Let's Talk Optional Rules

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

I dunno about you, but I think that this statement from Boyne is indicative ...

"Unfortunately for the engine, Germany was in desperate straits for such materials as chromium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, and tungsten. The new advanced submarine construction program had a higher priority than jet engines."

You can highlight a word in red all you like. He only says Germany was short of certain materials and doesn't say that tungsten is necessary for high temperature engine components, when you have singled it out for special mention when you claim, "The turbine blades needed tungsten to withstand the high operating temps...". The other source you provided doesn't provide any evidence to support this either. I spent years working in this specific field and unless you provide me with some actual evidence, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
As for Steel shortages affecting aircraft production, well, the paragraph from which the above quote is taken makes the point that the high quality steel that would have boosted even the chromium, molybdenum, nickel, titanium and tungstenless engine design's operational life wasn't available ... because it was allocated elsewhere.

No. Hot-end components require specific alloys. I don't think you know anything about gas turbines and I do.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Maybe it means something different to you, but to me it means that what I said about steel shortages affecting aircraft production is supported.

No it doesn't, because I think it's nonsense. You very specifically claimed "...the Germans were simply unable to produce as many aircraft as they wanted because, largely, of their shortage of steel, not because of a shortage of aluminium..." and haven't been able to back that up. There's been a lot of vague hand-waving and you've talked about everything else but you have not been able to produce a skerrick of evidence to support that extraordinary claim.

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
You can also check out ...

http://historum.com/blogs/guaporense/99 ... r-two.html

... where, slightly over halfway down, it says ...

"So, even though Germany conquered territories with a comparable GDP and a greater population than the United States, the economies of the occupied regions collapsed, leaving Germany with significantly smaller resources than the United States. This had important effects in the war: Germany's supplies of iron and steel were not enough to meet the demands, Germany needed to increase her steel supply to levels around 45-50 million tons to have a comfortable supply to satisfy all war needs ..."

[I guess aircraft production qualifies as part of "all war needs" ... YMMV]

Phil

Not really, because as I have pointed out, there's very little steel required to produce a WW2 aeroplane.

You clearly know a lot about WW2 and its logistical aspects but I think you've stumbled into my area of expertise, overreached and are now too proud to admit it.

I'll get back to this. It's a beautiful day here and I'm off to Beerfest [:)]

Cheers, Neilster

[bo]

A beer fest in Tasmania [&:] Your just trying to make centuur feel bad.

Bo

[Symple]

I really appreciate this discussion. So many great options. Glad to hear the discussion about them.
What does Option 49: Hitler's War do?

[aspqrz02]

He says specifically that engines were affected by, amongst other things, lack of tungsten. Specifically. He isn't the only source that says it, either ... just the one I found handy-like on the Web. Maybe they're all wrong, maybe they're all talking through their a***s - I've provided the evidence, so might I suggest that you need to show why these sources are wrong.

Seriously. It won't be the first time I've run across sources that make claims that turn out to be wrong - but you have to take some things in good faith until you have evidence otherwise. (For example, lots of sources - even modern/recent ones, refer to the number of Motor Vehicles in a WW2 US Infantry Division and give an incorrect number - way back, some clueless/careless historian added up all the 'vehicles' in the ID's TO&E, which included trailers ... so ever since lots of sources have quoted that number rather than actually doing the hard yards and checking the TO&E directly ... is this a similar case? I have no idea. But it IS repeated in a number of sources, so I accept it at face value for the moment.

So, please provide the specific evidence relating specifically to the Jumo-004 engines (the 004b, IIRC, in the Me262, showing that these sources have got it wrong.

Experience with turbines other than Jumo-004bs may or may not be relevant, I, personally, don't know ... so you'll have to work harder to convince me if that is the sole basis for your misgivings.

Phil

[76mm]

aspqrz, neilster,

I tried asking politely, but it didn't work, so let me try again:
Quit hijacking this thread, please take it elsewhere.

[Neilster]

I can't be bothered arguing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I've spent years studying and working on military gas turbines, including the very specific metallurgy involved.

I notice you've been very selective in what you've responded to as well. People can read the exchange above and make their own judgements.

Anyway, Beerfest was great. Lots of local, Australian and international brews. A good number of ciders too, as Tasmania is a traditional apple growing area. Down by the waterfront with the sun blazing. And I whooped my neighbour at chess on the big board. Most enjoyable all round.

Cheers, Neilster

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I can't be bothered arguing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I've spent years studying and working on military gas turbines, including the very specific metallurgy involved.

I notice you've been very selective in what you've responded to as well. People can read the exchange above and make their own judgements.

Ah, argumentum ab auctoritate, a textbook example.

Indeed, people will read your refusal to answer some simple questions and make judgements accordingly.

Phil

[Neilster]

I've just got better things to do and people don't want the thread taken over.

Cheers, Neilster

[brian brian]

I don't think Option 49 - Hitler's War - is ready yet in MWiF? That's OK for me, because I'm not ready for it either. Even after playing a ftf game per year most years for a long time now, and plenty of solitaire games, I know very little about that option and it remains quite mysterious. On it's face it looks like such a radical departure from a regular game, and each game is such an investment in time, that I haven't been up for trying it, yet. I don't think the net result is a major change, but it hard for me to wrap thoughts around how a game with it might go.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: bo

A beer fest in Tasmania [&:] Your just trying to make centuur feel bad.

Bo

Why should I feel bad that others are going to a beerfest and I'm not this weekend? Have fun. I only hope that they don't drink Budweiser there...[:D]

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: bo

A beer fest in Tasmania [&:] Your just trying to make centuur feel bad.

Bo

Why should I feel bad that others are going to a beerfest and I'm not this weekend? Have fun. I only hope that they don't drink Budweiser there...[:D]

Err...very little chance of that. Lots of James Squires, Little Creatures, Moo Brew, Van Dieman Brewery, Ironhouse and European beers. I think there were a couple of smaller American brands there.

I think I might stay out of the sun today, even though it's another cracker. Got a smidge too much yesterday. I better do some MWiF study [:)]

Cheers, Neilster

[IKerensky]

When speaking about WIF, history and realism, first read the designer notes. Harry designed WIF as a boardgame with historical flair but with boardgame balance, that is the Axis can actually win the game. To do so he artificialy strengthen, Germany by example got their 1942 full war production from 1939 on. Allies on the other hand were nerfed, USA by example should have a production between twice and thrice what they got.