Actually I said that there would have to be a significant increase in performance to justify a new class. Performance could mean 1 or more of any performance measure ( speed, firepower, size, cost , medical facilities, science labs, diplomatic facilities etc.) that is deemed important. The point being that in order to justify the design and building of a new class of ship a significant improvement must be realized or else you could just keep on building existing designs.Mikey wrote:The Me262 was a complete, abject failure compared to the Bf109, P-51, Supermarine Spitfire (any Mark,) or almost any other aircraft of WWII as judged by the only criterion that really matters - how much did it contribute. Yay, it had jet engines. Fat lot of good it did. Your original point was that there is no reason to introduce a new class if it did not include a significant increase in speed. Well, as has been mentioned there are MANY reasons to introduce a new class without a significant increase in speed... I would further add, based in part on your example, that there may be reasons to NOT introduce a class in which a significant increase in speed was a prime mover. Aside from the reason that Seafort mentioned - difficulty in integration with extant task groups or fleets - one must ask, "OK, so it's faster - but will it actually help?" As in your example of the Me262, it was a lot faster... but it did sweet F.A. for the war effort.
Welcome to the forum, BTW.
BTW the me262 was an overwhelming success compared to some of the projectes the Germans wasted resources on: the DORA rail gun, V3 , Maus tank etc.
