RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

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: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

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: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 6:31:34 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Even with adjustment they are 4-500% overclaims, compared to 1-200% overclaims of fighter pilots.

Wow. ONLY 200% overclaims. Now that is good data! Even with 400% overclaims, the bombers may well have killed more fighters than the Mustang did.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 91

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 6:36:37 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The bombers did shoot down quite a few Luftwaffe fighters, but they weren't winning the air war. That occurred when the long ranged escorts (P-51's primarily) started escorting the bombers all the way and back in the Spring of 1944. The combination of heavily armed bombers and long ranged escorts proved too much for the Luftwaffe to keep up with. While 1944 was the peak year of German Fighter Production, it was the Eight Air Force that was roaming German Skies at will by the Summer of the year.

While I agree with the statement that both fighters and bombers mattered when we began long range escort, it is a misnomer - KNOWN AT THE TIME - that it didn't win the war. The statistical analysis indicated that the total cost of repairing the damage inflicted was a small (SMALL) fraction of the cost of inflicting it (never more than a third, often less, particularly early on). Hopes (and these were strongly held by bomber generals) that the enemy would surrender due to the air campaign never had any chance of realization, and eventually Churchill had to put his foot down and insist the invasion not be postponed in favor of such concepts. In spite of this, the American bomber politics - which had to justify daylight bombing raids - was so strongly advocated its propaganda STILL makes converts (although not very many among the bomber crews themselves).

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 92

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 6:54:21 PM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

The bombers did shoot down quite a few Luftwaffe fighters, but they weren't winning the air war. That occurred when the long ranged escorts (P-51's primarily) started escorting the bombers all the way and back in the Spring of 1944. The combination of heavily armed bombers and long ranged escorts proved too much for the Luftwaffe to keep up with. While 1944 was the peak year of German Fighter Production, it was the Eight Air Force that was roaming German Skies at will by the Summer of the year.

While I agree with the statement that both fighters and bombers mattered when we began long range escort, it is a misnomer - KNOWN AT THE TIME - that it didn't win the war. The statistical analysis indicated that the total cost of repairing the damage inflicted was a small (SMALL) fraction of the cost of inflicting it (never more than a third, often less, particularly early on). Hopes (and these were strongly held by bomber generals) that the enemy would surrender due to the air campaign never had any chance of realization, and eventually Churchill had to put his foot down and insist the invasion not be postponed in favor of such concepts. In spite of this, the American bomber politics - which had to justify daylight bombing raids - was so strongly advocated its propaganda STILL makes converts (although not very many among the bomber crews themselves).

CID. Please READ the post before you respond!! My statement was "weren't winning the air war. ". That's AIR WAR..., not war. All I would ever claim for "strategic bombing" was that by the time Germany actually got around to actually trying to fully mobilize it's economy for war, strategic bombing began to force dispersion (the enemy of rationalization) of those industries and prevented the Krauts from ever achieving all that they were theoretically capable of.

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 93

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 7:17:20 PM

joliverlay

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline

1. Prior to introduction of fighter escorts the allied forces were losing the daylight air war. As penetrations got deeper into Germany the losses were not sustainiable.

2. After the very costly raids on the ball bearing plants the 8AAF changed tactics admitting that unescored raids were not going to be successful. Prior to that they USAAF doctrone stressed the bombers could operate without escort. They learned this was not true the hard way.

3. The Mustang was NOT designed for air to air it was designed for ground support. It was found to be a wonderful air to air fighter by good fortuneor accident. It was not due to a delibreate design.

4. FW190s were NOT better than 109s at high altitude. In his book "The First and the Last" Adolph Galland even discusses the use of heavy and light groups. While often this was a reference to the gun armement of the fighers, it was Galland's intention to use lightly armed Me 109s against Allied fighters and heaviliy armed 190s against the bombers. The 190s (before the D model) were not good at high altitude compared to the 109s. The problem was Hitler forbade the head of german figher forces (Galland) from assigning units specifically to combat the escorts. The bombers were given top priority, and the formation of 109 escort killing units was forbidden. Thus they armed the 109s with heavy cannon.
Many german aces continued to fly 109s throught the war (or until they could get into the jets with JV44).

5. The 109 series remained competative with Allied fighters in the varients NOT armed for attacking bombers. The G5/G6 marks designed without heavy cannon and late war G10s and K series were very close in performance to aircraft produced in their timeframe. Thus the G5/G6 high altitiude versions of the 109 series used to attack allied recon aircraft were very good, but were only produced in limited numbers and not at all suited for attacking bombers. While the later allied planes were better, the Spitfire, Hurricane, and Me109 need to be given alot of credit for flying competatively (Spitfire and Me109) over the entire war.

6. Regarding the notion that the Red Army broke the back of the Luftwaffe. If you look at the disposition of fighter gruppen you will see that the figher arm was crippled by the daylight combat in the west. Most of the fighter gruppen wereeturned to Germany, Italy, etc. during the bomber offensive. Very few fighter gruppen remained on the russian front. They were not needed. Of course it is correct that most of the Army units and Luft. ground support units remined on the Russian front.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 94

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 7:58:50 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

You know, it's very hard to find any data online on this subject. I found all kinds of data about USAAF losses - but very very little about Luftwaffe losses.

< Message edited by Demosthenes -- 2/26/2006 7:59:12 PM >

(in reply to joliverlay)

Post #: 95

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 8:09:47 PM

pauk

Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

The thing is, to keep the morale up, the 8th airforce (and possibly the bomber command) didn't require any proof for any gunners claims. If he claimed that he had shot down 8 Fw190's then it counted as 8 Fw190 kills. Usually the same fighter downed was claimed by several gunners from different planes, and quite often the fighter was just damaged or even totally undamaged.

Fighter pilots atleast had to have someone to witness the kills or have wrecks on the ground if it took place over friendly territory.

EDITED:

Added a helpful link for you. *Click here*

I have same data as String, but than again, i'm coming from ex-Yugoslavia....

BTW, my data coming from western authors, like Peter Hinchliffe (The Other Battle), who flew with Bomber Command....

_____________________________

(in reply to String)

Post #: 96

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 8:28:57 PM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

In spite of this, the American bomber politics - which had to justify daylight bombing raids - was so strongly advocated its propaganda STILL makes converts (although not very many among the bomber crews themselves).

That's why you have to take the data in the US Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) with a grain of salt. One of the primary purposes of the document was to justify the creation of a seperate military service, the USAF. There are so many instances in it where the research is either incomplete or simply missing altogether. It was a rush job pure and simple and presents several wrong conclusions such as the impact the USAAF had on the Japanese land transportation system. IRL it was minimal but the USAAF claimed that it had virtually destroyed the entire rail system with only a passing mention of Navy strafing attacks that had far more impact on it. Not that strafing counted for much either. The Japanese land transportation system was totally inadequate and woefully inefficient even before Doolittle's raid and was in a near state of collapse by mid-44.

I would agree that the B-17 probably did score more air-air kills on the western front than any other allied aircraft. On the eastern front it was probably a Yak or Mig fighter that held the record. My guess (and its only a guess) is that Germany probably lost more aircraft in combat on the eastern front than on the western.

Chez

edit: inserted the word allied in last paragraph.

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 2/26/2006 9:24:37 PM >

_____________________________

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 el cid again)

Post #: 97

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 9:01:51 PM

Hoplosternum

Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline

I am very sceptical that the B-17 shot down the most planes in the ETO. Germany never really hurled the number of badly trained forces at the enemy that the Japanese did. They fought off 8AAF in '43 and then lost to it in '44 when they came back escorted. I don't doubt that the bombers shot down their fair share but we are only talking hundreds a month for a few months before the Luftwaffe were all but knocked from the skies. The Luftwaffe were beaten by about May '44.

On top of that the bomber kills would have to be split between B-17s and B-24s. The fighters between Lightnings, P-47s and Mustangs. I doubt any one of these types gets the prize for most kills in the ETO. While they were instrumental in wiping out the luftwafe as an effective force the Luftwafe itself had never really grown to the sort of size that physically provided the numbers for such a short (few month) campaign to do that.

Just consider the numbers of planes likely to have been shot down by the Bf 109 over Poland, France, in the Battle of Britain, two years in North Africa, Yougoslavia, Greece, Russia in '41, '42 and '43. All before the B-17s bombing and the rest of the US onslaught had really geared up. That happened in the early months of '44. It was brutal and effective. But far too short for any 'most ETO' kill records.

As for figures in support of the Bf 109 I don't have any to hand. But until late '43 the Bf 109 was still being built in larger numbers than the Fw190 so it WAS the Bf 109 that was likely doing most of the work. From Williamson Murray (new fighter production):

Month Bf 109 Fw 190
June 43 663 109
July 43 704 169
Aug 43 515 159
Sep 43 525 167
Oct 43 556 127
Nov 43 472 114
Dec 43 350 313

The operationally ready fighter force during the second half of '43 was about 1100. Not a significant increase on it's Battle of Britain or Barbarossa levels. Even losing about half of that a month for a few months (and it never got much worse than that) there are just not enough kills to go around. By mid '44 numbers of ready fighters were down to about 500. There just are not enough. Split 5 ways

to let the B-17 (or any other US type) get that prize IMHO.

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 98

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/26/2006 9:44:45 PM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Well the Fritz didn't put up a good show ober Poland in 1939 shooting down about 70 planes of all types in air to air combat and the Polish P.11C shoot down 147 german planes

not a bad result for a outnumbered and obsolete air force... As for Western Front Bombing Campaign the Germans lost the fight when most of Allied fighters were transfered from Close Escort to Search and Destroy Missions...

And BTW i read a book about a special German strike unit wich was designed as some kind of Kamikaze they were supposed to Ram allied Bombers... and from what i know they flew one mission of this type... Any way as for Eeastern Front Germans didn't have to keep lots of Fighters there as Russian flyers were more green then the Japs... compare the number of Victories of Sakai or some US ace to the German aces that fought on the East and they are about 50 or 60% bigger then those of Sakai and US pilots...

< Message edited by Przemcio231 -- 2/26/2006 9:52:16 PM >

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to Hoplosternum)

Post #: 99

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 2:00:24 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

We also inflate the significance of our aid to the USSR: it amounted to about 10% of what they produced and it was virtually never first line material from their point of view (that is, an elite unit given its choice would rarely pick US material, as in fighter planes).

?? Are you sure of what you say El Cid?

Im not especially a western ally fanboy, and Im with those who recognize the importance of the eastern front - but I do not agree on lowering the importance of the Lend-Lease in the Russian fashion (nor anyway exagerrating it the US fashion neither). You have not to forget to remember splitting the LL help in two categories: combattant and logistics/ressources.
When it comes to combattant, it is true that a large part of the help was considered as not that useful (especially early british tanks, or Hurricanes) even if some of them were eventually put in service with changes (refit for the Hurry, new engine for the Warhawk, etc..) or in special use the Russian aircraft didn't use to have at this moment (ground straffing for LL P-47, high-altitude interception for the middle-mark Spitfires for instance). BUT it is also known that some other materials, the Shermans for instance, were "best-sellers", especially to Guard units.
Ok, at first sight, a sherman 76 may look like a toy, when compared to the punishment a T34/85 may take and give, and when it comes to pure performances, on the paper the T34 was with no doubt a better all-around machine. But we musn't forget neither everything the T34 lacked, especially when it comes to crew facilities. The fact is that nevertheless, Guards units had LL material for several reasons: radios for every crew (something definitely lacking in the normal tank units), somewhat cosy interior for a tank (even if sometimes the leather was taken off at the arrival...), better optics than the russian ones, rubber everywhere in the tracks, well it may not prove serious matter for us when we look at the technical data, but for the people fighting inside, it did.

Ok, it had its big flaws, and burnt easily, but I have to be fair on this point even if Im also a T34 fan, many Guards liked it because it was a crew-friendly tank, unlike its Russian counterparts...

Just found it after some minutes of search :)
Take a look at this testimony for instance, from a former Gvardia Tankman
http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

LL planes were in the same fashion sent to Guards Air Regiments for the main same reasons: mainly radios and good confort in fighting condition rather than pure performance, where planes like the later Lavokhin or Yak had the point. But the experience of Pokryshkin shows it, having a radio simply changes the way you're shooting down people, and enable long-term team tactics, something non-radio planes didn't allow (usually, until late in the war, russian geared regiments had only a radio for the squadron leader...).

At last, because Ive got 1 minute left

, about the ressources, we shouldn't forget the allied help when it comes to trucks or jeeps was especially important in the logistic effort of the red army, and the Soviets literally equipped new (not to say the real first) motorized infantry units with these new machines. It is mainly the result of poor industrial planification maybe, but that was a capital step forward for many units.
And not to mention very important help in the form of air-refined gasoline of good octane, thousands of kilometers of rail, dozen of locomotives (1945 war railway system of USSR was significally constituted of US made materials), tons of meat and combat rations, things USSR couldn't or didn't have the time to built or produce. Economically speaking, anyone working of the LL will admit this help proved to be fundamental to Soviet war effort - it is admitted Russians may have won at the same speed without Shermans or Cobras, but certainly not without these resources.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 100

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 3:27:37 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

[At last, because Ive got 1 minute left , about the ressources, we shouldn't forget the allied help when it comes to trucks or jeeps was especially important in the logistic effort of the red army, and the Soviets literally equipped new (not to say the real first) motorized infantry units with these new machines. It is mainly the result of poor industrial planification maybe, but that was a capital step forward for many units.
And not to mention very important help in the form of air-refined gasoline of good octane, thousands of kilometers of rail, dozen of locomotives (1945 war railway system of USSR was significally constituted of US made materials), tons of meat and combat rations, things USSR couldn't or didn't have the time to built or produce. Economically speaking, anyone working of the LL will admit this help proved to be fundamental to Soviet war effort - it is admitted Russians may have won at the same speed without Shermans or Cobras, but certainly not without these resources.

AJ

Half a million motor vehicles made a big difference in the Red Army's speed of advance during the later half of the war, but don't forget the "key" weapon the US provided the Soviets. It amounted to one can of SPAM per day per soldier during 1944-45...the kind of ration boost that made the long advances possible.
Sometimes it's the little things that mean the most.

_____________________________

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 101

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 10:49:22 AM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

but don't forget the "key" weapon the US provided the Soviets. It amounted to one can of SPAM per day per soldier during 1944-45...the kind of ration boost that made the long advances possible.

I didn't mean to forget it, boss ;)

quote:

tons of meat and combat rations

Knowing USSR was a country that may sometimes have problems in certain food categories to feed all its population, even during peace time, and knowing that at that time the largest part of the best grounds were occupied or looted, there is no doubt the Allies', mainly the US and other American allies in this case, food help did indeed help much - there is no shame in asking what you can't produce anymore, Im glad it worked this way.

This is the kind of symbols I like with the Russian lend-lease, along with the Northern convoies sacrifices, or the different Air Forces cooperations for instance - a true example of what allies can do when they make the effort of overcoming together all their contradictions to join their forces against their enemy, in a fashion like we didn't see many in history. Too bad it had to end this way...

AJ

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 102

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 11:07:01 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

I read a book about a special German strike unit wich was designed as some kind of Kamikaze they were supposed to Ram allied Bombers... and from what i know they flew one mission of this type...

Well, duh!

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 103

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 11:16:28 AM

String

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).

UGHHH.. I just can't RESIST answering this, even though I promised not to post any more. Your only excuse is that I didn't post my birth date, which is 1984.

The rest is just ignorance on your part.

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 104

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 1:44:00 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

LL was also important in that the USSR could concentrate its building efforts on the Frontline, many of the Aircraft/Tanks & other weapons could be allocated to less vital areas and allow the concentration of superior weapons where required.

They also found effective use of the P-39!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to String)

Post #: 105

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 2:11:40 PM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

They also found effective use of the P-39!

That's just a pity to see how russian pilots of the Airacobra regiments managed to get that much successful with the simple addition of a radio - I mean, had the General Staff felt the need to fit every combat plane with a radio and make a good use of it, the VVS wouldn't have accumulated such a lag in combat tactics during the first years of the war...

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 106

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 2:52:12 PM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Yeach from what i read the Pilots should targert the Tail of a Bomber and hit it with a wing and then bail out

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

Post #: 107

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 3:33:54 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

quote:

Yeach from what i read the Pilots should targert the Tail of a Bomber and hit it with a wing and then bail out

You will love the "Natter"

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/bachemba.htm

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 108

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 3:50:24 PM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Know that machine

any way Willie more WitP turns and less typing

im comming for Truk

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to wild_Willie2)

Post #: 109

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 4:03:53 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

quote:

Know that machine any way Willie more WitP turns and less typing im comming for Truk

Sure

, first send me a TURN....

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 110

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 5:15:24 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).

UGHHH.. I just can't RESIST answering this, even though I promised not to post any more. Your only excuse is that I didn't post my birth date, which is 1984.

The rest is just ignorance on your part.

Well, I don't know what to say about that - I was only pointing out the fact that both the former Soviet dominated part of Europe where you live, and the Western part of Europe and the US where I live - downplay the contributions of each other.

If you choose to get indignant about a fact which is not an insult, I'll put that down to your tender young years.

Have a nice day

(in reply to String)

Post #: 111

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 5:53:57 PM

String

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).

UGHHH.. I just can't RESIST answering this, even though I promised not to post any more. Your only excuse is that I didn't post my birth date, which is 1984.

The rest is just ignorance on your part.

Well, I don't know what to say about that - I was only pointing out the fact that both the former Soviet dominated part of Europe where you live, and the Western part of Europe and the US where I live - downplay the contributions of each other.

If you choose to get indignant about a fact which is not an insult, I'll put that down to your tender young years.

Have a nice day

There is a very good reason why I posted my birth date. A simple calculation will show you that I started my education at 1990. Right at the fall of USSR. It's somewhat hard to have soviet influences on my education isn't it?

It may come as news to you, but we didn't particularly like our soviet oppressors from the east, so nothing of the old soviet educational doctrine remained when we regained independence. I'd say some people went even too far, downplaying the soviets too much and demonizing them too much.

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 112

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 6:14:09 PM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Well String got a point here... the Communist educational system wasen't perfect but it was far more complex then the one you have in US especialy in High School... well i kind of know what im saying... i was borned in 1982... and i have a 2 year old older Cousin born in US living in California. and when he was 18 and i was 16 ouer parents made a small test from Math... and to be honest this guy coulden't do a simple exercise from my book...

As for history i saw books from witch people learned history in the middle 80's and appart from some crap about Lenin , Marks&Engels this book was good... and in the Part about WWII the only things missing were USSR invading Poland , Katyn and a twisted view point on polish Home Army. And there was definetly nothing about USSR winning the war Alone... So for all people thinking like Demosthenes please do not speak about something that you do not have any knowlage of other then your own opinions made from something you heard...

< Message edited by Przemcio231 -- 2/27/2006 6:15:31 PM >

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to String)

Post #: 113

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 6:22:58 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

You guys should all go to the IL2-Forgotten Battles forum. I highly recommend it. There you will find that all of these topics have been debated to death and back by the various people there. There is a high level of knowledge about WWII aircraft there. I have learned more in the past four years of reading posts there about WWII aircraft than I ever thought I could.

However, you will not find an conclusive answers to your arguments. What you will find is that there is virtually no agreement on which WWII fighter is the best. Fanboys are fanboys and they all have good evidence to support their claims for any number of excellent fighters.

After reading posts there for almost four years, this is what I can give back as an observation. There truly were a number of excellent fighter aircraft to come out of the war. Discounting jets, arguments can be make for the excellent mustang, P47, lightning, late 109s, late spits, Yak3, La7, 190-D, Japanese Frank- it just goes on and on and there is a mountain of data to support each and every plane. The truth is that WWII fighters were highly sophisticated planes and each was designed and suited for specific roles. Some were better at high altitude, some medium and some low- and would own another "excellent" aircraft that was out of its specific perfomance envelope.

However, when deciding which plane is the best, there is a problem at the IL2 forum in that the guys there are obsessed with performance data. For the majority of them the data that might give one uber plane a slight advantage over the other is the final deciding factor. To me it is a little picture vs big picture sort of thing.

So here I go, I am going to look at the big picture and put my self out on a limb. My absolute favorite fighter was the La7 with the three 20 mm guns in the nose. What a cool deadly plane, with excellent performance at certain altitudes. Was it the best plane of the war? No, not if you examine the big picture.

WWII proved that projecting air power was a crucial for sucess. The advantage lay with the airforce that could go deepest into enemy space (and have some chance of getting home). The luftwaffe really could not do this, The Red Airforce could not do this to any great extent, The Japanese could not and the British only at night. In spite of intial setbacks, the Americans could do it. The mustang was a good aircraft that could above anything else fly far-very far-all the way to Berlin far. In the end performance and firepower and maneuverabilty were all secondary to flying far. This is why the mustang was the "best" fighter of the war. It was a excellent plane that could range far into enemy airspace and fight some excellent fighters there that really could not go as far. In the end that was the difference.

Of course, it helps if you can make a hell of a lot of them.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Demosthenes)

Post #: 114

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 6:29:48 PM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
The mustang was a good aircraft that could above anything else fly far-very far-all the way to Berlin far. In the end performance and firepower and maneuverabilty were all secondary to flying far. This is why the mustang was the "best" fighter of the war. It was a excellent plane that could range far into enemy airspace and fight some excellent fighters there that really could not go as far. In the end that was the difference

Well point well taken the mustang had a relly impresive Range... and i would agree that it was the best Allied plane of the War... but nothing beats Me-262 Schwable

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 115

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 7:13:46 PM

TSCofield

Posts: 223
Joined: 5/12/2001
From: Ft. Lewis Washington
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

3. The Mustang was NOT designed for air to air it was designed for ground support. It was found to be a wonderful air to air fighter by good fortuneor accident. It was not due to a delibreate design.

6. Regarding the notion that the Red Army broke the back of the Luftwaffe. If you look at the disposition of fighter gruppen you will see that the figher arm was crippled by the daylight combat in the west. Most of the fighter gruppen wereeturned to Germany, Italy, etc. during the bomber offensive. Very few fighter gruppen remained on the russian front. They were not needed. Of course it is correct that most of the Army units and Luft. ground support units remined on the Russian front.

I only disagree with two of your assertions.

The P-51 was initially designed as a fighter. It is true that the A-36 was designed at the same time but the development of both aircraft types happened at the same time. The happy accident occured when the British stuck a Merlin into a P-51A frame and turned a fair low to mid altitude fighter into a fantastic long range interceptor. The A-36 was something of a bust, like most inline engined attack aircraft.

The Red Air Force did break the back of the Luftwaffe. The air offensive over Germany finished off the Fighter force but the heart of the Luftwaffe, its ground attack and close air support units were destroyed on the Eastern front. Its transportation capability was crippled at Stalingrad-it lost not only the cream of their transport pilots but most of the instructors as well. Most KG losses were over the Eastern Front. This inability to interdict Russian troop buildups and movements is what killed the German Army in the East. At the beginning of the war they were able to fly and destroy targets at will, crippling the Soviet's ability to fight and strike back. By 1943 the Germans were unable to pinpoint attack Soviet strong points without a fight. By 1944 they had lost control of the air. It is true the USAAF more than likely put the dagger into the heart of the luftwaffe but it was the Soviets that made damned sure the direct support capabilities of the Luftwaffe were destroyed.

_____________________________

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

(in reply to joliverlay)

Post #: 116

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 7:23:40 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

The two factors were intimately inter-twined.

The Luftwaffe lost the ability gain/maintain air superiority over the Russian battlefield (starting with the Kursk battle) in large part because a the majority of the JG were in Germany defending her airspace against the incursions by the USAAF/BC. The lack of fighters also ensured the eventual destruction of the KG's in Russia. The demands of the Eastern Front also ensured that Wermacht troops in other theaters would not have the ground support they needed.

_____________________________

(in reply to TSCofield)

Post #: 117

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 7:26:13 PM

Demosthenes

Posts: 525
Joined: 12/8/2005
From: Los Angeles CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231
So for all people thinking like Demosthenes please do not speak about something that you do not have any knowlage of other then your own opinions made from something you heard...

Do all of you guys from Eastern Europe specialize in being rude?

Oh, ...what s the use.

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 118

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 7:30:09 PM

TSCofield

Posts: 223
Joined: 5/12/2001
From: Ft. Lewis Washington
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
The mustang was a good aircraft that could above anything else fly far-very far-all the way to Berlin far. In the end performance and firepower and maneuverabilty were all secondary to flying far. This is why the mustang was the "best" fighter of the war. It was a excellent plane that could range far into enemy airspace and fight some excellent fighters there that really could not go as far. In the end that was the difference

Well point well taken the mustang had a relly impresive Range... and i would agree that it was the best Allied plane of the War... but nothing beats Me-262 Schwable

The 262 was revolutionary although there were some serious problems with it. When we fly the aircraft in IL2 or EAW we really don't see some of the problems that the aircraft was plagued with.

1. It was fast, but had a relatively poor thrust to weight ratio. This meant the plane had to be flown fast to be safe from the bounce. All of us know that the allied tactic of bouncing the aircraft on takeoffs and landings was the preferred tactic. It wasn't very maneuverable so being low and slow was absolutely deadly for the pilot, even more so than any piston engined plane.

2. The aircraft was notoriously unreliable in its early stages. The metallurgy in Germany was among the best in the world but it was still primitive and the early engines of the aircraft were prone to flamout or plain disintegration. Many pilots were killed because the aircraft simply had too many bugs. I am sure being made by slave labor didn't help matters any, if I was building those aircraft I wouldn't put too much pride into my work either. In addition the engines were simply not capable of sustaining a rapid change in throttle input. Slamming the throttle forward (a natural reaction when being shot at) would result in engine detonation or flameout. Pilots had to be real careful about flying the Swalbe.

3. It had poor takeoff and landing characteristics. Landing speeds were much higher than normal aircraft and it required a fairly long runway for takeoffs and landings. Approach length was much longer than regular aircraft. I am not totally sure about the ability of the aircraft to use unimproved runways but most German aircraft were not all that good at using field strips (unlike russian birds). It took a LOOOONNNNNGGG time to slow down and it was very vulnerable during these times.

4. It wasn't the most durable aircraft. Like all early jets it was easily combustable. Early jets were poor utilizers of fuel and as such they were flying gas cans. Flying into a formation of 100 plus B-17s wasn't always a sure thing for the 262. Sure it could take one or two out but one good fifty cal could turn it into a flaming torch. Pilots didn't fare too well when they went up. It wasn't the infamous Me 163 but it was a dangerous aircraft.

This isn't a slam on the 262, it was a revolutionary aircraft and one of the top five aircraft made during WW2. It introduced a load of features that affected aircraft development for the next 50 years. Unlike the P-51, which was an evolution in aircraft design, the Me 262 was a revolution. Like all first generation aircraft it had its problems but that shouldn't take away from its significance. To me though, the significance of the aircraft was after the war, not during it.

_____________________________

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 119

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? - 2/27/2006 7:46:04 PM

TSCofield

Posts: 223
Joined: 5/12/2001
From: Ft. Lewis Washington
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The two factors were intimately inter-twined.

The Luftwaffe lost the ability gain/maintain air superiority over the Russian battlefield (starting with the Kursk battle) in large part because a the majority of the JG were in Germany defending her airspace against the incursions by the USAAF/BC. The lack of fighters also ensured the eventual destruction of the KG's in Russia. The demands of the Eastern Front also ensured that Wermacht troops in other theaters would not have the ground support they needed.

A large percentage of the German ground attack units were rendered essentially combat ineffective in late 1942. The long distances and poor airfields in Russia tore up the Stukas and Heinkels to the point where less than 30% of the aircraft that started Barbarossa were capable of flying by mid 1942. One major point that hasn't been made was that the Germans didn't really put themselves on a true war footing until late in 1942. Germany tried the guns and butter approach, trying to present normalcy at home while figthing the war abroad. Replacement aircraft (look at German productions before 1943, they were terrible) took forever to reach the front. Stalingrad and Crete took out the German Air Transport Corps (it never recovered). You are partially correct, the Allied bombing offensive forced Germany to build fighters instead of dedicated ground attack aircraft and the numbers created went for air defense.

_____________________________

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?