RE: OT: What if?

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: OT: What if?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: OT: What if?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 1:23:41 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

delete

< Message edited by Wild -- 1/30/2021 6:19:13 PM >

(in reply to Footslogger)

Post #: 31

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 1:30:37 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

quote:

Me 109: Willy Messerschmitt�s Peerless Fighter

The argument is.....

quote:

II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?

So we are talking about the war up until 1941.

Battle of France had the outnumbered 109's wiping all opposition....that's good enough for me. The battle of Britain has the 109 fighting at extreme range against the Splutterfire. Dowding very cleverly never deployed the Splutterfire on more even terms in France, he just let everything else the Brits had get shot down in droves.
The 109 was equaled later on but continued to give good account right to the end of the war.

The 109 continued through the war due to the lack of anything better. Thanks to short sighted German planning. Galland himself preferred the 190 IIRC.

And whose fault was it that the 109 didn't have the range? Or drop tanks? Then 109F series was considered by many to be a step backwards due to the deletion of the wing guns.

You can call the Spit whatever you want. Doesn't excuse the fact that it won. Over Britian and later Dieppe.

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 32

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 2:28:03 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Wild (you are splendidly named, btw) it's not that I am pro Soviet. It's that nazi alternate history is just boring and overdone. I really don't think anything genuinely new or interesting on the subject has been thought up in decades. Nothing in this thread qualifies as either new or interesting, btw, it's the usual blend of implausible stuff and technological fetishism.

So how about that Soviet win at Warsaw? Does the revolution spread to Berlin and elsewhere? What do the Western Allies do?

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 33

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 3:03:33 AM

wulfgar

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

Whatever the capabilities of the early Spitfires, the 109 out-ranged them on internal fuel and out performed them with fuel injection. As for drop tanks the 109 was using them long before the Spitfire.
In your mind you are putting later marks of the Spitfire against earlier 109's.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 34

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 3:20:05 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Later Spits against later 109s. Either way, they, (109s) came out second best.

Fuel injection. Sure. Slam it into a negative G dive, which airplanes with carbs, (except for the floatless carbs), couldn't do.

Great to get away. Not much use when escorting bombers.

BTW, the 109 and the Zero are my favorites.

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 35

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 3:23:24 AM

Wild

Posts: 364
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline

delete

< Message edited by Wild -- 1/30/2021 6:21:03 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 36

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 3:33:10 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Wild (you are splendidly named, btw) it's not that I am pro Soviet. It's that nazi alternate history is just boring and overdone. I really don't think anything genuinely new or interesting on the subject has been thought up in decades. Nothing in this thread qualifies as either new or interesting, btw, it's the usual blend of implausible stuff and technological fetishism.

So how about that Soviet win at Warsaw? Does the revolution spread to Berlin and elsewhere? What do the Western Allies do?

That's a good question. What would they do. What could they do? Having just gone through WW1 and getting out of the RCW, I don't think either was looking to get into another war.

And it certainly didn't help that they crippled the German military.

Maybe their own version of Lend Lease? Possibly of eased up on the Treaty vis a vis Germany so Germany could help the Poles while France/Britian re-armed?

I think GB would have to take the lead though, given how much France was hurt by the war.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 37

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 3:33:11 AM

wulfgar

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 38

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 3:57:35 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolecent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

Ole Willie didn't think a plane like the P-47 was possible. That barn door proved him wrong.

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 39

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 5:21:33 AM

wulfgar

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

I find it very strange somebody would make this claim about later Japanese fighter design?

quote:

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolescent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

You gotta stop confusing phony wartime propaganda with fact. Britain was up against the wall in 1940 and needed some BS to make them feel good. It's pure wartime propaganda that the 109 was some type of inferior aircraft.

quote:

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

Well, the 109 remained the one to beat according to the Soviets.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 40

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 5:50:38 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
Whatever the capabilities of the early Spitfires, the 109 out-ranged them on internal fuel and out performed them with fuel injection. As for drop tanks the 109 was using them long before the Spitfire.
In your mind you are putting later marks of the Spitfire against earlier 109's.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this statement need to be qualified just a little? That is, in the context of the Battle of Britain, any fuel advantage the 109s had was counter-acted by having to fly across the English Channel first, compared to a Spit that was flying right out of local airbases.

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 41

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 6:51:20 AM

wulfgar

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this statement need to be qualified just a little? That is, in the context of the Battle of Britain, any fuel advantage the 109s had was counter-acted by having to fly across the English Channel first, compared to a Spit that was flying right out of local airbases.

This is about the general side by side comparison of the two planes at the time. It was fortunate the early marks of the Spitfire had the Channel to protect them. Fraudulent wartime propaganda sold that it was purely the quality of the British plane. Something that would have been dashed if the Spitfire had of fought in the Battle of France.

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 42

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 8:41:10 AM

Speedysteve

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this statement need to be qualified just a little? That is, in the context of the Battle of Britain, any fuel advantage the 109s had was counter-acted by having to fly across the English Channel first, compared to a Spit that was flying right out of local airbases.

This is about the general side by side comparison of the two planes at the time. It was fortunate the early marks of the Spitfire had the Channel to protect them. Fraudulent wartime propaganda sold that it was purely the quality of the British plane. Something that would have been dashed if the Spitfire had of fought in the Battle of France.

Really now. Look at the stats of the 109E and Spit Mk1. You'll find they're pretty equal with both planes having slight advantages where the other has a slight disadvantage.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 43

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 9:24:53 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

Any comparison in performance is about the aircraft, training and tactics. The aircraft is only one part of the equation. There is no doubt that a Bf109 in the hands of an experienced pilot was a formidable combination and many Bf109 pilots amassed huge scores.

However, the Spitfire was more forgiving of inexperienced pilots (as so many of them were), which gave confidence to novice Spitfire pilots to exploit the full turning capabilities of the aircraft, where inexperienced Bf109 pilots would be more hesitant. Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

There was probably little to choose between the Spitfire and the Bf109 and the differences in success were more dependent on developing tactics and pilot training. The Axis having a significant advantage in the early years in tactics and training, with the advantage moving to the Allies later in the war, as the pressure of numbers necessitated a reduction in German training quality and the loss of experienced aircrew.

Although Adolf Galland's comment 'give me a squadron of Spitfires' was a hasty response to Goering from a frustrated commander, he did at least respect the Spitfire in its performance at the job it was designed to do.

Quote - I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable.

The final measure of any aircraft is the test of war itself and the Spitfire remained in production and front-line service throughout the war (not because there were no alternatives). The Bf109 was certainly ebbing as the war came to a close and both aircraft were pushed into tasks that they had not been designed for, but either way, they were both equally matched great aircraft.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/30/2012 9:31:52 AM >

_____________________________

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon

�A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything� - Napoleon

�Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 44

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 10:05:27 AM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

quote:

Me 109: Willy Messerschmitt�s Peerless Fighter

The argument is.....

quote:

II. What if the FW190 was used instead of the Me109?

So we are talking about the war up until 1941.

Battle of France had the outnumbered 109's wiping all opposition....that's good enough for me. The battle of Britain has the 109 fighting at extreme range against the Splutterfire. Dowding very cleverly never deployed the Splutterfire on more even terms in France, he just let everything else the Brits had get shot down in droves.
The 109 was equaled later on but continued to give good account right to the end of the war.

Come again please!
You're version is rather inaccurate as the plentitude of books on the subject will quite clearly prove.
I'm not saying the 109 was bad or did not perform well even againsty the Spitfire but to state that the Spitfire couldn't handle a 109 is pure and utter nonesense. Roughly 1/3rd of the fighter available to the brits were Spits, the rest Hurri's. The spits were consitently employed against the 109's escort and were often outnumbered by the escorting fighters. They had better turn, equal high altitude performance but were very slightly slower depending on altitude.

As to the original comment. It doesn't really matter how good the plane is if you're fighter consistenly 10-1. The P47's was very well suited for extreeme high altitude combat 7000+, but take it down to 3000 and it's indeed a barn door. It took the P-51 pared to the English engine before the Allied bomber offensive really resulted in the collapse of the German fighter defense.
It had speed, dive, excellent high and reasonable low performance and could go to Berlin and back and still fight. IT was also about 1/3rd of the cost of the Jugg (P47), and was simply much better.
The one important advantage the P47 had was it's ruggedness and that's probably the only reason they kept it around in a ground attacking role.

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 45

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 10:14:07 AM

glvaca

Posts: 1312
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolecent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

Ole Willie didn't think a plane like the P-47 was possible. That barn door proved him wrong.

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

Totally incorrect. When the 190 was introduced in middle of 1941 it massacred the Spits. IT was faster by far, heavily armed, etc...
They would just tear the living guts out of the SpitVB's. It took the VIII and IX's to redress the situation to some extent.
The fundamental "thing" in air to air combat is speed and surprise. If you have speed, you can gain surprise. The 190 had plenty of speed.

Last but not least, to a large extent in simular performance planes, it's the pilot stupid, not the plane.
Compare it with this, take a raw recruits, without a drivers license and put him in a tank, send him off to fight. On the other side you have veterans with 100'd of hours experience in their tank. Tanks can destroy each other comparibly. Who has the most chances of winning?

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 46

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 10:46:44 AM

wulfgar

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

However, the Spitfire was more forgiving of inexperienced pilots (as so many of them were), which gave confidence to novice Spitfire pilots to exploit the full turning capabilities of the aircraft, where inexperienced Bf109 pilots would be more hesitant. Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

So let's see......

1. The 109 climbs faster......check!

2. The 109 dives faster.......check!

3. And when it really comes to it the 109 could turn tighter as well......check!

Is there anything we missed? What does that make the 109?

My argument is the 109 was the more nimble aircraft, the fact that it was a difficult aircraft to fly doesn't change that. The fact that the ones flown by novice pilots were doctored to not turn so tightly doesn't mean they weren't capable of more with the training wheels off.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 47

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 11:55:56 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
However, the Spitfire was more forgiving of inexperienced pilots (as so many of them were), which gave confidence to novice Spitfire pilots to exploit the full turning capabilities of the aircraft, where inexperienced Bf109 pilots would be more hesitant. Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

So let's see......

1. The 109 climbs faster......check!

2. The 109 dives faster.......check!

3. And when it really comes to it the 109 could turn tighter as well......check!

Is there anything we missed? What does that make the 109?

My argument is the 109 was the more nimble aircraft, the fact that it was a difficult aircraft to fly doesn't change that. The fact that the ones flown by novice pilots were doctored to not turn so tightly doesn't mean they weren't capable of more with the training wheels off.

Please read the post fully, I have said:

Hence the endless discussion of which could turn tightest, the Bf109 in the hands of an expert probably could, but a Spitfire flown by an average pilot could out turn the average Bf109 pilot.

Therefore, in actual wartime conditions most Spitfire pilots were out-turning most Bf109s, Galland says so and he was there (see quote), I am prepared to accept his assessment.

All through the air war one side, or the other, had advantages and disadvantages, as new aircraft and upgraded models came into service. The tactical and strategic situation changed, giving one side, or other, the upper hand.

A large number of pilots never got the chance to take the 'training wheels' off, their aircraft were not 'doctored' during training, if they got it wrong they died. An aircraft that keeps its pilots alive is a big plus, dead pilots don't win wars..

Taking a snapshot of any part of the war will give one, or other, the superior position, but overall, I don't think there is much to choose between the two aircraft.

_____________________________

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 48

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 4:11:30 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

That might be the case, but this is about comparative Spits vs 109's early in the war. Really back then the 109's owned everything else.

No, the question was, "What if the 190 was used instead of the 109."

And it really doesn't matter how well it did against obsolecent fighters. It came out second best against the Spit. Early in the war.

Ole Willie didn't think a plane like the P-47 was possible. That barn door proved him wrong.

Much like the Zero, it stayed in production since they really didn't have anything better. A problem with planning on a short war.

Would the 190 of made a difference? Probably not.

Totally incorrect. When the 190 was introduced in middle of 1941 it massacred the Spits. IT was faster by far, heavily armed, etc...
They would just tear the living guts out of the SpitVB's. It took the VIII and IX's to redress the situation to some extent.
The fundamental "thing" in air to air combat is speed and surprise. If you have speed, you can gain surprise. The 190 had plenty of speed.

Last but not least, to a large extent in simular performance planes, it's the pilot stupid, not the plane.
Compare it with this, take a raw recruits, without a drivers license and put him in a tank, send him off to fight. On the other side you have veterans with 100'd of hours experience in their tank. Tanks can destroy each other comparibly. Who has the most chances of winning?

I'm well aware of the superiority of the 190 over a Spit II. What I am also aware is that almost every unit in the Luftwaffe wanted one. And there were never enough. According to Galland's book.

As someone pointed out, the 190 wasn't suited for high altitude operations. So with no 109s to take on the escorting P-47/51s.......

I'm also well aware of Luftwaffe piolts who scored in the 100s. and 200s, and a couple of 300s. A very small percentage too. And the high scoring night fighters. And yet, they lost.

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 49

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 4:19:30 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Argggggh Double post.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/30/2012 4:20:06 PM >

(in reply to glvaca)

Post #: 50

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 6:01:48 PM

Jimbo123

Posts: 247
Joined: 10/11/2011
Status: offline

Unless your can somehow forget that the Brits had broken the luff codes it really doesn't matter what plane was better.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 51

RE: OT: What if? - 1/30/2012 8:35:36 PM

Footslogger

Posts: 1232
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline

I did find this interesting link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAUgUzAIdiA

(in reply to Jimbo123)

Post #: 52

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 12:11:11 AM

wulfgar

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/29/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

Taking a snapshot of any part of the war will give one, or other, the superior position, but overall, I don't think there is much to choose between the two aircraft.

Basically I agree. Both where light fighters, a concept that became over-shadowed by heavier multi-role planes. But there must of been something going for the light fighter, for we see numerous efforts to recreate the concept later in the war.
The Yak-3 was a late plane built to pre-war weight. We see numerous examples with the Japanese which are partly over-looked. Even the Americans built the naval Bearcat at the end of the war, half the weight of many of its contemporaries.
A novice pilot might appreciate the protection, firepower and neutral control of a heavier fighter-bomber. But somebody who got experienced in dog fights would yearn for a true dog-fighter.
The 109 survived because it could take the increasingly powerful engines, the same with the Spitfire.
As for the FW 190, it remained the 109 that challenged the Mustang.

The FW 190 was a good fighter-bomber that was a stable platform for hitting ground targets and taking on the opposition at lower levels. But it wasn't a war changing aircraft, which is point of the thread.

< Message edited by wulfgar -- 1/31/2012 9:33:40 PM >

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 53

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 9:34:28 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar
The 109 survived because it could take the increasingly powerful engines, the same with the Spitfire.
As for the FW 190, it remained the 109 that challenged the Mustang.

The FW 190 was a good fighter-bomber that was a stable platform for hitting ground targets and taking on the opposition at lower levels. But it wasn't a war changing aircraft, which is point of the thread.

When the US began to build up its forces in Britain, american airman who had been fighting with the RAF where transferred into US service and were very disappointed to give up their Spitfires, for the much heavier P47. However, they became to appreciate the ruggedness of the P47, especially in the ground attack role.

The character of the war changed so that the Typhoon, a failure as an interceptor, was able to give good service in the ground attack role. Bombers became larger, with heavier armament, and a fighter with a heavy punch was needed to combat them.

The quality of both the Spitfire and the Bf109 was that they stayed in front-line service, during this changing situation. The fate of the FW190 and even more so the Me262, was that they came into service as the balance of power shifted to the Allies, in numbers and training, so that in the end, neither aircraft could show its full potential.

I saw a report of a fight between a single Bf109 and several P51s, the German pilot was obviously one of the 'experten', as he exploited the performance of the 109 to the limit, including an impressive low altitude outside loop, which would have been fatal for most pilots. The point being that, in the right hands, the Bf 109 could be a match for anything, but skill was finally overwhelmed by numbers and he did not survive the combat.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/31/2012 9:39:55 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 54

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 7:14:21 PM

Tentpeg

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline

Since the thread has expanded to consider other possible/probable "what if?" let us consider the following:

- France came through with the Polish request for the S-35 Souma Tank in addition or in lieu of the promised r-35's.
- The British reverse thier decision and provide the Poles with Matilda Infantry tanks.
- France provides the MS-406 Fighters and Amoit143 bombers that had been purchased but not delivered.
- Britain provides the FaireyBattle light bombers the Poles had paid for.
- The Poles buy and get the Spitfires they were evaluating. One was in Poland being tested prior to the outbreak of war.

Going out further on the limb:

- The border wars between Lithuania and Czechoslovakia do not destroy relations to the point that these countries refuse to cooperate against the greater threat- Nazi Germany.
- The border war successes in Silesia and the Ukraine do not suceed. The troublesome minorities are not a part of the new Poland. The liberation of the oppressed Germanic peoples is removed from the table.

Could a defense pact between Czechoslavakia and Poland been enough to save both countries or at least change the time table?

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 55

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 7:40:57 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wulfgar

Whatever the capabilities of the early Spitfires, the 109 out-ranged them on internal fuel and out performed them with fuel injection. As for drop tanks the 109 was using them long before the Spitfire.
In your mind you are putting later marks of the Spitfire against earlier 109's.

Go ahead into that negative G dive while I'm on your 6, I'll roll invert and pull positive g's inside you and blast you out of the sky.

_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to wulfgar)

Post #: 56

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 7:51:58 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Bottom line. The so called inferior Spit I/II, along with the Hurricane I, won when it counted.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 57

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 8:09:31 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tentpeg

- The border wars between Lithuania and Czechoslovakia do not destroy relations to the point that these countries refuse to cooperate against the greater threat- Nazi Germany.

Eh... what border war? It would be a bit hard for them to have a border war as they do not share a common border.

(in reply to Tentpeg)

Post #: 58

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 9:04:16 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2903
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

Bottom line. The so called inferior Spit I/II, along with the Hurricane I, won when it counted.

Unwin, also recounted:
I had survived this mission simply because the Spitfire could sustain a continuous rate of turn inside the BF 109E without stalling - the latter was known for flicking into a vicious stall spin without prior warning if pulled too tightly. The Spitfire would give a shudder to signal it was close to the edge, so as soon as you felt the shake you eased off the stick pressure.

Which is what I have been trying to describe, the shudder before stall comes from the design of the Spitfire wing, built with 'washout', a feature which gives a greater angle to the airflow at the wing root, than at the wing tip. This means that a stall (always possible in a tight turn, even at high speed) starts at the wing root, causing the warning shudder and buffet and not at the wing tip, which causes the more vicious wing drop into a spin.

Thanks, lots of good first hand opinion from those who actually took part in the air war, although you only get reports from those pilots where things worked out and they survived. There will be many who did not get the chance to file a report.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/31/2012 9:34:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 59

RE: OT: What if? - 1/31/2012 9:22:04 PM

Tentpeg

Posts: 45
Joined: 1/6/2012
Status: offline

In the 1920's Poland not only fought a war with Russia but had very successfull skirmishes with Germany, Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. The Border wars resulted in the Poles acquiring lands from Germany, Ukraine and Lithuania and losing some to Czechoslovakia. Needless to say, the Ukraine and German minorities were rebelious and troublesome. BTW, Lithuania and Poland were still technically in a state of war when the Germans invaded. All of this ruined any chance of Poland gaining allies with its neighbors and pushed them into the arms of the French. The French were only interested in using Poland as a pawn against Germany.

It is very probable that had Poland and Czechoslavakia overcome their differences and faced Germany together... the bloodless occupation of Czechoslavakia would not have happened. A German invasion of both Poland and Czechoslovakia would have been a true gamble.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 60