PDA

View Full Version : why doth ye whine



XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:54 AM
Well eagle my last thread got locked, but thanks for your reply. First off I agree with all your said, except, you said you were out numbered untill 1944, in total aircraft maybe, but as you stated Germany wanted to pick a fight with the world, and as a result of this they had a lot (the majority) of available aircraft fighting on the Russian front. Also I never said the jug was the highest produced fighter of wWW11, it was the most produced AMERICAN fighter of the era, pleas read what I said, not what some muppet said in his misunderstood response to my post.
You said that American fighters were not good dog fighintg machines, my point exactly. thats why I posted in the first place

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:54 AM
Well eagle my last thread got locked, but thanks for your reply. First off I agree with all your said, except, you said you were out numbered untill 1944, in total aircraft maybe, but as you stated Germany wanted to pick a fight with the world, and as a result of this they had a lot (the majority) of available aircraft fighting on the Russian front. Also I never said the jug was the highest produced fighter of wWW11, it was the most produced AMERICAN fighter of the era, pleas read what I said, not what some muppet said in his misunderstood response to my post.
You said that American fighters were not good dog fighintg machines, my point exactly. thats why I posted in the first place

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:56 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.361stvfg.com (http://www.361stvfg.com)





<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, 08:57 AM
i heard you the first time Eagle

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 08:59 AM
Just giving you the opportunity to reply as the last thread was locked. I don't like having one sided discussions, this way we can at least civilly discuss this topic with responses.
~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>

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 08:59 AM
We heard you too the first time. Now give it a rest.

Wasn't your thread being locked enough clue for you?

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:02 AM
so why reply again buzz?

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:04 AM
thanks for replying eagle

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 09:05 AM
Because you seemed confused../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:07 AM
stuffy::
-- You said that American fighters were not good dog
-- fighintg machines, my point exactly. thats why I posted
-- in the first place


We also heard you the first time when you posted USA planes were poor "quality" and you never posted "dogfight" in your post. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif We shall remind you of that. The history from WW1 shows that good dogfighters are bad war fighters, going back to French SPAD and German Triplane.

This is where the Japanese made the mistake of letting their 1930s pilots influence the design of 1940s Zero, and why Polikarpov was forgotten cos he favored the biplane as late as 1939. Bad move. This is the mistake Noob computer simmers make.

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:07 AM
stuffypilkerton, you stink /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<center>

http://www.walgreens.com/dbimagecache/8427.gif

</center>

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/buck1.gif <font size= 2>
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip up"
<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"> <font size= 1>Stick_Fiend Home<a/>
<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/X45.htm"> <font size= 1>X45 Profiles<a/>
<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/FYLindex.htm"> <font size= 1>Fighting for Your Life<a/></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:11 AM
georgeo76::
-- stuffypilkerton, you stink /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole Newbie because of a single slip up.

Best sig yet, btw...

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:11 AM
oh no Ive been called a noob, how will i deal with this
time to go running for i153, or hurricane i suppose, boys please read my post.

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 09:13 AM
Stuffy,

You could have worded your original post better. You wern't really expecting a good responce from Americans were you?

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:15 AM
ps just because this is mt first post,dont mean I havent played the game for a long time. maybe I did not want to get involved with the childish antics that seem to make up the majority of these posts,people responding to someones else response to the orignal post, oh and by the way Buzz, thats not what your mamma said. now whos childish.

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 09:19 AM
I tried to reason with you, but I see my first impression of you was right. Your just a keyboard punk.

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:22 AM
Well anybody who seriously thinks that a P-47 should be able to literally dogfight is plain stupid. At high altitude she is a dream, but low and slow a nightmare. The US planes were designed for high altitude escort and interdiction, because they knew that long range bomber escort was going to be neccessary to win the war. Also as I stated above the dogfights of WWI or very early WWII or even in the movies just did not happen in reality in the time frame we are talking about here. I will agree that our planes were not savior of the world, and I think most serious posters will agree with that. But IMO no one plane was. You have to split it into different categories to really assertain what the best fighter was in that category. If I were to pick the best overall fighter of WWII, I would say the P-47 because it could do everything well, and some things excellent, take a beating and get it's pilot home. That's not saying that there weren't better fighters for certain job's out there, because there were. But in war all that matters is getting home and making sure the other guys don't.
~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>

Message Edited on 10/17/0308:25AM by Eagle_361st

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:28 AM
I agree with your post eagle, but I don't agree with the conclusion that the P47 is the best overall fighter. It can't do everything well. It had success thanks to team tactics and tactical advantage (escorting bombers they could choose a few thousand feet of alt advantage and dive on the german planes and then zoom back up to safety). It was excellent for this type of fight. It was also excellent to shoot planes on the ground or during landing / take off.

But in some other situations I doubt it would be so good.

It was good overall in the situation it was used, but not in every situation.

Also don't forget that even if germany had a plane number advantage, those were spread all over Europe. Besides you need to have qualified pilots and fuel to fly them.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:29 AM
Far from it Buzz your responses lacked anything that could even remotely be called reasonable, sure the your mamma jibe was in bad taste, and I was pleasently surprised to see you did not take the bait by comming down to my level, and for that I salute you (im sure this means a lot to you).
My point was, and still is that American aircraft of WW11 were not good dogfighting machines, a fact which lots of ye americans seem to agree with me on. and yet I still get replys of highly offended people saying I know nothing and stating facts that I stated im my orignal post, Buzz once again apoligies for my crude jibe, you are the better man for not responding. maybe I should leave my talking to be done from the cockpit

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:32 AM
What are you doing here Buzz ???

On topic though, interesting thoughts Eagle. I don't think it is possible to say one plane is the best either. To add something, what will define a plane as good ? Isn't it how the pilots like it and then use it along with its mechanical qualities ?

A plane will have qualities that will fit some pilots and not others, so finally it is not ONLY a matter of pure mechanic, but also a matter of feeling between plane / pilot.

Just a thought /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<center>

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/slow-gold/florent/signature.jpg

Message Edited on 10/17/0310:33AM by McCallaway

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:33 AM
Your right Nicolas, but everybody will have a different opinion which is fine. I am just stating why I feel the Jug was the best overall because she could fill so many rolls. In a one on one engagement it really comes down to the pilots involved more than the machines. And your also right that once the large part of the fighting was over with the Germans were at a tactical disadvantage. But it truely was a team effort and like I said the LW commands ignorance and arrogance as well as Germany's leadership leading them to this abismal war that lead to their downfall. I just don't think it's fair to say our planes were not good, they were just as good as anything else. Every plane has it's strength and it's weakness, no one plane is infalible.
~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, 09:40 AM
That fact is that every major contender(Germany,Russia,USA,UK,Japan etc.) in WWII had their share of duds and successes in the field of aviation. To say American planes only won through numbers is ludicrous. They all had their share of strengths and weaknesses and to say a country was outright inferior or superior is plain ignorant. The P-47 was an excellent dogfighter up high and a wonderful mud-mover down low,but NOT a good dogfighter down low. It all depends.....

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

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 09:42 AM
Stuffy,

I already mentioned the Hellcat against the Jap planes. Which we know were good dogfighters. You seemed to have ignored this.

If you want to talk the EF then don't forget the P-39. It was a great dogfighter.



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

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 09:42 AM
McCallaway

Did you read his other thread that was locked?

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:47 AM
Buzz::
-- You seemed to have ignored this.

The "poor quality" (NOT my words) poster/posterette is religiously ignoring me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:48 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- That fact is that every major
- contender(Germany,Russia,USA,UK,Japan etc.) in WWII
- had their share of duds and successes in the field
- of aviation. To say American planes only won through
- numbers is ludicrous. They all had their share of
- strengths and weaknesses and to say a country was
- outright inferior or superior is plain ignorant. The
- P-47 was an excellent dogfighter up high and a
- wonderful mud-mover down low,but NOT a good
- dogfighter down low. It all depends.....

And it was a dreadful mudmover up high.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:49 AM
-- And it was a dreadful mudmover up high.

Not so fast. Was thinking they should have tried P~47 as strategic level bomber, why not?

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:50 AM
nicolas10 wrote:And it was a dreadful mudmover up high.

You'd be suprised../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:54 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:The "poor quality" (NOT my words) poster/posterette
- is religiously ignoring me.

His arguments don't hold water,only hears want he wants to. I mean,who would post an identical topic that's already been LOCKED? How dense can you be? A troll pure and simple.....

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 09:55 AM
<center>http://forum.racesimcentral.com/images/smilies/munching_out.gif
shamleslly stolen from buzz

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 10:02 AM
Eagle_361st wrote:

- The US planes were designed for high
- altitude escort and interdiction, because they knew
- that long range bomber escort was going to be
- neccessary to win the war.

Well, they found out the hard way really, didn't they? Despite advice from the RAF after its disastrous daytime experiences, the USAAF still believed the unescorted bomber could work. And, to be fair, their initial shallow penetration raids seemed to give the theory some credibility. The point is, the need for a long range escort wasn't foreseen before the war and pre-war US fighters were designed for much the same things as European fighters. [The Germans (and Japanese) are the only ones who saw the need for a long range escort.]


Of course, once the need was recognized 2 excellent types were produced by the US.

- If I were to pick
- the best overall fighter of WWII, I would say the
- P-47 because it could do everything well, and some
- things excellent, take a beating and get it's pilot
- home.

Everyone has an opinion about this and the P-47 is as good as any.

Kernow
249 IAP

Buzz_25th
10-17-2003, 10:02 AM
Mike,

I'm looking for one of someone eating peaches../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 10:03 AM
hehe.. oh and good cuase i wanna keep the pop corn eater!

U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991

Message Edited on 10/17/0302:08AM by tenmmike

XyZspineZyX
10-17-2003, 10:31 AM
Buzz wrote :
--McCallaway
--
--Did you read his other thread that was locked?

No I didn't, I come here rarely and that was just a (good) surprise to see you on these boards /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/slow-gold/florent/signature.jpg

Message Edited on 10/17/0311:32AM by McCallaway

Tully__
10-17-2003, 12:33 PM
Stuffy, re-opening a closed topic is not well received.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>
<center> Sig size limits (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzrgs)</center>
<center><font size="-2" color="#88aadd">IL2 Forums Moderator</font></center>


Salut
Tully