PDA

View Full Version : Special Issue of Flight Journal



BSS_Vidar
02-24-2005, 03:59 PM
Some people need to read this latest issue of Flight Journal. It won't make the Luft whinners happy, that's for sure. It's called "German Fighters: Legends of the Luftwaffe." There are some very revieling flight test articles written by the actual pilots (Brit and U.S.) that flew these tests. My favorite is the Corsair and Hellcat vs. the Fw 190 in Pax River, Md.

The test pilot flew the Corsair and the 190 as a Test project in 1946. Hellcat has no chance, so I won't bother. The Corsair was significanly faster than the 190 below 15,000 ft, but the 190 was only able to surpase the Bent-wing warrior's top speed by only "6(six) knots above 15,000 ft. The 190 has a best climb of 163 knots while the Corsair has a best climb of 145 knots, which appears to be the only thing it has advantage - 17 knots VSI ain't much folks. He stated that the roll rates were virtually identical. This is what raised the bigest flag to me. I think the Corsair's roll in the game is well done, which means the 190's (as I suspected all along) is way too fast. However, in a turn fight, the Corsair dominates.

It's no secret that I don't like the 109/190 flight models in this game. A certain amout of creative licens has crept in IMHO. This issue of Flight Journal is very informative folks.
Book-a-Millions and Barns & Noble have them on the mag racks everywhere.

Enjoy, and don't bite your finger nails off reading it like I did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BSS_Vidar
02-24-2005, 03:59 PM
Some people need to read this latest issue of Flight Journal. It won't make the Luft whinners happy, that's for sure. It's called "German Fighters: Legends of the Luftwaffe." There are some very revieling flight test articles written by the actual pilots (Brit and U.S.) that flew these tests. My favorite is the Corsair and Hellcat vs. the Fw 190 in Pax River, Md.

The test pilot flew the Corsair and the 190 as a Test project in 1946. Hellcat has no chance, so I won't bother. The Corsair was significanly faster than the 190 below 15,000 ft, but the 190 was only able to surpase the Bent-wing warrior's top speed by only "6(six) knots above 15,000 ft. The 190 has a best climb of 163 knots while the Corsair has a best climb of 145 knots, which appears to be the only thing it has advantage - 17 knots VSI ain't much folks. He stated that the roll rates were virtually identical. This is what raised the bigest flag to me. I think the Corsair's roll in the game is well done, which means the 190's (as I suspected all along) is way too fast. However, in a turn fight, the Corsair dominates.

It's no secret that I don't like the 109/190 flight models in this game. A certain amout of creative licens has crept in IMHO. This issue of Flight Journal is very informative folks.
Book-a-Millions and Barns & Noble have them on the mag racks everywhere.

Enjoy, and don't bite your finger nails off reading it like I did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bull_dog_
02-24-2005, 04:17 PM
Just got a book called Wings of the luftwaffe or something like that by Capt Robert Brown...

He is a British test pilot who had the opportunity to fly several German aircraft. He also was a combat pilot and flew with the FAA. His portrayel of the 109 is very consistant with other things I have read...he flies a G model and sounds like it is an unboosted version because it is slow relatively speaking, doesnt turn real well, climbs good at 3800fpm and has light ailerons and rudder with heavy elevators at speed.

I think the 109's we have now are similar in many ways to how he describes it and I think his bit on the Fw makes me think the Fw is a very good representation....but in the end, the 109G, at that stage in the war, was outdated and well past its prime...Spitfires and especially Mustangs had signficant advantages over it and he states the Mustang was 30-50mph faster at all altitudes, could out turn the 109 and outclimb it slightly above 20,000 ft.

Interesting counter perspective from Oleg's incarnation. Never flew one myself so I'm not saying at this point who is right or wrong, but rather pointing out a contradiction.

x__CRASH__x
02-24-2005, 05:33 PM
Read it. Pilot had never flown one before, and only flew it once. I don't consider that a qualified opinion.

p1ngu666
02-24-2005, 05:38 PM
prolly flew g6
g6 sucked.
no one flies g6 on warclouds for a reason.

EnGaurde
02-24-2005, 07:22 PM
i find it interesting about test pilot claims...

given that, and im sure weve all read the details, that pilots in general are cocky, self assured bragging SOBs that have an.. ahem... "elevated" opinion of themselves and a healthy disregard for the enemy.

i recall reading a russian pilots first hand accounts, where the old wardog was continually referring to the excellence of the soviets equipment and men and the general non-event that was the Luftwaffe. I raised an eyebrow, and wondered then, like i wonder now, about how much was patriotic fervour and how much was ice cold objective relay of experiences.

plus, lets not forget an american test pilot probably has a lot more time with the american types and getting the most out of it than the german type.

lets line the top american ace next to the top german ace, let them fly each others planes, and then see who bats for which plane at the end. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

besides, different aircraft had different design objectives, and if the test criterion were based on german requirments, then i dont need to think too hard about which aircraft would suddenly have the lead.....

first hand accounts: the effect of fierce nationalistic pride and the tendency to not go agaisnt popular opinion and get ostracised, methinks makes you wonder what an experten would say should he be flying instead of the expert.

BSS_Vidar
02-24-2005, 09:16 PM
I see you actually have not read this issue. If you had, you would have noticed there was nothing cocky or arrogant about this "case study".

Fly it once? When this guy showed up at Testing and Evaluation at Pax River, He had these planes all to himself for months. Not to bend your wagon wheele or anything, but as a "Monitor Jockey". Your wizzin' up the wrong rope if you think Oleg knows more about "Testing and Evaluation" of a weapon system than a certified Test Pilot. 20 years of flying in U.S. Naval Aviation myself with quite a few friends that are Test pilots with tours under there belts at Pax River. They're pretty sound in there evaluations of aircraft, and allways have been.

Just read it before commenting. It's a great read.

Bull_dog_
02-24-2005, 09:30 PM
Thanks BSS....many have strong feelings one way or another and rationalize things.

One thing I know is that there is contradicting information out there. I know FB is not perfect. I know Oleg is not perfect.

I also know there were a lot of tremendously talented German aces and then there were not so many. Many of them disappeared in early 1944 when Mustangs showed up over Germany.

The article I referenced was a G6. I've read through my life many similar accounts painting the G6 to be a very dated and mediocre plane. When I started flying sims...my first one was Janes WWII. While the overall fm's were pretty bad, I remember that the Fw was a much more potent aircraft than the Bf109 in that game which matched what I had read and maybe reinforced those things.

I just have a hard time identifying the Bf109...particularly G models as being anything but mediocre. Most things I've read states that the Fw was the better of the two fighters but I am always looking for more information to help clarify the picture in the event that things I have read have led me to the wrong conclusion. In game, I do better with a Fw than a 109 too but I think that is just because it fits my style.

Overall, I like the 109 the way it is in FB and hope that Oleg doesn't mess with it, but I know many don't feel the same way.

EnGaurde
02-24-2005, 10:51 PM
woah ease up there tigers im not taking a shot at anyone. I come into this as indeed a.... "monitor jockey". Nor do i mean any offense, but at the same time i think youre overreacting a tad?

in fact, the term "monitor jockey" has a ring of derision to it, a put down, a write off. Could it be that brash arrogance im talking about? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

in fact at the risk of p!ssing "allyall" off even further i find you have almost perfectly underlined something i just mentioned.... you have flying experience, i take it you are a real pilot, you firmly back up your claims and defend what you know with an obvious iron confidence. Youre telling me national pride, flying good ole "american iron" doesnt make you feel proud or try that extra bit harder to make sure you get the best out of your type? To actively and completely establish your dominance in every area?

Can i expect further ridicule over a staggeringly obvious (to me, anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif) tendency? So self promotion, however subtle, is entirely non existant in every armed forces member?

i simply dont accept that "king and country" does not affect individuals, however long theyve served.

the very fact you have taken my post as a personal slur and seek to defend your reputation and the reputation of your comrades is closely related to the kind of "fire" im talking about.

its only an online forum guys. Lighten up eh?

Shakthamac
02-24-2005, 10:52 PM
Just some random thoughts.

I find it humorous how people could dispute facts given by a test pilot on an evaluation of enemy combat aircraft. First and foremost, no test pilot worth his salt would put his own nations aircraft above those of the enemy for prides sake. That would get a lot of his own pilots killed. The Navy never did that with the Zero when it was handing them their a**es, but we are supposed to believe that the USAAF did. Secondly, the Luft whiners out there really make me sick when they go on and on about how a US test pilot probably couldn't fly Luftwaffe birds right. That is just a sorry attempt by them to disregard factual because their bird isn't the hands down winner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Im sure that if the 190 was the winner, we wouldn't hear a peep out of them. Actually, SEVERAL 190s came down INTACT in England during the war and were evaluated against allied types. The result? "The winners of fights may be decided by pilot skill." Eric Brown, CO Enemy A/C Flight, RAF. These aircraft were flown extensively with the direct comparison between a Spit IX and a Fw 190 A3. Prior to that, the Brits acknowledged the fact that the Mk V was completely outclassed.

Lets assume we put a German and an Allied ace in a fight. Who wins?

The German Ace would win. Why? because he fought for the entire war primarily over his own territory. What does this mean? It means that every time a German Ace got shot down, he could and would fly again, assuming he survived and was able to. How many times was Hartmann shot down? I know of at least 5 times. Multiply the top allied ace's kill ratio in the theater by 5. I believe Jonnie Johnson and 38 aerial and 4 ground X 5 = 210 victories. Those are victories he could have had if he was shot down 5 times and flew again, not to mention how much experience he would have gained, with exponentially more kills as a result. "Oh I'll never do that again," quickly turns into a rapidly tallying kill count.

Allied pilots (Americans) were as good as their German counterparts for the most part. They were just rotated home as instructors to train the hordes of other well trained and equipped Americans. Perhaps a better approach to the compare aces question would be to compare the quality of the entire AF of both countries. Now who wins?

LEXX_Luthor
02-24-2005, 11:29 PM
Well, Hellcat beats Fw for carrier ops (beat Corsair too, for a long time anyway).

Everybody here is Monitor Jockey, if anybody were not, they would not be here posting.

BSS_Vidar
02-24-2005, 11:46 PM
LOL Good point Lexx!

But I think my 3,000 hrs of flight time trumps my Monitor Jockey status. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Latico
02-25-2005, 12:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
LOL Good point Lexx!

But I think my 3,000 hrs of flight time trumps my Monitor Jockey status. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well......uh.....mm......yeah, ok. ya got us there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

x__CRASH__x
02-25-2005, 02:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I see you actually have not read this issue. If you had, you would have noticed there was nothing cocky or arrogant about this "case study".

Fly it once? When this guy showed up at Testing and Evaluation at Pax River, He had these planes all to himself for months. Not to bend your wagon wheele or anything, but as a "Monitor Jockey". Your wizzin' up the wrong rope if you think Oleg knows more about "Testing and Evaluation" of a weapon system than a certified Test Pilot. 20 years of flying in U.S. Naval Aviation myself with quite a few friends that are Test pilots with tours under there belts at Pax River. They're pretty sound in there evaluations of aircraft, and allways have been.

Just read it before commenting. It's a great read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the issue in front of me. And yes, he flew it much more than once. I was just being facetious.

The "test pilot" had flown nothing but the Wildcat before he showed up to Pax. So they made him fly other American planes. Then sent him to fly the 190. The 190 was a '42 A4. He compares that against a late 43/44 Hellcat, and a '44 F4u-1D. Had the had a later A version, or a Dora, I'm sure there would be a difference in opinion. Plus they test crew had little knowledge about the instruments and limits, strengths and weaknesses of the FW. They just flew it by the seat of their pants to figure things out. The U.S. planes I'm sure translated into easier flying for him.

Their final comparison was that the FW was not the F4U or F6F's equal in fighter to fighter combat. Duh. There is a 2 year difference in technology, plus a totally different pilot mindset sitting at the controls. Of course he is going to come to that conclusion.

btw: 9.5 years and 3500 hours in Naval Aviation and counting. But I am a monitor jockey even in real life. Someone has got to run the gear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
02-25-2005, 02:27 AM
if u fly the g6 ingame, ull find it best described as "grey"
thats what i thought of it when i flew it

ki43 is like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lw had lots of uber aces, but still lost in the air everywhere, eventually, so i guess they had LOTS and LOTS of **** pilots too

allies probably had more average to good pilots

and no tuskegee's where officaly a ace, some unofficaly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

who would u rather see when ur in a bomber, a redtailed p51 when in your b17, or a lw ace, when u in he111?

know who i want http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
02-25-2005, 07:03 AM
The best plane is the one that gets its pilot home to fly again.

EnGaurde
02-25-2005, 07:24 AM
Ok, fire extinguisher ready, i dont regularly fly german planes and i dont have a svastika tattoo...

regardless of your flying hours, regardless of your previous work, regardless of anything an individual can do, one thing is as old as the hills...

.... and that is the almost certain reality of the (relatively) juniors enthusiastic public affirmation of the superiors decisions despite privately held reservations or opinions.

Adding to that, is the need to maintain morale by telling the troops they had the better equipment/tactics/racial makeup/food etc. Just what would it do to say that they didnt? How many generals would frown?

I look to the technical superiority the Huns had... V1s, a nuclear program, V2, tailless designs, the first ever jet fighter etc etc ad infinitum.... but somehow they couldnt make a mainstream fighter to challenge american planes???

did the Allies win technically or numerically?

im bordering on disgusted that noone has recognised this blaring reality of life in general. Instead an ex flyer has hijacked the point with constant referrals to 3000 hourw flying, which is impressive indeed but has nothing to do with my point at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Summary: A small man telling a big man hes wrong will more often than not result in the small man going away. Hence the small man reports all thumbs up to protect his own position and not lose face.

Nobody wants to recognise this, for fear of going against 3000 Hour Man and suffering the inevitable flames.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Texas LongHorn
02-25-2005, 09:10 AM
vidar, I won't argue the relative opinions of the pilot, but will throw in one juicy tidbit from the old Uncle Sid. Sydney too flew at Pax River after the war. IIRC correctly his statement about the 190 went something like this- "Nothin' rolls like a 190, not a Mustang and certainly not a Tbolt." Sid originally flew and loved 47's in the ETO before becoming an instuctor stateside, later going back and flying 51's and such in the PTO. Because of his status he pretty much flew them all, Corsairs, Hellcats and Wildcat, Lightnings, you name it. He loved the 190 for what it was, a heavy cannoned bitc*. Taken in context, his statement ment at high speed the 190 had a favorable roll rate compared to the others. That was his two cents anyway. All the best. LongHorn

Chuck_Older
02-25-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Some people need to read this latest issue of Flight Journal. It won't make the Luft whinners happy, that's for sure. It's called "German Fighters: Legends of the Luftwaffe." There are some very revieling flight test articles written by the actual pilots (Brit and U.S.) that flew these tests. My favorite is the Corsair and Hellcat vs. the Fw 190 in Pax River, Md.

The test pilot flew the Corsair and the 190 as a Test project in 1946. Hellcat has no chance, so I won't bother. The Corsair was significanly faster than the 190 below 15,000 ft, but the 190 was only able to surpase the Bent-wing warrior's top speed by only "6(six) knots above 15,000 ft. The 190 has a best climb of 163 knots while the Corsair has a best climb of 145 knots, which appears to be the only thing it has advantage - 17 knots VSI ain't much folks. He stated that the roll rates were virtually identical. This is what raised the bigest flag to me. I think the Corsair's roll in the game is well done, which means the 190's (as I suspected all along) is way too fast. However, in a turn fight, the Corsair dominates.

It's no secret that I don't like the 109/190 flight models in this game. A certain amout of creative licens has crept in IMHO. This issue of Flight Journal is very informative folks.
Book-a-Millions and Barns & Noble have them on the mag racks everywhere.

Enjoy, and don't bite your finger nails off reading it like I did. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In defense of German pilots...do you think that US or Brit pilots went through the same training for say, a Bf109 as a Luftwaffe pilot did?

horseback
02-25-2005, 12:24 PM
I think that what everyone overlooks here is that these tests were done by Naval Aviators, not the average, run-of-the-mill, production line pilot. Check your stats, people.

US Navy and Marine pilots pre-war were acknowleged as about the best around, and nothing that happened during the war changed that impression. Flying less capable aircraft (F4Fs) for almost 2 years, they wiped out the cream of the next best community of Naval Aviators while the best Army AF guys in P-38s (light years ahead of contemporary Japanese fighters in performance) were coming back to base thoroughly perforated.

While our (apparently) European friend thinks that official opinion means something, the reality was that during wartime, in the immortal words of ADM Earnest King "they send for the sons'a b!tches," i.e., men who can face the facts and deal with them. Official opinion has to wait for peacetime.

Those tests were done in good faith, on the best example available of one of the enemy's primary fighters. Later versions of the 190 were generally heavier armored, not particularly better performing (performance increases were absorbed by the weight penalty), so the tests were fairly legitimate.

cheers

horseback

Blutarski2004
02-25-2005, 12:25 PM
Agree that there is a lot of room for subjectivity when a foreign weapon system of any sort is being tested.

As for the NIH (not invented here) syndrome that En Guarde brings up, I'd suggest that it is typically more a feature of a peacetime military bureaucracy than one fighting a "for real" shooting war. The fact that scarce wartime personnel, time, and assets were allocated for conduct of tests speaks loudly. Someone in a position of responsibility authorized these tests, and did so for a specific reason. Why did the US bring back a carrier-load of Japanese a/c after the end of the Pacific war? To test them. Was the data procured perfectly precise? Likely not. But it must have been useful, otherwise these tests would not have been continued all through the war and immediate post-war years.

Shakthamac
02-25-2005, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:

I look to the technical superiority the Huns had... V1s, a nuclear program, V2, tailless designs, the first ever jet fighter etc etc ad infinitum.... but somehow they couldnt make a mainstream fighter to challenge american planes???

did the Allies win technically or numerically?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that the Allies weren't technologically sophisticated? Britain invented radar, Asdic (Sonar), HF/DF (some before WW2) and a slew of other items. America actually got the A bomb to work, something the Germans weren't even close to doing. Northrops flying wing was produced in 1940, well ahead of any the Germans had even thought of. I believe that Germans didnt even invent jet technology first, that honor goes to the Italians who developed one during the 30's.

Germany did manage to do one thing though. They managed to invent ballistic missile technology, which didnt do anything for them except being a complete waste of manpower and materials when comparing it to the results it achieved. But then again the US Navy invented the BAT glide bomb which had radar in the nose and homed in on that signal, which was well ahead of V1 technology or even the German Fritz bomb which had to be steered to the target by eyesight. The BAT's were assigned to PB4Y squadrons in the pacific.

So, to answer your question, the Allies won the war by superior numbers and technology. The main reason you don't hear about allied superior technology is because nobody ever pauses to think about it. The Allies won plain and simple, so there is no need to speculate about what could have or would have happened. Nor, did the Allies treat one certain area of their technology as a "Nation Saving Device" the way Luftwaffe Fans look at the 262, or Kreigsmarine fans look at the U-boat. To the Allies, technology was just one facet of the entire war machine. Of course, thats the only way you can look at Germany and the rest of the Axis. "If they would have done __________, then maybe _______."

Germany was technologically ahead in some aspects of their war machine at the beginning of the conflict, but sadly lacking in others. Regardless, they failed to capitalize on it. Furthermore, instead of trying to improve things in a broad sense such as their aircraft, they kind of patched things together and focused on a couple of super secret projects that had no effect on the outcome whatsoever. This is prevalent in their bomber aircraft such as Do 17 &gt; Do 217, Ju 88 &gt; Ju 188 and others as well as the 109, which while it was a great fighter, was well past its prime by 1943 - 44 as a combat aircraft on the Western Front. It kept fighting and did well, but it was outclassed by the 190, and the allied planes it fought against.

Remember that a nation will do anything when it's back is up against the wall.

BSS_Vidar
02-25-2005, 12:59 PM
Interesting question. Getting the same training ie. U.S. training vs LW training...

Other than emplementing Tactics, learning to fly an airplane is basicly the same from one airframe to the next. You learn it's performance envolope. Other than that, houses get bigger when you push the stick forward, and houses get smaller when you pull it back. It doesn't get much more complicated than that. I've got a lot of airframes under my belt and they're logged in my logbook to testify to that. Test and Evaluation is learning the boundries of said envolope to each aiframe.

As far as Test & Evaluation to bolter troop moral... Did not happen. Being dishonest with yourself about an aircraft's performance would not generate motivation to build better weapon systems to counter an enemy threat. Military Aviators spend most of their time studying the opposition and finding their weaknesses and learning to exploit them. Being cocky, or untruthful about our own capabilitites vs the enemy's just for the sake of pride would only get them dead, don't ya think?

Military Aviators don't think that way folks.

LeOs.K-Ande
02-25-2005, 02:43 PM
Shakthamac
who exactly shot down Eric Hartmann as you earlyer stated? I would really much like to know this.

Because my books tell me that Hartmann had to crashland several times because debris from exploding enemy aircraft destroyed his prop. But you apparently have better Info on the subject so could yoou pls report the pilots who shot him down.

About the planes; well the pilot makes the difference.

Badsight.
02-25-2005, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
My favorite is the Corsair and Hellcat vs. the Fw 190 in Pax River, Md. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>some accurate details being found out on your part will open your eyes further

Shakthamac
02-25-2005, 04:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeOs.K-Ande:
Shakthamac
who exactly shot down Eric Hartmann as you earlyer stated? I would really much like to know this.

Because my books tell me that Hartmann had to crashland several times because debris from exploding enemy aircraft destroyed his prop. But you apparently have better Info on the subject so could yoou pls report the pilots who shot him down.

About the planes; well the pilot makes the difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heres a link
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/hartm/hartm1.htm
this link states he was shot down on several occasions. I would surmise that more than likely he wasn't known at the time to VVS pilots since it was relatively early in his career. Note the part where he collides with a LaGG. Regardless of whether or not allied bullets forced him down, the point remains that he was able to fly again, whereas an allied pilot would not.

Heres another link
http://members.chello.be/kurt.weygantt/worldwariiaces.index.html_erich_bubi_hartmann.htm
Notice the part that says:
"About 40 Yaks and Laggs were supporting another 40 or so Sturmoviks that were busy striking ground targets. Hartmann shot down 2 before his plane was hit by "something" and he was forced to make an emergency landing."

So in fact, Hartmann more than likely shot down by VVS pilots. His plane was hit by "something"?
His plane was probably hit by bullets. Regardless of that, he was forced down.

I can't for sure say who shot Erich Hartmann down at any time. If you could recognize the context of the message you would see that it doesnt matter. I used Hartmann as a simple for instance. My point stands that regardless of whether hartmann was shot down, ran out of gas, lost a prop, or forgot to tie his shoe, he crashed his aircraft as a result of enemy action. aircraft parts or bullets, take your pick. this happened multiple times yet he was able to fly again, whereas an allied pilot, albeit british or american, would not have that opportunity, since they would be well behind enemy lines.

heres another link:
http://wernerhartenstein.tripod.com/hartmann.htm

Blutarski2004
02-25-2005, 04:22 PM
Hartmann must have been shot down at least once over the Eastern Front. There is a passage in his biography which describes his capture and subsequent escape from the Russians. It might have been flak damage.

horseback
02-25-2005, 04:44 PM
Overwhelming majority of 200+ kill experten were shot down multiple times; I expect that those ranked below them had a similar ratio of enemy contacts to victories to being someone else's victory.

As for the guys who claim they crash-landed all those times because their engines/props/airframes were damaged by the debris from their victims, I can only point to the loss of Joachim Muencheberg, in combat with American flown Spitfires: the German version is that Muencheberg collided with his final victim, and the American version was that the CO of their outfit was lost when he collided with his victim when neither would give ground in a head on pass.

Given that this outfit had been beneficiaries of the Blakeslee Doctrine: "In a head on pass, the Hun will always pull up first," I'm inclined to believe that both commanders lost this particular game of 'Chicken.'

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
02-25-2005, 04:51 PM
u can get elitest guys about german tech stuff, but the allies produced good stuff too.

mossie, lanc. photo recon aircraft, radar, sonar, sound homing torpedoe's etc.

germans produced some good stuff, for sure, but so did the allies, we didnt toddle about in hurricanes for the entirity of the war. actully some did in burma http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
mid 43, to mid 44 the allies had the edge in aircraft imo, from mid 44 onwards equalish, but it was too late.
think the g6 would be the main lw fighter till autumn 44, maybe longer, im not sure

BSS_Vidar
02-25-2005, 10:19 PM
Just one last comment on this subject from me. I just want to clarify, that I don't think that any one plane or nationality should be dominating, because they didn't as far as technology goes. Both sides had it's strengths and weaknesses. However, I do believe their is an incompadibility in regards to comparitive strengths in aircraft in this Flight sim series.

The only senerio I find refreshingly realistic is the Zekes vs Wildcats server on HL. No one dominates, but each aircraft does have it strengths and weaknesses. Knowing how to exploit them makes you a success. I personally score well on either side.

In the Western Front Server on Warclouds, you're "typicaly" outclasses by the German aircraft in every avenue of the flight envelope, and rediculously out gunned. This was not the case in real life folks. The game needs to be more compadible to what happened in history.

~S~

Bull_dog_
02-25-2005, 10:35 PM
I'd add some other interesting and fun match ups...

Spit Mk V vs. Fw-190A-4
P-51 Mustang vs. Dora
Spitfire Mk IXe vs Bf109G6AS
P-40e vs Bf109F
P-38J Lightning vs Bf109G
P-63Kingcobra vs Ki-84
Hellcat vs A6M5...more even than in history

Plenty of good match ups to be had if server hosts want to put competitive aircraft together. The only uber airplane I know of during WWII were the jets...there were some like the P-51 and Fw that dominated for a time but only the jets were in a class by themselves and even they had to land sometime.

LEXX_Luthor
02-25-2005, 11:01 PM
BSS:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the Western Front Server on Warclouds, you're "typicaly" outclasses by the German aircraft in every avenue of the flight envelope, and rediculously out gunned. This was not the case in real life folks. The game needs to be more compadible to what happened in history.

~S~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The superior range of USA aircraft is of no use on internet servers, with the cute little 30km dogfight maps. Your difficulties here seem to be with the nature of internet dogfighting for Brownie Point scores, not German aircraft in real life or this air combat sim.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do believe their is an incompadibility...

The game needs to be more compadible...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Arms1
02-26-2005, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I see you actually have not read this issue. If you had, you would have noticed there was nothing cocky or arrogant about this "case study".

Fly it once? When this guy showed up at Testing and Evaluation at Pax River, He had these planes all to himself for months. Not to bend your wagon wheele or anything, but as a "Monitor Jockey". Your wizzin' up the wrong rope if you think Oleg knows more about "Testing and Evaluation" of a weapon system than a certified Test Pilot. 20 years of flying in U.S. Naval Aviation myself with quite a few friends that are Test pilots with tours under there belts at Pax River. They're pretty sound in there evaluations of aircraft, and allways have been.

Just read it before commenting. It's a great read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the issue in front of me. And yes, he flew it much more than once. I was just being facetious.

The "test pilot" had flown nothing but the Wildcat before he showed up to Pax. So they made him fly other American planes. Then sent him to fly the 190. The 190 was a '42 A4. He compares that against a late 43/44 Hellcat, and a '44 F4u-1D. Had the had a later A version, or a Dora, I'm sure there would be a difference in opinion. Plus they test crew had little knowledge about the instruments and limits, strengths and weaknesses of the FW. They just flew it by the seat of their pants to figure things out. The U.S. planes I'm sure translated into easier flying for him.

Their final comparison was that the FW was not the F4U or F6F's equal in fighter to fighter combat. Duh. There is a 2 year difference in technology, plus a totally different pilot mindset sitting at the controls. Of course he is going to come to that conclusion.

btw: 9.5 years and 3500 hours in Naval Aviation and counting. But I am a monitor jockey even in real life. Someone has got to run the gear. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ty crash, will pick up issue tommorrow, was curious as to models and types in the comparison, looks like apples and oranges to me considering the fact that we all know how war increases technology at an acellerated rate, did corsair or hcat ever fly vs 190's?, im not sure maybe vs faa pilots, personally dont think a comparison of 42 a/c vs 44 a/c is relevant unless the 42 a/c was all they could put up at the time

Arms1
02-26-2005, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:

In the Western Front Server on Warclouds, you're "typicaly" outclasses by the German aircraft in every avenue of the flight envelope, and rediculously out gunned. This was not the case in real life folks. The game needs to be more compadible to what happened in history.

~S~ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe if you ever flew blue you might rethink that position

x__CRASH__x
02-26-2005, 02:59 AM
Yeah, no joke! Cause on the blue side we are always saying how we are outclassed and outgunned by the spitfires and P-51's! But we still manage to fight.

One night I got silly, changed callsigns, and hopped onto Red and picked up a P-51. Not an easy plane to fight in if you don't have any expereince with it. I managed to make a single slash attack on a 109 and took out his engine with a few rounds. (Which commonly happens to me) Then I augered in while in a scissors. So I grabbed a spit. Took down 4 ad went home. It was very easy to fly and aim. And when those spit guns connected, parts fell off. Several wings included.

Comparing that to a 109, the spit if far easier to fly than the 109. The P-51 was easier to fly than the 109, but I didn't get enough time in it to learn how to effectively fight it, where as the spit is just a plug and play aircraft.

Arms1
02-26-2005, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Yeah, no joke! Cause on the blue side we are always saying how we are outclassed and outgunned by the spitfires and P-51's! But we still manage to fight.

One night I got silly, changed callsigns, and hopped onto Red and picked up a P-51. Not an easy plane to fight in if you don't have any expereince with it. I managed to make a single slash attack on a 109 and took out his engine with a few rounds. (Which commonly happens to me) Then I augered in while in a scissors. So I grabbed a spit. Took down 4 ad went home. It was very easy to fly and aim. And when those spit guns connected, parts fell off. Several wings included.

Comparing that to a 109, the spit if far easier to fly than the 109. The P-51 was easier to fly than the 109, but I didn't get enough time in it to learn how to effectively fight it, where as the spit is just a plug and play aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

forgive me for sounding like a martyr here, but my a/c choice is always made by joining the side that is outnumbered, today on most eastern and western front maps that requires joining blue,the trend in the pacific seems to show allied as outnumbered. many (well maybe one) of the previous posters will join red regardless of the odds, realistic yes but imho honourable no
, with regards to the p51, i believe it is probably the easiest us a/c to fly in combat, it is definately "the caddilac of the sky", i just wish the maybe someday i will join a western front map and be able to fly my fav a/c of ww2, the spit mark9, (my father had 80+ op hours in one, well actually 3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) without being embarrassed by the numerical advantage over my opponents. think i will be waiting for a while

occasionally seen on european maps flying as "PileOnRed" flying blue

let the flaming begin!

carguy_
02-26-2005, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
Are you saying that the Allies weren't technologically sophisticated? Britain invented radar, Asdic (Sonar), HF/DF (some before WW2) and a slew of other items. America actually got the A bomb to work, something the Germans weren't even close to doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I might help you here cuz you obviously don`t know something.Maybe you don`t know that US used German scientists to develop the A bomb.Yeah I know they already were US citizens so indeed the US developed the bomb.

Secondly maybe you don`t know that US was dead short of uranium and could not create even one A bomb until the defeat of the 3rd Reich when they took advantage of the highly developed economic German facilities there.Yes,that`s right 3rd Reich was about the only place from which the US had possibility to figure out some uranium because before this they couldn`t even make a d@mn prototype.There is no coinsidence that they detonated it in `45 on the Japan.

If you ask me Germans even if they had a lot more work to do they had the ingredients to make it whereas de facto creation of A bomb was a matter of question "Where is the uranium?" which US had not enough.

I`d say neither side was closer to getting the A bomb to work.

Ooooh tell me again the story how the Americans broke the Enigmahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LeOs.K-Ande
02-26-2005, 03:48 AM
Shakthamac
Thank you very much for those links. I also have read Hartmans biography but what amazes me is that no one has ever claimed a victory over Hartmann. So the "fact" that he was never shot downs still remains true or not.
Oh by the way you are right about pilots that were shot down over their own territory. Much more likely to survive and continue fighting.

Usually the situation that you start the fight determines the outcome of the fight in this game. Usually the one thats higher wins. In my oppinion what matters is. 1.Situation 2.Pilot 3.Plane and in that order.

Asgeir_Strips
02-26-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I see you actually have not read this issue. If you had, you would have noticed there was nothing cocky or arrogant about this "case study".

Fly it once? When this guy showed up at Testing and Evaluation at Pax River, He had these planes all to himself for months. Not to bend your wagon wheele or anything, but as a "Monitor Jockey". Your wizzin' up the wrong rope if you think Oleg knows more about "Testing and Evaluation" of a weapon system than a certified Test Pilot. 20 years of flying in U.S. Naval Aviation myself with quite a few friends that are Test pilots with tours under there belts at Pax River. They're pretty sound in there evaluations of aircraft, and allways have been.

Just read it before commenting. It's a great read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah i agree. I've had this magazine for a couple of months now, but i was to lacy to write it down on the pc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I think that, that review was very good, and i think that the US planes were superior (F4U and F6F) to the FW190..

Something more interesting was that the Messerschmitt 109 is ME-109 not BF-109 (BF= Bayerishe Flugzeugverke or something like that, i cant speak german.....)

So everyone that says "Bf109" is plain wrong!...

Fliegeroffizier
02-26-2005, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:

I might help you here cuz you obviously don`t know something.Maybe you don`t know that US used German scientists to develop the A bomb.Yeah I know they already were US citizens so indeed the US developed the bomb.

Secondly maybe you don`t know that US was dead short of uranium and could not create even one A bomb until the defeat of the 3rd Reich when they took advantage of the highly developed economic German facilities there.Yes,that`s right 3rd Reich was about the only place from which the US had possibility to figure out some uranium because before this they couldn`t even make a d@mn prototype.There is no coinsidence that they detonated it in `45 on the Japan.

If you ask me Germans even if they had a lot more work to do they had the ingredients to make it whereas de facto creation of A bomb was a matter of question "Where is the uranium?" which US had not enough.

I`d say neither side was closer to getting the A bomb to work.

Ooooh tell me again the story how the Americans broke the Enigmahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


WOW!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Those are absolutely and amazingly incorrect statements about the scientists involved in the Atomic Bomb development program and also the source/availability of uranium for the project€¦ The comments are beyond myth; I would have to say they are completely imaginary!!!

For the Record, here are all the KEY scientific leaders of the Manhattan Project (Atomic Bomb Program)€¦Group Leaders, Team leaders, Lab Directors,etc€¦All these plus 6 other Americans on the Project had been (or later were) awarded Nobel Prizes for a variety of scientific achievements€¦note the nationalities/places of birth:

Oppenheimer American born New York City

Teller Hungarian-born and Jewish

Fermi Italian-born

Neils Bohr Danish-born (Consultant)

Segre Italian-born

Schwinger American born New York City

Seaborg American born Michigan

Alvarez American born California

Feyman American born New York City

Lawrence American born South Dakota

MacMillan American born California

Ramsey American born Wash, D.C

Frisch German-born and Jewish

Franck German-born and Jewish.

Bethe born in Strasbourg, but German-educated

As for the source of the uranium, early on in the project(May 1942), this was the situation: €œ€¦enough ore was on hand to meet the projected need of 150 tons through mid-1944. Twelve hundred tons of high grade ore were stored on Staten Island, and €¦ arrangements[were made] to obtain additional supplies from Canada and the Colorado Plateau.€
€œ€¦On Sept. 17, 1942, General Leslie Groves€¦ordered the purchase of over 1,000 tons of uranium ore from the Belgian Congo that had been stored in New York harbor.€

Additionally €œthe Manhattan Project contracted with numerous mining companies in the American Southwest, and also purchased uranium ore from the Belgian Congo. American uranium ores mined in Colorado were primarily mixes of vanadium and uranium, but because of wartime secrecy the Manhattan Project would only publicly admit to purchasing the vanadium€¦ American uranium ores did not have nearly as high uranium concentrations as the ore from the Belgian Congo, but they were pursued vigorously€


In a nutshell, when Germany surrendered in May 1945 they had Absolutely NOTHING of any value/use to the Manhatten(Atomic Bomb)Project!

Shakthamac
02-26-2005, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I see you actually have not read this issue. If you had, you would have noticed there was nothing cocky or arrogant about this "case study".

Fly it once? When this guy showed up at Testing and Evaluation at Pax River, He had these planes all to himself for months. Not to bend your wagon wheele or anything, but as a "Monitor Jockey". Your wizzin' up the wrong rope if you think Oleg knows more about "Testing and Evaluation" of a weapon system than a certified Test Pilot. 20 years of flying in U.S. Naval Aviation myself with quite a few friends that are Test pilots with tours under there belts at Pax River. They're pretty sound in there evaluations of aircraft, and allways have been.

Just read it before commenting. It's a great read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah i agree. I've had this magazine for a couple of months now, but i was to lacy to write it down on the pc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I think that, that review was very good, and i think that the US planes were superior (F4U and F6F) to the FW190..

Something more interesting was that the Messerschmitt 109 is ME-109 not BF-109 (BF= Bayerishe Flugzeugverke or something like that, i cant speak german.....)

So everyone that says "Bf109" is plain wrong!... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it started off as the "BF" 109 and then the name was switched to the "ME" 109. The reason for this is that in the beginning of 109 production, Messerschmitt had a partnership with
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. This partnership would continue during the early years of the 109 development, and then it dissolved in 1938 which is why there are Bf 109's and Me 109's

heres a link with the history
http://www.shanaberger.com/messerschmitt.htm
and another http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap14.htm

Shakthamac
02-26-2005, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
Are you saying that the Allies weren't technologically sophisticated? Britain invented radar, Asdic (Sonar), HF/DF (some before WW2) and a slew of other items. America actually got the A bomb to work, something the Germans weren't even close to doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I might help you here cuz you obviously don`t know something.Maybe you don`t know that US used German scientists to develop the A bomb.Yeah I know they already were US citizens so indeed the US developed the bomb.

Secondly maybe you don`t know that US was dead short of uranium and could not create even one A bomb until the defeat of the 3rd Reich when they took advantage of the highly developed economic German facilities there.Yes,that`s right 3rd Reich was about the only place from which the US had possibility to figure out some uranium because before this they couldn`t even make a d@mn prototype.There is no coinsidence that they detonated it in `45 on the Japan.

If you ask me Germans even if they had a lot more work to do they had the ingredients to make it whereas de facto creation of A bomb was a matter of question "Where is the uranium?" which US had not enough.

I`d say neither side was closer to getting the A bomb to work.

Ooooh tell me again the story how the Americans broke the Enigmahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I did a little Google research and both you and Fliegeroffizer are right. There was a biography done on Leslie Groves in which he states that the US had some people over in Germany at the end of the War collecting uranium and other documentation on A bombs.

Now, everything else you seem to have extrapolated from that story seems really imaginative and quite entertaining.

First off, the US had quite a bit of Uranium, although it was low yield.

Secondly, the project had been going on for years prior to the US collecting samples from Germany, indicating that the US did indeed have Uranium available.

Third, You did absolutely nothing to disprove anything I said. Germany was nowhere near having an atomic bomb.

Yes or No?

The US developed 3 actual bombs of them and used them during the war. 1 as a test, 2 as actual weapons.

Yes or No?

The US mastered the use of Atomic Bomb during the war

Yes or No?

The Germans did not

Yes or No?

How can neither side be close to getting the A bomb to work when the US dropped 2 of them on Japan?

Fliegeroffizier
02-26-2005, 11:16 PM
I wasn't able to locate the source/book, but I read most of a book recently which specifically detailed the Race by a special unit of the US Army/OSS to get to certain known research facilities(nuclear-related, they surmised) in Germany in Spring of 45...as I recall, this team actually was racing into certain towns AHEAD of the US combat troops(and in part to get there before the Russians). They got there, broke a few rules in doing so, secured the place(s), but there was nothing of value...they simply found that the Germans weren't even 'in the game'...they hadn't even approached the level of research (let alone any production of fissionable material of Any sort) that the U.S. had reached 3-4 years earlier.

Again, it is absolutely Pure Imagination that ANYthing in/from Germany was of Any use Whatsoever to the Allied Atomic Bomb project.

Shakthamac
02-26-2005, 11:35 PM
http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/MP_Misc/Bohr_Heisenberg/bohr_5.htm

check that out

Fliegeroffizier
02-27-2005, 12:40 AM
Yep!! That is the operation to which I was referring!! Thanks.

It was Pash's race into Paris which broke some of the rules/orders...he was WAY out in front of Allied troops, and especially ahead of the Free French under DeGaulle..

So, I think we have thoroughly destroyed(with LOTS of evidence) the laughable and imaginary tale that the success of the Allied atomic bomb project was merely a result of the efforts of German-born scientists in America and captured German uranium in 1945.

p1ngu666
02-27-2005, 04:54 PM
cant remmber if the germans where close or not, but the hero's of telemark who bombed the heavy water plant stopped the germans from finding out heavy water wasnt what was needed.

and yes, they where hero's for more than just blowing stuff up, amazing and amusing story http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Asgeir_Strips
02-28-2005, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
Are you saying that the Allies weren't technologically sophisticated? Britain invented radar, Asdic (Sonar), HF/DF (some before WW2) and a slew of other items. America actually got the A bomb to work, something the Germans weren't even close to doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I might help you here cuz you obviously don`t know something.Maybe you don`t know that US used German scientists to develop the A bomb.Yeah I know they already were US citizens so indeed the US developed the bomb.

Secondly maybe you don`t know that US was dead short of uranium and could not create even one A bomb until the defeat of the 3rd Reich when they took advantage of the highly developed economic German facilities there.Yes,that`s right 3rd Reich was about the only place from which the US had possibility to figure out some uranium because before this they couldn`t even make a d@mn prototype.There is no coinsidence that they detonated it in `45 on the Japan.

If you ask me Germans even if they had a lot more work to do they had the ingredients to make it whereas de facto creation of A bomb was a matter of question "Where is the uranium?" which US had not enough.

I`d say neither side was closer to getting the A bomb to work.

Ooooh tell me again the story how the Americans broke the Enigmahttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I did a little Google research and both you and Fliegeroffizer are right. There was a biography done on Leslie Groves in which he states that the US had some people over in Germany at the end of the War collecting uranium and other documentation on A bombs.

Now, everything else you seem to have extrapolated from that story seems really imaginative and quite entertaining.

First off, the US had quite a bit of Uranium, although it was low yield.

Secondly, the project had been going on for years prior to the US collecting samples from Germany, indicating that the US did indeed have Uranium available.

Third, You did absolutely nothing to disprove anything I said. Germany was nowhere near having an atomic bomb.

Yes or No?

The US developed 3 actual bombs of them and used them during the war. 1 as a test, 2 as actual weapons.

Yes or No?

The US mastered the use of Atomic Bomb during the war

Yes or No?

The Germans did not

Yes or No?

How can neither side be close to getting the A bomb to work when the US dropped 2 of them on Japan? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany was NEAR of creating an atomic bomb, but those norwegian and british special forces blew up that "heavy water" production center called "norsk hydro" (im from norway, visited the place once)

I think Germany could have used a nuclear bomb if they had received the "heavy water"..

Asgeir_Strips
02-28-2005, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shakthamac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I see you actually have not read this issue. If you had, you would have noticed there was nothing cocky or arrogant about this "case study".

Fly it once? When this guy showed up at Testing and Evaluation at Pax River, He had these planes all to himself for months. Not to bend your wagon wheele or anything, but as a "Monitor Jockey". Your wizzin' up the wrong rope if you think Oleg knows more about "Testing and Evaluation" of a weapon system than a certified Test Pilot. 20 years of flying in U.S. Naval Aviation myself with quite a few friends that are Test pilots with tours under there belts at Pax River. They're pretty sound in there evaluations of aircraft, and allways have been.

Just read it before commenting. It's a great read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah i agree. I've had this magazine for a couple of months now, but i was to lacy to write it down on the pc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I think that, that review was very good, and i think that the US planes were superior (F4U and F6F) to the FW190..

Something more interesting was that the Messerschmitt 109 is ME-109 not BF-109 (BF= Bayerishe Flugzeugverke or something like that, i cant speak german.....)

So everyone that says "Bf109" is plain wrong!... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it started off as the "BF" 109 and then the name was switched to the "ME" 109. The reason for this is that in the beginning of 109 production, Messerschmitt had a partnership with
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. This partnership would continue during the early years of the 109 development, and then it dissolved in 1938 which is why there are Bf 109's and Me 109's

heres a link with the history
http://www.shanaberger.com/messerschmitt.htm
and another http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap14.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

infact you are right!
thnx!

Blutarski2004
02-28-2005, 11:52 AM
Technological comparison between US and Germany?

Germany was far in the lead with liquid fueled rocketry during WW2, but did base much of their efforts on the ground-breaking pre-war research of the American Robert Goddard.

Germany was a world leader in innovative technical ordnance design (general purpose MG, first true assault rifle, squeeze-bore and high-low pressure anti-tank gun technolofy, the 88, the nebelwerfer, rotary and revolver automatic cannon, etc). OTOH, the US fielded the very first unquestionably successful general issue semi-automatic infantry rifle in history, invented the first successful infantry anti-tank rocket weapon, and invented the first successful mass-produced artillery proximity fuze.

The Germans copied American Bazooka technology; the Americans copied German homing torpedo technology.

It seems to me that no one had any sort of a monopoly on technical expertise and excellence.

Shakthamac
02-28-2005, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Technological comparison between US and Germany?

Germany was far in the lead with liquid fueled rocketry during WW2, but did base much of their efforts on the ground-breaking pre-war research of the American Robert Goddard.

Germany was a world leader in innovative technical ordnance design (general purpose MG, first true assault rifle, squeeze-bore and high-low pressure anti-tank gun technolofy, the 88, the nebelwerfer, rotary and revolver automatic cannon, etc). OTOH, the US fielded the very first unquestionably successful general issue semi-automatic infantry rifle in history, invented the first successful infantry anti-tank rocket weapon, and invented the first successful mass-produced artillery proximity fuze.

The Germans copied American Bazooka technology; the Americans copied German homing torpedo technology.

It seems to me that no one had any sort of a monopoly on technical expertise and excellence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. It just seems that you hear more about German technology because its the only thing that could have saved them, and you always hear about the sheer numbers of the Allies because German sympathizers can't develop a better argument.

It seems that its always an issue of German technology vs Allied numbers, when in fact it was German technology vs Allied technology and numbers

EnGaurde
02-28-2005, 05:48 PM
in a kind of summary of what i originally meant, from the literature ive read on the subject the germans had a very good technological advantage hobbled by supply issues and mystifying leadership decisions. I still consider that they had the tech edge.

perhaps my attitudes come from consistently reading about how the germans always had tech breakthroughs, where you didnt always read so much on allied efforts.

though one thing Shak, be careful about your pro US attitudes in so far as labelling people as "German sympathizers".

Youre letting your patriotism colour your attitudes towards valid opinions held by others, and aligning them to something quite unpleasant indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

how bout a little less red white and blue and more reasoned argument eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2005, 06:18 PM
USA and Britan working together left Germany far behind in Electronic Warfare.

According RAF jet instructor and aviation historian Bill Gunsten, when British pilots first sat in USA cockpits, they were amazed at the profusion of switches that all actually *worked*

Soviet Union left everybody behind in air~air gun weapons (Bill Gunsten).

Germany left everybody behind in rockets and missiles.

USA left everybody behind in nuclear weapons, and general mechanical engineering made for muddy battlefields.

Russia left everybody behind in combat flight simulation for the PC.

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2005, 10:19 PM
And, Japan left everybody behind in torpedoes.

Blutarski2004
03-01-2005, 07:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
And, Japan left everybody behind in torpedoes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that. By any comparison, the IJN led the world in (unguided) torpedo technology.

IJN also holds the record for the longest range hit - about 22,000 yds during the closing stages of a night surface action off Bougainville in 1943.

Their optics were excellent as well (as were those of Germany).

Shakthamac
03-01-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
in a kind of summary of what i originally meant, from the literature ive read on the subject the germans had a very good technological advantage hobbled by supply issues and mystifying leadership decisions. I still consider that they had the tech edge.

perhaps my attitudes come from consistently reading about how the germans always had tech breakthroughs, where you didnt always read so much on allied efforts.

though one thing Shak, be careful about your pro US attitudes in so far as labelling people as "German sympathizers".

Youre letting your patriotism colour your attitudes towards valid opinions held by others, and aligning them to something quite unpleasant indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

how bout a little less red white and blue and more reasoned argument eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: I said German, not Nazi

You should be able to tell a difference right there. What I meant by german sympathizer was to include their armed forces and how they are regarded on this forum, not political ideology.

As far as the Red, White, & Blue comment goes, call it what you want. Im tired of hearing the Allies being downplayed as second rate when it comes to how WW2 was fought and the technology that went in to it. Im pretty sure that I made a reasoned argument when I described actual technological developments made by the Allies during the war. You seem to have your thoughts and ideas situated on the other side of the "pond." Theres nothing wrong with that, Germany was indeed a great industrialized nation who made huge technological developments during the war. But when you say something like "Did the Allies win technically or numerically?" after citing numerous German technologies and none of the Allied, your making it clear what side you stand on.

You can word what you say however you want on when you post on this forum. Just because you don't blatantly say something doesn't mean I can't understand what you are trying to imply.

Shakthamac
03-01-2005, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Russia left everybody behind in combat flight simulation for the PC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen

jpatrick62
03-01-2005, 02:34 PM
Getting back to the Flight Journal Article...

Comparing the earlier version of the FW190 to a -1D Corsair is not really that much of a time gap since the -1D was basically a -1A with bomb racks. And since the Corsair was actually pre-war technology.. Anyway, compare the '44 F4U-4 and the FW190 Doras and the results would probably be the same. Incidentally, I think it's amazing that Hellcats and corsairs were even mentioned in the same breath as their land based bretheren, Considering the naval aircraft carries 4-500 pounds extra for tailhook, extra body bracing, stronger landing gear, folding wings, etc., you would think they'd be at a severe disadvantage. If you're looking for another test, get the "Report of the Joint Fighter conference of 1944." It tests the aircraft of severaal nations, and allowed each service (and allied countries) test pilots to test the fighters in the conference and report results. The Seafire, Corsair, hellcat, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc were all represented. The Zero was there as well. The corsair was chosen best carrier fighter over the Seafire and Hellcat, and the Mustang was chosen as best land based fighter over the Thunderbolt and Lightning. Interestingly, several pilots commented that the Mustang was not a good turning ship, but was easy to fly...

DIRTY-MAC
03-01-2005, 04:30 PM
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
you both, luft and allied whiners are just making fools out of yourselves,
what a **** load of bullsh!t!!!!!
there is no way you can take these posts seriusly. especially
shakthamacs
close this thread, because it is stupid!
It just makes me sick! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Shakthamac
03-01-2005, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
you both, luft and allied whiners are just making fools out of yourselves,
what a **** load of bullsh!t!!!!!
there is no way you can take these posts seriusly. especially
shakthamacs
close this thread, because it is stupid!
It just makes me sick! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

?

Did i speak some mistruth? Have I stated anything on here that wasn't accurate?

whitetornado_1
03-01-2005, 05:46 PM
In that Flight journal artical there
is one thing you failed to mention
in the ''rate of climb'' section about
the FW and I quote the last sentence of that
section in the magazine.

''Its(FW-190) faster rate of climb gave it an important advantage it could break off an engagement at will and re-engage head on if its pilot chosed too.''

This seems unachievable ingame and makes all
the difference in combat.

And the FW-190 A-4 did pretty good against a
F4U-1 I find.

Asgeir_Strips
03-02-2005, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JPatrick62:
Getting back to the Flight Journal Article...

Comparing the earlier version of the FW190 to a -1D Corsair is not really that much of a time gap since the -1D was basically a -1A with bomb racks. And since the Corsair was actually pre-war technology.. Anyway, compare the '44 F4U-4 and the FW190 Doras and the results would probably be the same. Incidentally, I think it's amazing that Hellcats and corsairs were even mentioned in the same breath as their land based bretheren, Considering the naval aircraft carries 4-500 pounds extra for tailhook, extra body bracing, stronger landing gear, folding wings, etc., you would think they'd be at a severe disadvantage. If you're looking for another test, get the "Report of the Joint Fighter conference of 1944." It tests the aircraft of severaal nations, and allowed each service (and allied countries) test pilots to test the fighters in the conference and report results. The Seafire, Corsair, hellcat, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc were all represented. The Zero was there as well. The corsair was chosen best carrier fighter over the Seafire and Hellcat, and the Mustang was chosen as best land based fighter over the Thunderbolt and Lightning. Interestingly, several pilots commented that the Mustang was not a good turning ship, but was easy to fly... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F4U-1D Wasn't just a regular corsair with bomb racks... the F4U-1D had a more powerful Engine as well.. i think it was 2250hp with water injection

horseback
03-02-2005, 07:26 PM
F4U-1D's engine was more powerful, but the -1D was heavier, and only about 10-15 mph faster 'clean.' Since you rarely got to top speed in combat, it wasn't that critical.

The important difference about the -1D model was that it was optimized for ground pounding, with hard points for ordnance and in later models, zero length launch stubs for the 5 inch rockets.

Major performance improvement didn't come until the -4.

cheers

horseback

Taurus_Slo
03-04-2005, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I also know there were a lot of tremendously talented German aces and then there were not so many. Many of them disappeared in early 1944 when Mustangs showed up over Germany.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is now exactly fair to say that mustang was the reason for disappearing german aces. The main reason was numerical superiority. It is hard to fight with 200 fighters against 7000 bombers and 7000 fighters and even bigger numbers at the end of the war. If hte numbers were more equal, i'm sure that most german aces would survived the war. But if you fight 5:1, it is highly probable that one of the five against you would get a lucky shot and shoot you down.

Just my conclusion ...

Blutarski2004
03-04-2005, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taurus_Slo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I also know there were a lot of tremendously talented German aces and then there were not so many. Many of them disappeared in early 1944 when Mustangs showed up over Germany.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is now exactly fair to say that mustang was the reason for disappearing german aces. The main reason was numerical superiority. It is hard to fight with 200 fighters against 7000 bombers and 7000 fighters and even bigger numbers at the end of the war. If hte numbers were more equal, i'm sure that most german aces would survived the war. But if you fight 5:1, it is highly probable that one of the five against you would get a lucky shot and shoot you down.

Just my conclusion ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The disparity in number of a/c on an operational basis did not translate to a disparity of numbers on a tactical basis at the point of contact. German tactics were to concentrate large numbers of interceptors upon a specific bomber group to overwhelm the escort and wreak havoc on that single bomber unit. The record is full of German interceptions with groups of 50, 60, 80, even 100 fighters in one location.

The bomber streams were extremely long. US fighter escorts were spread along a hundred miles. German intercepts, guided by radar ground control, were able to concentrate at the most opportune time and place. In addition, USAF fighter groups were committed sequentially, with some groups escorting the bombers to the target and others arriving later to escort the bombers back to England.

Germany lost the air war over its homeland as a result of attrition. If you want to argue that this attrition occurred because there were far more Allied fighters in the ETO, then I will agree that Germany was greatly outnumbered in the air. But at the tactical level, this was not true. The idea that, tactically speaking, the German fighter pilot was hopelessly outnumbered wherever he went in the skies of Germany is a myth.

GerritJ9
03-05-2005, 08:46 AM
Contrary to popular opinion, Britain was NOT the sole inventor of radar. In the 1930s several nations were working on radar. Germany had gunnery radar installed in the "Graf Spee" by 1938; the U.S. Navy had surface radar installed in the destroyer "Leary" in 1937. Here in the Netherlands, Philips in Eindhoven was working on radar for the Dutch Navy. Similar work was no doubt being done in Japan, though less far advanced.
Nor was Britain unique in having an early warning radar system- the RAF bombers which attacked the German Navy in 1939 were intercepted by fighters which had received warning of the bombers' approach thanks to Freyas.

BSS_Vidar
03-05-2005, 12:26 PM
I agree Blutasrski,

The numbers game is a little deceiving. Fighter to Fighter, the numbers are a lot closer than people think. There were many-a-times that allied fighter pilots were greatly out numbered over Western Europe - yes even in 1944, and won the engagement. Were the numbers seem to through a lot of people off, is the counting on massive allied bombing raids.

Speeking of bombing raids, I just saw a great show on the Military channel discussing Lufftwaffe tactics engageing Allied bombers with the Me109's. I appears that two configurations of 109 flights were used to engage bomber waves. One group would mount the 108 pods, and would STRICTLY engage the bombers, while other 109's without the 108's were used to give these guys cover while they attacked the formations. This was because the 109's with 108 pods on their wings were incapable of manuevering against any enemy fighter. The 109's performance was so badly degraded, they needed fighter cover themselves.
Makes you wonder just how off the German FM might be in this game when you see guys doing hammerhead stalls and wing-overs with pods on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

One gent told me, "Well, I can do it". He failed to understand, that no matter what ACE is flying the plane, the airframe should not be capable of doing it with pods on in the game.

Blutarski2004
03-07-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
I agree Blutasrski,

The numbers game is a little deceiving. Fighter to Fighter, the numbers are a lot closer than people think. There were many-a-times that allied fighter pilots were greatly out numbered over Western Europe - yes even in 1944, and won the engagement. Were the numbers seem to through a lot of people off, is the counting on massive allied bombing raids.

Speeking of bombing raids, I just saw a great show on the Military channel discussing Lufftwaffe tactics engageing Allied bombers with the Me109's. I appears that two configurations of 109 flights were used to engage bomber waves. One group would mount the 108 pods, and would STRICTLY engage the bombers, while other 109's without the 108's were used to give these guys cover while they attacked the formations. This was because the 109's with 108 pods on their wings were incapable of manuevering against any enemy fighter. The 109's performance was so badly degraded, they needed fighter cover themselves.
Makes you wonder just how off the German FM might be in this game when you see guys doing hammerhead stalls and wing-overs with pods on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

One gent told me, "Well, I can do it". He failed to understand, that no matter what ACE is flying the plane, the airframe should not be capable of doing it with pods on in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Vidar, You're correct on that score. Once the LF had decided upon the need to up-gun their fighters, they discovered that these "heavy" fighters had sacrificed so much in performance that they now needed protection against allied escort fighters. The book on war history of JG26 discusses this point as it was practiced by them.