to the liberation of Southern France.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also:</p>
<p>I agree about the D-551 being a racer prototype, however I did get an e-mail from a Jean Emile Cassin from France that told me that the French had built 3 operational D-550s with 6 wing MGs (7.5 mm) and a 20 mm high velocity moteur-cannon.  M. Cassin told me the three 550s actually fought from May 27 to June 21, 1940, and one may have been responsible for 15 or 16 kills of Me-109Es. He told me the name of the pilot and I believe it was Doriot.</p>
<p>Two D-550s were apparently destroyed by French pilots before being captured by the Nazis and the last one was hidden in a building and apparently destroyed by Allied bombs prior to the liberation of Southern France.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Shafer</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80864</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Shafer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80864</guid>
		<description>One of the main reasons the German anti-bomber fighters were so vulnerable to fighter escort post-1944 even when the Germans had the Me-262, was the shear number of Allied fighters (P-47, P-38 and P-51) with new long range drop tanks, which could operate against the German fighter fields as well as actually escort the bombers over the targets. An Me-262 trying to attack bombers when intercepted by 3 or 4 Mustangs was in trouble.

Also, looking back at September 1940 to May 1941, didn&#039;t the German&#039;s copy the moteur-cannon from captured French designs for the 20 mm on the later Me-109E-3s that got into it with the Spits and Hurricanes over GB, making the Me-109E more effective than its predecesors even though slower than the Spits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the main reasons the German anti-bomber fighters were so vulnerable to fighter escort post-1944 even when the Germans had the Me-262, was the shear number of Allied fighters (P-47, P-38 and P-51) with new long range drop tanks, which could operate against the German fighter fields as well as actually escort the bombers over the targets. An Me-262 trying to attack bombers when intercepted by 3 or 4 Mustangs was in trouble.</p>
<p>Also, looking back at September 1940 to May 1941, didn't the German's copy the moteur-cannon from captured French designs for the 20 mm on the later Me-109E-3s that got into it with the Spits and Hurricanes over GB, making the Me-109E more effective than its predecesors even though slower than the Spits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ross Mahoney</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80848</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross Mahoney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80848</guid>
		<description>The Germans certainly subscribed to the theory of the strategic bomber in the 30&#039;s. Whether or not this meant the &#039;Fortress&#039; idea is debatable. Wever, the Chief of the Luftwaffe&#039;s General Staff, was committed to this but after his death his successors moved away from this to the idea of the Operational Air War. I don&#039;t think they subscribed to the fortress idea. Just have a look at the design of the Ju89 and Do19.

The Germans upgrading and making their fighters heavier was not the key reason why the German fighter force become so vulnerable to allied fighters. The main problem is training and the human drain caused by several years of fighting. The launch in late 1940 of intruder ops moving onto the &#039;Big Week&#039; of 1944 gradually degraded the quality of the german fighter force to the point of no return. Most experienced pilots survived quite well in the fighters of 1944 where as the newly trained pilots had a high mortality rate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Germans certainly subscribed to the theory of the strategic bomber in the 30's. Whether or not this meant the 'Fortress' idea is debatable. Wever, the Chief of the Luftwaffe's General Staff, was committed to this but after his death his successors moved away from this to the idea of the Operational Air War. I don't think they subscribed to the fortress idea. Just have a look at the design of the Ju89 and Do19.</p>
<p>The Germans upgrading and making their fighters heavier was not the key reason why the German fighter force become so vulnerable to allied fighters. The main problem is training and the human drain caused by several years of fighting. The launch in late 1940 of intruder ops moving onto the 'Big Week' of 1944 gradually degraded the quality of the german fighter force to the point of no return. Most experienced pilots survived quite well in the fighters of 1944 where as the newly trained pilots had a high mortality rate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Williams</title>
		<link>http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/comment-page-1/#comment-80843</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://airminded.org/2007/03/07/flying-fortresses/#comment-80843</guid>
		<description>By 1944, the Germans had tooled up their anti-bomber fighters to such an extent that they were so heavy as to be highly vulnerable to the USAAF&#039;s escort fighters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By 1944, the Germans had tooled up their anti-bomber fighters to such an extent that they were so heavy as to be highly vulnerable to the USAAF's escort fighters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

