Paul Vebber
Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
|
To keep it seperate from the tank thread...\
Rune Iversen -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 1:47:04 PM)
quote:
ORIGINAL: hawker
Can you please explain to me how the best fighter in WW2 was a crap?
Please explain
Just how well did it do vs. Allied fighters? Answers on a postcard please.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Vebber -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 2:30:53 PM)
I would be interested to hear by what criteria it was "best" fighter?
"Best manned anti-bomber missile" perhaps - but its doctrine specifically ruled out engageing allied fighters because of poor acceleration, and maneuverability. GOing fast in a straight line through bomber formations was its principle strength.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twotribes -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 2:41:56 PM)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber
I would be interested to hear by what criteria it was "best" fighter?
"Best manned anti-bomber missile" perhaps - but its doctrine specifically ruled out engageing allied fighters because of poor acceleration, and maneuverability. GOing fast in a straight line through bomber formations was its principle strength.
Also didnt it have a very short flight time as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
freeboy -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 3:28:35 PM)
Again we are using the word best without saying best at what? Like, My dalmattion is better than my lab chow, at what? The lab loves water and is no sissy, my dall is sweet but a little too timid. So when it comes to tanks planes etc, please say "best at" for instance I think the top ace of the war, had something like over 200 kills was flying 262 at the end of the war agains us bombers.. will need to look that up .. best all around fighter? figher bomber intercepter, escort? the list goes on! Tanks too, Bes armor, best optics, best ability under 550yds.. here the rounds per min and turret rotation are going to be big plusses for a sherman... best used in tactical doctrin by country etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IronDuke -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 3:40:19 PM)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
quote:
ORIGINAL: hawker
Can you please explain to me how the best fighter in WW2 was a crap?
Please explain
Just how well did it do vs. Allied fighters? Answers on a postcard please.....
I thought it was rather like the best Kats, resource hungry, on the edge of technology (therefore unreliable) and difficult to maintain and even fly. However, in the right hands it would take anything in the Allied inventory flown by anyone.
It's problems were the take off was tricky, the engines burned out after a handful of missions, it was a sitting duck during landing (landings that could never be protected given allied numerical superiority) and training in it usually amounted to sitting in the cockpit for 20 minutes looking at the controls before being handed your goggles.
I thought the earliest missions, though, where the Reich's best remaining pilots were converted to fly them weren't too bad. Its straight line speed should have meant it was exceptionally difficult to dogfight and shoot down since the ability to just sprint away from a pursuer in a dogfight served the Allies well in the pacific and would have done here.
The most revealing gun camera film of them is never in a dogfight, but landing in a slow deliberate descent before being peppered with cannon fire from behind. The chief British test pilot flew one after the war and rated it better than anything else he flew, and he flew or evaluated just about everything the allies put in the air.
regards,
IronDuke
To answer Freeboy's question. At those sometimes moments when everything worked, it was the best air superiority fighter of the war since it was so much quicker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speedy -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 4:09:48 PM)
Here I am finding myself post in this topic now about Planes
The 262 was a technological step forward. It was well suited at shooting down enemy bombers due to it's heavy cannon load, R4M rockets and exceptional speed making deflection shooting by defensive gunners on the bombers much harder.
The cons of this planes though are:
1.) The sheer speed of the plane meant pilots had to be either veteran flyers OR very used to flyign the 262 to be able to fly at 90% speed towards an enemy target and successfully engage it.
2.) Not overly maneuverable. The problem here is that IF caught at lower speeds (against a Mustang or Tbolt) you could forget out maneuvering these boys. A common tactic for engaging the 262 in a2a combat would be for a US fighter jock to wait for a 262 to make it's pass at bombers and then knowing the 262 would have to slow down to turn back towards the bombers engage the 262 then = slow turning circle and vulnerable at those lower speeds. Linked into this of course was the landing pattern (an even more common attack routine for US fighter pilots) whereby Ta152's and Dora's used to fly cover for the slow Swallows.
3.) Engine complexity. Very complex engines that had to be re-built on a not-infrequent basis. They allowed limited flying time and required a lot of work by engineers.
Overall my thoughts on the 262 are:
I respect the plane. It was a step in plane evolution. It could function in a bomber killing role very well. The R4M's were DEADLY. It was basically 'immune' to bomber defensive fire. It was NOT a dogfighter though so forget it against enemy fighters unless attacking an unaware enemy that you can attack from a quick pass.
All in all. A very good plane IMO but to have any BIG war impact it would need to be mass produced along with 190D's or 152H's flown by decent pilots (to tackle the fighters) to accomplish an air war 'change' IMO.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mdiehl -> RE: What is your favorite WWII tank? (2/5/2007 4:10:20 PM)
Near as I can tell the combat results produced by the ME262 were unspectacular. Less than one allied a.c. of any type shot down per ME262 destroyed in the air (to include of course those shot down landing or taking off). It seems to have been of very little value other than as a kind of dragster -- insufficient endurance to be strategically effective.
Definitely a techno marvel and introduced a vision for the future, but the Lufwaffe would have been better off producing more radial engined types of the FW-190/TA-(iirc 152) type rather than wasting production time & resources on the ME-262 (a not-ready-for-prime-time jet).
Clearly the best fighters of the war were radial engine types. A person could not go wrong picking from among the US F4U, P-47, German Fw-190/TA-152 types. I prefer the radial ones on account of their mechanical reliability and good damage-survival characteristics. If one includes hydro-cooled in-lines then one should add U.K. Spitfire types and the Merlin engined P-51 types.
< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 2/6/2007 12:23:07 AM >
|
Printable Version
What is your favorite WWII plane? - 
" 
Though the pilots prone position in the nose doesn't seem to be a ery smart choice gien that emplyment concept...
Chump. mdealio 0wns you.
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