Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Best fighter in WW2???

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:35:48 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
Beating mdiehl with FACTS is not fair.
I wonder if you silenced him

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 211
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:41:32 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
Which any rationale human being realizes is chocolate fudge.



REDICULOUS! It's vanilla (with Hot Fudge on it!)

(in reply to niceguy2005)
Post #: 212
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:45:23 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Mmmmm, fuuuuudge...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 213
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:47:29 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Beating mdiehl with FACTS is not fair.
I wonder if you silenced him



Might be..., if he'd used any. Again he's comparing a 1492 P-47c with a 1944 Bf-109K---and as I said before, you could get exactly the opposite results by comparing a 1940 Bf-109E with a 1942 P-47C. When he starts comparing apples with apples (or September 1944 models with Sept 1944 models), then he might be worth listening to...

(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 214
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:49:26 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Beating mdiehl with FACTS is not fair.
I wonder if you silenced him



Might be..., if he'd used any. Again he's comparing a 1492 P-47c with a 1944 Bf-109K---and as I said before, you could get exactly the opposite results by comparing a 1940 Bf-109E with a 1942 P-47C. When he starts comparing apples with apples (or September 1944 models with Sept 1944 models), then he might be worth listening to...





what´s wrong with comparing September 1944 models with September 1944 modells????

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 215
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 7:52:43 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
what´s wrong with comparing September 1944 models with September 1944 models????




Absolutely nothing..., which is why I wish he would do it....

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 216
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 8:19:29 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
Which any rationale human being realizes is chocolate fudge.



REDICULOUS! It's vanilla (with Hot Fudge on it!)


vanilla??? Clearly you're a communist.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 217
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 8:23:43 PM   
niceguy2005


Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Beating mdiehl with FACTS is not fair.
I wonder if you silenced him



Might be..., if he'd used any. Again he's comparing a 1492 P-47c with a 1944 Bf-109K---and as I said before, you could get exactly the opposite results by comparing a 1940 Bf-109E with a 1942 P-47C. When he starts comparing apples with apples (or September 1944 models with Sept 1944 models), then he might be worth listening to...





what´s wrong with comparing September 1944 models with September 1944 modells????

I've been wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest this...could it be that from a performance standpoint you won't find much difference. Which is why I'd take the Jug, given similar performance I'll take the big AC with lots of armor.

_____________________________


Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 218
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 10:19:35 PM   
Howard Mitchell


Posts: 449
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Beating mdiehl with FACTS is not fair.
I wonder if you silenced him



Might be..., if he'd used any. Again he's comparing a 1492 P-47c with a 1944 Bf-109K---and as I said before, you could get exactly the opposite results by comparing a 1940 Bf-109E with a 1942 P-47C. When he starts comparing apples with apples (or September 1944 models with Sept 1944 models), then he might be worth listening to...



Given that a 1492 P-47C would be made of wood, armed with muskets and muzzle-loading cannon, and under full sail make about a dozen knots I'm not surprised that a Bf-109K would out-perform it!

_____________________________

While the battles the British fight may differ in the widest possible ways, they invariably have two common characteristics – they are always fought uphill and always at the junction of two or more map sheets.

General Sir William Slim

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 219
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 10:50:19 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Beating mdiehl with FACTS is not fair.
I wonder if you silenced him



Might be..., if he'd used any. Again he's comparing a 1492 P-47c with a 1944 Bf-109K---and as I said before, you could get exactly the opposite results by comparing a 1940 Bf-109E with a 1942 P-47C. When he starts comparing apples with apples (or September 1944 models with Sept 1944 models), then he might be worth listening to...



Well mdiehl did say:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Allied high altitude stalwarts like the P-47 and P-51 were vastly superior to the ME-109 (you can pick any variant you want). The best of the German interceptors were all based on the FW-190 design

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 220
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 11/30/2007 11:03:01 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Given that a 1492 P-47C would be made of wood, armed with muskets and muzzle-loading cannon, and under full sail make about a dozen knots I'm not surprised that a Bf-109K would out-perform it!


Wing mounted matchlocks.

quote:

What mdiehl did say:
Allied high altitude stalwarts like the P-47 and P-51 were vastly superior to the ME-109 (you can pick any variant you want). The best of the German interceptors were all based on the FW-190 design


And I stand by it. The only person who seems to have taken that as a license for a straw man comparison between models whose deployment was separated by two years has been answered. The facts support the claim that the P-47 was a better high altitude fighter than the ME-109.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 221
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/1/2007 12:45:10 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:



quote:

Given that a 1492 P-47C would be made of wood, armed with muskets and muzzle-loading cannon, and under full sail make about a dozen knots I'm not surprised that a Bf-109K would out-perform it!


Wing mounted matchlocks.


"Yes Baldrick - they're the latest thing in military art"




Attachment (1)

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 222
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/1/2007 12:29:07 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

And I stand by it. The only person who seems to have taken that as a license for a straw man comparison between models whose deployment was separated by two years has been answered. The facts support the claim that the P-47 was a better high altitude fighter than the ME-109.


Except...you know...in the comparrisson I posted. In that one, the Me109 is vastly superior at all altitutes. But lets ignore that pesky litte fact for now shall we. You may continue to make ludicrous statements based on your gut feeling or whatever, carry on.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 223
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/1/2007 12:56:07 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Why...easy question..Brewster model 239 in Finnish service...

From Wiki:

The fighter was never referred to as the Buffalo in Finland; it was known simply as the Brewster, or sometimes by the nickname Taivaan helmi ("Sky Pearl") or Pohjoisten taivaiden helmi ("Pearl of the Northern Skies"). Other nicknames were Pylly-Valtteri ("Butt-Walter"), Amerikanrauta ("American hardware" or "American car") and Lentävä kaljapullo ("flying beer-bottle"). The 44 Brewsters used by the FAF received the serial numbers BW-351 to BW-394. It appears the workmanship of the Finnish airframes was also better than those produced later; this was a common phenomenon as the aircraft factories were manned by a less-skilled workforce after the start of World War II.

In the end, the Brewster gained a reputation as one of the most successful combat aircraft ever flown by the Finnish Air Force. In service during 1941-1945, the Brewsters were credited with 496 Soviet and German aircraft destroyed, against the loss of 19 Brewsters: a victory ratio of 26:1. However, the substantiation of this claim on German and Soviet records is so far incomplete, and all claims have not been managed to be connected on actual losses (as of 2007).


Quite good explanation why:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm

Q: Why did the Finns achieve so much with the Buffalo?

A: First off, the Finnish Brewsters weren't Brewster Buffaloes, or Brewster 339's, or F2A-2, which were very bad fighters. They were Model 239's much closer to the original USN F2A-1, which were reported to be delightful to fly. Finnish nickname "Taivaan Helmi" "Pearl of the Skies" reflects this. Also, Finnish Brewsters had reflector sights and reliable armament of three heavy machine guns and one rifle-caliber mg. (later on four heavy MG's) and seat armour.

The Finnish Air Force also used innovative modern air combat tactics, such as largely relying on finger four / Thach Weave / Schwarm, whatever you call it, against doctrinal Soviet tactics, such as using three plane flights and "Spanish circle" described later on. In 1941 many of the Finnish Buffalo pilots had had combat experience during the Winter War, and air combat tactics were modified and developed. Mock dogfights were made against captured russian planes. Training with Brewsters hadn't been so good as it might have been, since the severe shortage of aviation fuel in 1940-1941.

The quality of Soviet planes in 1941, when the best kill ratio 67.5 - 1) was achieved, was lower than Brewsters, most common types being used were SB-2, DB-3, I-16 and I-153.

Finally, there was element of luck. The fighter squadron the Brewsters were in most of the war, 24, was commanded by an excellent commander, Major G. Magnusson, a great organizer and tactician who is considered to be "Grand Old Man" of the Finnish fighter aviation. By almost sheer luck, some of the finest pilots of the Finnish Air Force were in the Brewster Squadron when the war started, such as Hans Wind, Ilmari Juutilainen, Joppe Karhunen and Lauri Nissinen, each one of them later on gaining huge kill numbers also with Messerschmitt 109G-2's and G-6's.


The Brewsters probably could have made even more kills, but the Finnish fighter control system during the Brewster's golden age in 1941-42 was abysmal. For an example, sometimes the alert messages were only somekind like this: "Village of Inkeroinen is being bombed" and arrived as much as 15 minutes too late. But by the summer 1944 it was excellent. Criticism against Finnish ground control system and FAF brass in general has been extremely harsh by Joppe Karhunen, a Brewster ace and an aviation historian.

Everybody is always talking about plane vs. plane statistics. It's more about those who fly them, if plane is even same "generation" and comparable.


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 12/1/2007 1:03:19 PM >


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 224
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/1/2007 8:18:14 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Except...you know...in the comparrisson I posted. In that one, the Me109 is vastly superior at all altitutes.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ME109 K -- Max airspeed: 440 mph at 7500m (about 24,000 feet).
ME109H -- Max airspeed 452 mph at 19,685 feet.
ME109G8++ -- Max airspeed 426 mph at 24,280 feet
ME109G1-G6 -- Max airspeed 386 mph at 22,640 feet

P-47N -- Max airspeed 467 mph at 32,500 feet.
P-47C -- Max airspeed 433 mph at 30,000 feet.

What part of these stats do you not comprehend? As high-altitude fighter go, the P-47, even the P-47C, could beat the stuffing out of ANY variant of the ME-109 at altitudes above about 28,000 feet.

See, for example: Aircraft of WW2, by Stewart Wilson, Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, Fishwyck, Australia, 1998.

This source notes that the high-altitude variants of the ME-109 (the H/K types) were abandoned in favor of the TA-152 for high altitude combat because of aerodynamic stress ("wing flutter problems") at high speed.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the ME-109 variants had an airspeed edge over P47s at low to middle altitudes, and pretty much everyone (except you) recognizes that at all altitudes the P-47s could roll faster, dive faster, acclerate faster in a dive, sustain more punishment, and inflict more damge, than any ME-109. At high altitudes, in any year that you care to pick the "top of the line" ME-109 was inferior in airspeed and maneuverability than its contemporary P-47 opponent.




< Message edited by mdiehl -- 12/1/2007 8:19:17 PM >


_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 225
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/1/2007 10:20:55 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
Basicly, FW-190A-series really sucked in high altitude. Thus the FW-190D-series and Ta-152...

So, in that context, Me-109-series was way superior to FW in high altitudes before FW-190D-series.




_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 226
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/1/2007 11:23:07 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Ya know, 60 years after the fact we can sit here and debate all day which fighter was the best of the war, and never reach a consensus. However, ask any pilot of the era what the best was, and he'd probably answer "the one that got me home safe."

I don't really think there is necesarily a 'best' fighter. I think they all had their strengths and weaknesses, and the real difference was the pilot at the controls.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 227
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 12:48:27 AM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
Gentlemen, Im here to inform you that you have it all wrong. Now you may assert that the best fighter in WWII is based upon various characteristics such as sustainability, altitude or armament. You may believe that speed and power determined the best fighter or even fuel economy. However concider this. The best fighter in WWII was none of those features. The best fighter would be the sexiest fighter that helped our grandfathers get laid. Otherwise we might not be here to enjoy their sacrifices. Therefore the best fighters in WWII follow in this order.
(I just had to bend the "no jets" rule and post these here because they are the most gorgeous works of art in the entire universe). BEHOLD;

HO-229 Bat



HO-XVIII


ME163 KOMET






_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 228
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 12:50:29 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to SLAAKMAN)
Post #: 229
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 12:52:27 AM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
 er....sorry. couldnt resist.

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 230
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 12:55:19 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline


_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to SLAAKMAN)
Post #: 231
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 1:05:23 AM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
(Well at least you have to admit the photos are beautiful.)

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 232
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 2:29:35 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
 Well, the ME-163 isn't technically a jet , it's  a rocket plane , so  I guess that one's ok...But the Horton planes are kinda way over the envelope , considering none of them ever flew.....

_____________________________


(in reply to SLAAKMAN)
Post #: 233
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 11:48:31 AM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Except...you know...in the comparrisson I posted. In that one, the Me109 is vastly superior at all altitutes.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

ME109 K -- Max airspeed: 440 mph at 7500m (about 24,000 feet).
ME109H -- Max airspeed 452 mph at 19,685 feet.
ME109G8++ -- Max airspeed 426 mph at 24,280 feet
ME109G1-G6 -- Max airspeed 386 mph at 22,640 feet

P-47N -- Max airspeed 467 mph at 32,500 feet.
P-47C -- Max airspeed 433 mph at 30,000 feet.

What part of these stats do you not comprehend? As high-altitude fighter go, the P-47, even the P-47C, could beat the stuffing out of ANY variant of the ME-109 at altitudes above about 28,000 feet.


The part you made up I suppose. The max speed of the P-47C was ~395 mph at 30 000 feet. Apparently looking at the charts I posted was too complicated for you, so instead you resorted to making stuff up again? No wonder people dont like to debate you on this forum.


< Message edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund -- 12/3/2007 6:03:11 PM >


_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 234
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 12:04:22 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
Before you fellows gat in too big a "namecalling" fight you should make sure you are talking about the same thing. The "official numbers" for the P-47C and D come in two flavors---one before and one after the retrofitting of the huge four-bladed "paddle wheel" propellor (which finally allowed the A/C to make full use of all that horsepower.)

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 235
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 2:50:28 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Before you fellows gat in too big a "namecalling" fight you should make sure you are talking about the same thing. The "official numbers" for the P-47C and D come in two flavors---one before and one after the retrofitting of the huge four-bladed "paddle wheel" propellor (which finally allowed the A/C to make full use of all that horsepower.)


The charts I posted are from the RAF trial of the P-47C with the four-bladed propeller. The next propeller upgrade would not take place until the P-47 D-22 who got the 13 feet Hamilton Standard paddle-blade propeller. If you have any information about C's being upgraded and retrofitted with that late-model propeller, I would be really interested to hear about it.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 236
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 3:05:12 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
 Maybe we should get a little less personal. This isn't the Madcowsteak house. Debates are encouraged here. Discussion is expected. Name calling and foul comments do not belong here. Panzerjager , that sig line is definately over the top , even if you are quoting someone else. I personally would greatly appreciate it if you would change it to something less inflamatory and in better taste.   Let's cool things off guys.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 237
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 6:58:53 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
It is mdiehl who is constantly trying to throw off balance discussions with his false claims. That should not go unnoticed.

< Message edited by Rainer -- 12/3/2007 6:59:46 PM >

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 238
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 7:06:48 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
 It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 239
RE: Best fighter in WW2??? - 12/3/2007 7:10:11 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

 It hasn't. I was a victim myself a couple of months ago. But that doesn't excuse improper and inflamatory phrases that have nothing to do with the argument. All I ask is keep it a clean fight. Try and keep it on topic. And watch your @##$%^ language.


Exactly! That's why I'm staying out of this one. Besides, everyone already knows that the Zero was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Best fighter in WW2??? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969