soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
Michael Emrys wrote:

>But here we are and to be true to the original premise, the Luftwaffe is
>strictly forbidden to engage in any activity that it could not have
>performed in 1940 (month not specified) while the USN is free to do anything
>it could do in 1945 (again, month not specified).
>
Or my variation: 1940 Luftwaffe, historical, probably in the condition
just before the Battle of Britain, and a 1945-sized 1940 USN, with
planes somewhat advanced beyond those of 1940 for two reasons. First,
one reason US military and naval aviation was lagging was a shortage
of funds, and if the USN is going to spend all that money over several
years on ships, it will also spend on aircraft. Second, the Wildcat
vs. 109E matchup is rather similar to the typical state of the best
carrier fighters being somewhat but not hopelessly inferior to the
best land-based fighters.

>Looks to me like a walkover for the USN, though not necessarily a bloodless
>one. I can't imagine why Andrew would have brought up such a ridiculous
>scenario unless he completely underrates USN capabilities in 1945.
>
Or completely underrates carrier capabilities, which seems to be
a bit more precise. Or greatly overrates the Luftwaffe and other
German capabilities, which is, I think, less consistent with
Andrew's usual claims.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-