PDA

View Full Version : why do ye whine



XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:38 AM
As a long time player of flight sims, its clear to me that this is by far the best one ever made. I have played them all, from dogfight on the Atari 2800 to top gun on the c64 and the forgetable cfs series, and it is fair to say that il2/fb pi$$es all over them.
and yet a large majority of these posts seem to be people whinging about how american planes dont perform as they would like them to. Fact is with the exception of the p51(built to a european spec), by and large most american fighters of the ww11 era were out performed by their european and russian counterparts.
maybe not out gunned, but in terms of their turn climb performance, forget it.
Yes America did have a big part to play in WW11, but it was one of quantity rather than quality.
People whinge about how the "jug" should have better firepower, yet half of them dont know that you have press your wep no2 to get all 8 .50's firing.
People claim that the p40 dont handle like it should, by 1941 the p40 was over the hill, it was underpowered from its conception, maybe it did ok in china but in the eto once again forget it.
Face up to it yanks,
your planes were not that good.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:38 AM
As a long time player of flight sims, its clear to me that this is by far the best one ever made. I have played them all, from dogfight on the Atari 2800 to top gun on the c64 and the forgetable cfs series, and it is fair to say that il2/fb pi$$es all over them.
and yet a large majority of these posts seem to be people whinging about how american planes dont perform as they would like them to. Fact is with the exception of the p51(built to a european spec), by and large most american fighters of the ww11 era were out performed by their european and russian counterparts.
maybe not out gunned, but in terms of their turn climb performance, forget it.
Yes America did have a big part to play in WW11, but it was one of quantity rather than quality.
People whinge about how the "jug" should have better firepower, yet half of them dont know that you have press your wep no2 to get all 8 .50's firing.
People claim that the p40 dont handle like it should, by 1941 the p40 was over the hill, it was underpowered from its conception, maybe it did ok in china but in the eto once again forget it.
Face up to it yanks,
your planes were not that good.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:42 AM
<center>http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/munching_out.gif


U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:44 AM
I totally agree with you!!

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:47 AM
with who?

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:57 AM
USA planes had the highest quality in the world, as seen from the combat pilot's seat and lowly mechanic's bench. The numbers helped alot though.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 06:58 AM
With both of you! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

¿€¯ *, ¿€¯ *, ¿€¯ ¿¤ (´ ¿¤).

¿€¯ *, ¿€¯ *, µ³ ¿* €ç€ *.

(You will need the Korean character set to view this sig.)

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:00 AM
Lock the post,ban the troll......

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:13 AM
yeah thats right necro, try to get it locked. God forbid your precious jug should be bought into question. Sure, volume wise it was the highest production of all American fighters. does this mean it was the best? OK Gabby shot down 26 Germans in it, but at what stage? 18yr old kids with 10 hours in trainers. Im not saying that American aircraft were rubbish, they were advanced machines with turbo supercharges etc, but the strict adherance to .50 cal guns and trading nimbelness for armour(a noble policy from a pilots point of view) ment that in WW11, America did not produce the best fighting aircraft, as a lot of posters here seem to think they did. American arrogance?

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:19 AM
stuffypilkerton well it seems you fancy yourself a aircraft expert so lets hear your humble opinion so that us arrogent americans can learn our lessons.just the facts please ..thanks

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:23 AM
Bf-109: over 35,000 produced
Yak-1: Over 30,000 produced
Spitfire: 20,351 produced
Fw-190: 20,001 produced
P-51: 15,686 produced
P-47: 15,683 produced
P-38: 9,923 produced

I'd say that a lot of those numbers beat the three US fighters at the bottom, wouldn't you say? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:26 AM
-- America did not produce the best fighting aircraft,

Fighting as in dogfighting or war winning? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

The advantage of P~51 was long range and it was exploited ruthlessly against the Germans.

WARNING:: We won't see the P~51 range used in the FB dogfight maps, unless they want to use Finland map for onwhine dogfights. When the range advantage doesn't show up online on the first day of releace, the P~51 whining will start (on the first day of releace). That and you know the ace P~51 simmers will fight Fw-190s and (short range) Yak~3s at low level to get socially acceptable terrain screen shots and whine about their lacking high altitude advantage FM. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:32 AM
stuffypilkerton wrote:
- yeah thats right necro, try to get it locked. God
- forbid your precious jug should be bought into
- question. Sure, volume wise it was the highest
- production of all American fighters. does this mean
- it was the best? OK Gabby shot down 26 Germans in
- it, but at what stage? 18yr old kids with 10 hours
- in trainers. Im not saying that American aircraft
- were rubbish, they were advanced machines with turbo
- supercharges etc, but the strict adherance to .50
- cal guns and trading nimbelness for armour(a noble
- policy from a pilots point of view) ment that in
- WW11, America did not produce the best fighting
- aircraft, as a lot of posters here seem to think
- they did. American arrogance?
-
-


I'm arrogant??? I'm waking up the wife and tell her about my promotion, yesterday I was just ignorant.hmmmmm Will I get retro pay with that?

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:37 AM
stuffypilkerton wrote:

"....in WW11, ..."

World War Eleven? Man I must have been sleeping for awhile! Last I remebered we had had only 2 World Wars.




<center>Beebop-ProudBirds-VFW<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/230903-Beebop%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:38 AM
Ohh tenmike stats can be used to prove anything, 70% of people know that. What facts would you like? would you like me to start going on about roll rates or climb figures? Having never flown a WW11 aircraft I cant comment on this, but from the many books written by people who did fly them (many of them by Americans, Gabreski, Bong, Johnson, MacDonnald, Meyer) all say that they were all happy with the "Sturdyness" of their mounts, and how they knew they could "take a licking and keep on ticking" not once did In hear an account of an American knowing that he could easily out turn this 109, or how he was going to outclimb this 190,
It seems to me that the brave American pilots of WW11 knew the limitations of their aircraft, and exploited this to their best advantage (as any sage combat pilot would)
What irks me (and caused me to write this thread) is that people expect American aircraft to be the best in the game, which as I stated earlier, just was not the case.
hopefully the p51d will give the American fly boys a chance to compete on an even footing.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:43 AM
yes I would agree Korolov but I said the Jug was the most produced of ww!! AMERICAN fighters, maybe the p51 beat it by two in total production, but the p51 was produced long after WW11, hey it was even used as a ground attack aircraft in Korea

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:55 AM
Actually there were 3 more P-51s built than P-47s. And those are all WW2 figures, they don't go beyond 1946.

Like the other guys said though, they weren't for dueling - they had a purpose, and it wasn't to TnB at 100m with opposing fighters one on one. In this respect, the european fighters failed. It'd be like trying to get a Spitfire to fly from Greenland, over Germany and the USSR to attack Japan and come back. It wasn't built for that. The Spitfire was made as a short range multipurpose fighter AFAIK, and it filled this role very well.

Take, for example, the P-51 - it was designed for long range escort flights. It did that job very well. It had good firepower and capabilities; it didn't need to climb to 9000m in 5 minutes, because it was already up there when the combat began.

So in essence, I agree with you. But my point is, there were many, many, MANY cases where the odds were against USAAF pilots and they came out victorious. Perhaps the pilots were better - who knows; fact is, they survived and won the fight with planes that you say would not be capable when outnumbered or at a disadvantage.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 07:59 AM
stuffypilkerton.....well i recieved a decent ansere ~s~ and somewhat intelligent , mind you im very much a german aircraft and equipment guy, (all my books are about german "stuff") but i now asume you wrote that you thought that us all americans think our planes were the best at all things which is not what most of us think we just think they were pretty good at most things if you were here for any length of thime you would see that even the most ardount p-51 guys think they will have a hard time at low/ med altitude our planes did a excellent job at there designed purpose there can be no question...if you think this is arrogance than so be it what sir do you call your prejeduce?..i thank you for a civil discussion

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 08:16 AM
Stuffy,

You need to get your facts straight. Right now your blowing hot air.


btw..Your pretty good at starting whiny threads yourself. Nice start on the forum.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:22 AM
First of all, you lack knowledge of Gabreski's combat career.

He started flying combat in the fall of 1943. When it ended, on July 20th 1944, he had 28 kills to his credit. During this time, the Luftwaffe was hardly made up of school age kids with 10 hours flying time.

Initially, U.S. fighter pilots were only required to complete 200 combat hours, roughly 50 missions. Not bad given that short period of time when compared to the hours the Luftwaffe pilots put in (fly until wounded or killed).

Allied pilots broke the back of the Luftwaffe at that time. Both the Mustang and the Thunderbolt were very good aircraft. So when you say that these aircraft and their pilots were not good, you are dismissing their contributions.

What non-American aircraft would you propose could fly from the UK to Berlin (and further), fight, strafe targets of opportunity, escort heavy bombers, and return to the UK safely?

I personally have not seen any posts here saying that US aircraft were superior or the best. We have seen many requests and comments wishing for the P-47 "bugs" to be worked out, ie., the roll rate, dive speed, etc. And, if the P-47 had the paddle blades, it could climb well.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:23 AM
Well Tenmike and Korolov, thank you for your answers, though I still think the jug was the highest produced American fighter of ww11, but I was not there and dident count so I could be wrong. but I still reckon if given the chance to fly any fighter of the period, I dont think I would pick an American on, well maybe the P51, which incidently was originaly concieved as a dive bomber, not, as often is written, designed and built in 4 months, seemingly it had been a design on the drawing boards for a number of years, before being adopted as a long range escort.
Once again boys its was not my intent to rag American Aircraft, but just to state that they were not the superplanes that many seem to want them to be.
Hey Im from Ireland, if it was not for the Americans Id be speaking German and working in some sort of Camp im sure,
so thanks to the 8th, even if your planes werent that great.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:24 AM
Comon' Buzz... didn't you that American planes suck. I mean, just because they were really fast, tough, had excellent firepower and long range doesn't make them any good. The German's and Brits new how to make long range escort fighters like the Spitfire and the 109. Get it straight dude.



:}

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:31 AM
your right jg 300 gabby did have 28 kills, however 2 of these were in spits with the RAF, which Im sure you will agree leaves 26 kills in p47s, as stated. I also did not say that American planes were poor, rather as out and out dogfighters they lacked the turn and climb capabilites of other planes in the conflict.

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 08:32 AM
Guess he never heard of the Hellcat either. It sure shot up a bunch of those great turning jap planes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:35 AM
well what altitude are you talking about ? planes opyimised for lower altitude in general prformed bad at heigher altitudes and vise versa...you still havent picked your stud

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:36 AM
Buzz If I need to get my facts straight, why dont you correct me, rather than saying Im blowing 'hot air" (could I be more offended) sure the p51 was a great long range escort, I dident dispute this,neither did I say that the Spit or 109 were good long range planes, I dident see the need to as surely we all know this. but thanks for your charming two line post. your superior mind and your clever way of expressing it makes me want to post all the more.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:37 AM
Our planes were built for very different purposes as stated already and they filled those roles gloriously. Simply the Germans had nothing that was mainstream to fight them at high altitude and over great distances. Only until the inception of the ME 262 were the Mustangs and all prop fighters for that matter rendered obsolete. However what our planes did not excell at in any means were low level TnB dogfights of the WWI and the early years of WWII. Because combat had evolved since then, anybody who thinks that there were low-level, he11 even high level large swirling dogfights like in the movies is a little daft. Two thirds of all kills were made without the other pilot ever seeing his enemy, meaning a bounce. We are proud of our planes yes, but I think everyone is a little more proud of their respective countries planes. And for the most part we don't expect our planes to be the best, at least the more informed of us. I even bet that it is pretty even as to who really is whining about US iron.
A couple of things I want you to chew on though that you were very wrong about. Not until March of 44 were we in greater numbers than the LW, in fact we were greatly outnumbered ourselves. It was a team effort played by all of the allies to bring down the LW. The 56th FG was the premier fighter group in the 8th AF because they faught the longest and Zemke and the rest had scored most of their kills on the "Experten" not some 18 year old rookie as many would have you believe. The numbers don't lie the BF 109 total production alone is greater than the 2 mainstream USAAF fighters(P-47 and P-51) over 33,000 were produced and the greatest number was the G series(Which means late war). Germany's greatest folly was picking a fight with the whole world with very little help, same could be said for the Japanese. One last note since you seem to be so fond of German gear please tell me if the 109 was so great why were over 11,000 lost in training accidents and ground accidents? I can tell you it was a poor and outdated design(flawed slats that snatched open and caused ground looping or high/low speed stalls, and a narrow undercarriage) that had easy fixes but through the LW commands arrogance was ignored, they truely wasted the lives of their own pilots whether they were poor farm boys or "Experten". Now I am not saying that it wasn't a great(it was a great plane for it's time) a/c but it was old and did need serious re-working as the seasoned pilots were depleted, simply stated it wasn't a rookies plane.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:46 AM
stuffy::
-- I also did not say that American planes were poor,

Allow us to refresh our volatile memory... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stuffy::
-- but it was one of quantity rather than quality.


-- rather as out and out dogfighters they lacked the turn
-- and climb capabilites of other planes in the conflict.

The Zero was better turn fighter than anything the Germans or anybody could dream of. As for my own range argument, Zero had better range than any fighter in WW2, even over twin engine fighters...possibly. But it too lost to the low "quality" USA fighters.

Climb? Good point there. Although the P~38 could take care of climb though. I think our fatal mistake is assuming dogfighting has anything to do with warfare.