PDA

View Full Version : whiners must remember Luftwaffe produced poor planes



Danschnell
01-08-2005, 10:03 AM
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it?

Da_Godfatha
01-08-2005, 10:09 AM
Have you played online? I have seen whine-0-nines out turn Spits and Zero's. Not to mention their 105mm...er...30mm cannon.

Belzeebub
01-08-2005, 10:09 AM
Well... let's say that was new to me.... What are your referenses for this statment? What are you compareing Me262 and Fw190D with?

Belzeebub

sapre
01-08-2005, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never knew every aircombat in WW2 has been a tight-turning dogfights.

CD_Metal_heaD
01-08-2005, 10:17 AM
well, if you can handel you plane very good as the german pilots did, you w*ll have a big chans. i mean you can kill FW 190 with a gladiator if you know your planes good and week points. and i dont know this for sure, but i think the planes in WW2 was pretty equly. you say that all the allied where faster. that is not true. the comet where the fastest plane, and the 190´s later moddels where very fast too. but in the end its allways up to the pilot... sorry for bad english

JG52_Meyer
01-08-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Priceless http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

robban75
01-08-2005, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.nzghosts.co.nz/images/troll.gif

BBB_Hyperion
01-08-2005, 10:32 AM
I though CI already had banned him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 10:43 AM
This can't be for real. Have you spent 1 minute flying this sim either on or off line? Have you spent 30 seconds doing any viable research?

Go back in your cave, troll.


And Da_Godfatha, 109's cannot out turn Spitfires, and certainly not Zeros. Do not mistake getting an inside line through a well executed manuver with being able to out turn those airplanes. You cannot out turn them. So you have to fly smarter than they do.

p1ngu666
01-08-2005, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
This can't be for real. Have you spent 1 minute flying this sim either on or off line? Have you spent 30 seconds doing any viable research?

Go back in your cave, troll.


And Da_Godfatha, 109's cannot out turn Spitfires, and certainly not Zeros. Do not mistake getting an inside line through a well executed manuver with being able to out turn those airplanes. You cannot out turn them. So you have to fly smarter than they do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i keep coming across ppl who do tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

anyways most produced plane was 109g6, and a contempory of that was the IX spitfire, p51(razer back) p47 and p38

so thats where they lost out...

MEGILE
01-08-2005, 11:35 AM
It's like reading a history book.

Danschnell
01-08-2005, 11:42 AM
The Komet, Me262, and 190D were produced in VERY small numbers. They weren't your usual planes. I know they were faster than Allied planes, but didn't make a significant contribution to the war. This is why I said what I did. More significantly, online servers do not include these planes. They are banned because they are better than Allied planes. Its considered 'cheating' to fly an Me262, but not a Spitfire!!!
Look in the object viewer too. All 190s and bf 109s ARE rubbish turners, and yes, all Allied planes are faster than the 190As, and the 190As are supposed to use speed as their advantage.

csThor
01-08-2005, 11:44 AM
... and Danschnell must remember that he is as much an expert on Luftwaffe planes as a dog knows about producing a chicken's egg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Von_Rat
01-08-2005, 12:00 PM
i bet i got better than a 5 to 1 kill ratio killing just spits. of the major planes its gotta be the plane i kill the most, and get shot down the least by.

a lot of noobs fly spits,,,easy pickings.

are you aware that alot of german pilots stated that, no matter what the official numbers say, they could outrun any contempory western allied plane in a 190a9.

JG5_UnKle
01-08-2005, 12:07 PM
Outnumbered 20:1 with no fuel and poor pilot training.

That's why they lost out.

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
bf 109s ARE rubbish turners <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von Rat and I are Rubbish Aces! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bull_dog_
01-08-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Outnumbered 20:1 with no fuel and poor pilot training.

That's why they lost out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually don't say anything when I see this...because there was a point in the war when this was true...but in March of 1944 and before it was not true. There was only one plane that could fly to Germany and back prior to D-Day and that was the P-51 Mustang...the B/C model no less and there weren't more of them than there was Luftwaffe pilots either.

After the allies went on the offensive and cleared the skies for Normandy, I think that statement is close to correct...but not prior to that.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just don't like blanket statements like that because there was vicious fighting over Europe till about April or May 1944...the skies were empty of German aircraft on June 6th, 1944 for a reason. I also think those B-17's and B-24's took an aweful toll on German planes and pilots as well...maybe more than history reflects.

One advantage the Luftwaffe had over allied pilots is that most of the war, they were bailing out and crash landing over friendly territory. Much better opportunity for pilots to return to combat than allied pilots flying across the channel....at least on the Western front. The eastern front was a different story.

Now there is a contradiction to ponder over...Luftwaffe pilots racked up huge victory tallies over the Eastern front but not the Western front...there were tons of allied aircraft to shoot at, yet in game the Soviet aircraft...even early war models seem to be incredibly tough and agile and superior in many aspects to German aircraft while the Lightning is pathetic and the Jug has just recently been brought up to the competitive state. The Mustang is really good in game, but I dare say not dominant like it was in March of 1944. Of course for me, its achilles heel is the old wing falling off thingy. You have to stay fast in that plane to be successful, problem is the wings fall off when your fast....hmmmm

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
109's cannot out turn Spitfires, and certainly not Zeros. Do not mistake getting an inside line through a well executed manuver with being able to out turn those airplanes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i keep coming across ppl who do tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not questioning your skill or your SA. But you did not see what you think you saw. If a 109 "outturns" a spit, it is because the spit wasn't in the hardest turn it could pull, or was at a much higher speed. I've turned inside spits who were on the six of a 190 or 109 who were doing shallow turns, sometimes at my request. That way I can line up my shot.

Von Rat and I, and many others do this on War Clouds all the time. As the shooter you will "drive" the guy with a plane on his six in a direction that puts you in the most adventagous position to take a shot the quickest. The prolem lies in that you are also setting him up to get shot. But if you are smart, you will keeping him jinking... just in the direction you know he is going to go, so you can anticipate everything, where as the enemy has to react to it.

Anyway, like Von Rat said, Spitfires are flown by newer pilots ALOT. One's who don't know the easiest tricks for getting a 109 off your six. We use that, in addition to superior tactics and teamwork, to win round after round in War Clouds.

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
...the skies were empty of German aircraft on June 6th, 1944 for a reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. Poor leadership based on mistaken intelligence due to Allied deception.

Von_Rat
01-08-2005, 12:31 PM
CRASH,,,,,,you gotta stop killing all those spits in warclouds. its giving the 109 and fw a reputation for being uber. if you keep it up i smell a nerf coming. lol.

faustnik
01-08-2005, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:

This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Danschnel,

Grab your one of your little buddies and jump in a some superior Spitfires. Crash and I can meet you online, him in his inferior 109 and me in my slow Fw190.

We need a history lesson on how "pointless" our LW planes are. Please teach us.

VW-IceFire
01-08-2005, 12:36 PM
Oh goodness....the only good blanket statement that can be made about aircraft during WWII is that at some point of the game in every theater one side had the better planes and better pilots than the other. But it was never in the hands of one side...the Russians, Germans, Americans, British, and other sides all at some point possesed the superior plane in relation to their opponents. It was a one-upmanship that always went back and forth.

Plus Luftwaffe planes tended to get much heavier as the war went on to accomodate bomber hunting. I'm sure the Spitfire or Thunderbolt would have suffered just as much if they were forced into the role of bomber hunter.

So no, the Luftwaffe never operated poor planes on the whole, they did very well within the resources and constraints placed on them. Do some research...some serious research. Learn a bit more about the conflict in all of its aspects (including industrial production, personell mobilization, the home fronts, and so on).

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
CRASH,,,,,,you gotta stop killing all those spits in warclouds. its giving the 109 and fw a reputation for being uber. if you keep it up i smell a nerf coming. lol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Allied side on WC figures out the superior attributes of the P-63, and then couple that with good teamwork, Blue is going to have a serious problem.

But since I doubt they will ever get their **** together, I can continue eating spits like so much popcorn.

JG5_UnKle
01-08-2005, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Outnumbered 20:1 with no fuel and poor pilot training.

That's why they lost out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually don't say anything when I see this...because there was a point in the war when this was true...but in March of 1944 and before it was not true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mention a date http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but yes I basically agree.

As for the P-51 wings well.....

If it didn't have such an overmodelled elevator you wouldn't be able to pull so much G and the wings wouldn't fall off.

It happens on all the aircraft, try a trimmed 190 or add even the slightest bit of rudder and off come the wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif it isn't just a Mustang thing

LBR_Rommel
01-08-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua

this place became a joke forum, hua hua hua hua hua hua hua very funny

BigganD
01-08-2005, 01:20 PM
Dont take this up plz, from 1941-43 russians didnt have any radios.
The aircraft they build was mass pruduced, meny of them didnt have all the controls in their planes. Bad quality but tousen of them.

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LBR_Rommel:
Hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua hua

this place became a joke forum, hua hua hua hua hua hua hua very funny <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ever laugh when someone elses laughs? I laughed pretty hard when I read this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bearcat99
01-08-2005, 01:44 PM
whooooo boy.... Ill be watchung this one... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 02:05 PM
Big Brother is on this one.

JG7_Rall
01-08-2005, 02:45 PM
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it.

AtorianPaladin
01-08-2005, 03:21 PM
Of course the P-51 D can outrun a 190A the 190a was mid 1942, and it outflew everything the allies had, the luftwaffe was kikkin *** until we got P51s out there.

The late model fw190's could outrun everything we had. they had a 30 mph advantage on the mustang, and about the same on the F4u, not that it matters, but the F4U was one of our fastest fighters of the war.

and if FW-190 is so crppy, how come almost all late japanese army aircraft are almost FW-190 clones?

the only thing i hate about the fw 190 is it stalls so easy, thats it, other then that its the best, hands down

x__CRASH__x
01-08-2005, 03:37 PM
Don't forget the view. The view in the 190 looks like a 10 year old child is sitting in the seat.

Be sure.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-08-2005, 04:01 PM
Hi,

Yes...the Germans had inferior planes.

So much so, in fact, that the 109 shot down more planes than anything else, the 190 ripped the RAF up in 1942 so much that they had to make a serious effort to improve the best they had (Spitfire) and at the end of the war the 190D was regarded very highly by allied pilots indeed.

Then, of course, we have the Me262 which was so far ahead of it's time that the allies could only shoot it down by attacking it on the ground or when taking off/landing.

Yes - you're right..that's a really bad aircraft portfolio.

Or, perhaps you were referring to their lack of long-range strategic heavy bombers? In that case, I concede - you are correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Cheers,
Norris

WUAF_Badsight
01-08-2005, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I can continue eating spits like so much popcorn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
boy , thats never been less true than now

too close to call as of 3.03 ! . . . . . all down to the pilot now

Xnomad
01-08-2005, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
As for the P-51 wings well.....

If it didn't have such an overmodelled elevator you wouldn't be able to pull so much G and the wings wouldn't fall off.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just picked up this book from my local library called "In the Cockpit, Flying the Worlds Great Aircraft"
In the section on Mustangs there is the following quote:

"In my outfit there were several cases of P-51s having structural failure in flight. It is a pretty sure thing that most of these break-ups occured because the pilot was heavy on the controls at highs speed. The unwary would easily get into such a situation......Sometimes it would look that no more harm than popping a few rivets had been done. As we didn't have the equipment in those days to check for metal fatigue the plane would be put back into service only to break up next time a pilot pulled a sharp turn."

And just before this quote:
"The Mustang was tough, but if you got into an uncontrollable dive it only took a heavy hand on the stick to shed wings and tailplane."

robban75
01-08-2005, 05:23 PM
In the words of F/L Pierre Clostermann.

"12 Focke Wulfs were emerging from the clouds. They were magnificent "longnoses" with the white spiral round the spinner!"


At least Clostermann didn't think too poorly of the German machines if he describes them like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Airmail109
01-08-2005, 06:02 PM
I dont know the truth of this in RL, but the 109 I find (as an expierenced pilot) to be superior to the Spitfire. It has a more stable gun platform, they accelerate well. Thier low speed handling is excellent (I found this out after getting into a low speed/low level dogfight with DEA_Rooster in a Mig-3, I could manuver in such a way as causing him to stall and crash). They are great for evasive manuvers, they declerate quickly especially if you put the Landing flaps down. The K4's climb quicly meaning I can get away. When Im flying with 108s i can shortly pull inside a spitfire and give him a quick shot and blow him to hell. They are great for perfoming vertical stall turns (hammerheads) this is especially good as an evasive manuver if you fly into a cloud to perform the hammerhead. They are also rugged, and take a good battering. I also prefer the view over the wing to the spitfire. In the spitfire you sit to over the wing and it blocks your view. I for one though will be giving up my 109 for a tempest when time comes as im English lol and I love the tempest.

sapre
01-08-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AtorianPaladin:
and if FW-190 is so crppy, how come almost all late japanese army aircraft are almost FW-190 clones?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What ARE you talking about!?

skabbe
01-08-2005, 06:56 PM
haha is this what they call brittish humor? If not, im going to visit London soon to see a true tempest V. After that I might use her hispano's to make you say "sorry" Danschnell

73GIAP_Milan
01-09-2005, 10:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif
I just smell some pretty bad trolling/fishing here...

This guy is obviously NOT informed about WWII Aerial Combat..

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-09-2005, 10:29 AM
what a n00b thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-09-2005, 10:38 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 p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
_109's cannot out turn Spitfires_, and certainly not Zeros. Do not mistake getting an inside line through a well executed manuver with being able to out turn those airplanes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i keep coming across ppl who do tho http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not questioning your skill or your SA. But you did not see what you think you saw. If a 109 "outturns" a spit, it is because the spit wasn't in the hardest turn it could pull, or was at a much higher speed. I've turned inside spits who were on the six of a 190 or 109 who were doing shallow turns, sometimes at my request. That way I can line up my shot.

Von Rat and I, and many others do this on War Clouds all the time. As the shooter you will "drive" the guy with a plane on his six in a direction that puts you in the most adventagous position to take a shot the quickest. The prolem lies in that you are also setting him up to get shot. But if you are smart, you will keeping him jinking... just in the direction you know he is going to go, so you can anticipate everything, where as the enemy has to react to it.

Anyway, like Von Rat said, Spitfires are flown by newer pilots ALOT. One's who don't know the easiest tricks for getting a 109 off your six. We use that, in addition to superior tactics and teamwork, to win round after round in War Clouds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i gave spit a quick fly offwhine and it was fine, onwhine i find it unstable, offwhine fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif, maybe i move slightly faster onwhine? i dont know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
i find other planes more sensitive too, like yaks.

irl 109g6 was the mainstay of the lw in 43 and 44, mw50 came in autumn of 44 atleast from data someone posted and no one disagreed with him a few weeks ago..

43 and early 44 is lowpoint for lw v british, increasing numbers of typhoons and mossies, p51's (including alison engined ones :P ) all faster at low alt, and the XIV came into squadron service in jan/feb 44. and around d day british increased boost of aircraft to 25lb for merlins and 21 for griffon possible. gave a extra 30mph at low level on IX, and a extra 950ft a min climb...

the improved lw planes where too little too late, irl the lw pilots where dieing for the much promised uber planes.

lw had little fuel cos allies bombed oil plants, but the lw had ample opportunity to shoot down the bombers, heck the british stopped being bombed cos they shot down lots of german bombers (bob, blitz, malta(eventully) and the russians aparently did very good defense for moscow.

lw aircraft, good, but not good enuff.

Oak_Groove
01-09-2005, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems like a classical case of delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion.

LStarosta
01-09-2005, 10:40 AM
Dude.

I, like all aces, can open several cans of whoop a$s in my 190. With an interior so pimped out, how can someone NOT own?

As Prefontaine mentioned to me the other day, Kurt Tank called MTV and was like:

Kurt: Yo dawgz, i g0tz me dis tit3 ride rite hurr, but is missin da juNk. i no it rides gr8 but it l0okz liek krappe. teh kokpit is aful! y0 MTV PIEEEMP my r1d3!

Exibit: Aiiiiite dogg.


The rest was history. Now you have really pimped out trim lines, a sweet interior, and the thing has a pimped out sound system: overrev the engine and she'll be whistling "I'll Be Comin' 'Round The Mountain" till she dies. Fact.

WOLFMondo
01-09-2005, 10:53 AM
Danschnell, the 190 is an excellent plane, there very tough and very fast, have excellent zoom climb and the A9 and D9 are pretty much the fastest planes on the deck (till we get are Tempest that is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif ) There also very well armoured and that roll lets them jink so well you can add some rudder in and literally let any persuer waste there ammo on you as your incrediably hard to hit. I don't know about the 109 but driven well they scare me more than 190's if im flying red.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:

Von Rat and I, and many others do this on War Clouds all the time. As the shooter you will "drive" the guy with a plane on his six in a direction that puts you in the most adventagous position to take a shot the quickest. The prolem lies in that you are also setting him up to get shot. But if you are smart, you will keeping him jinking... just in the direction you know he is going to go, so you can anticipate everything, where as the enemy has to react to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on the money. Flying blue on WC is great fun and LW planes are certainly the equal to any allied plane in there own way.

Atomic_Marten
01-09-2005, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
CRASH,,,,,,you gotta stop killing all those spits in warclouds. its giving the 109 and fw a reputation for being uber. if you keep it up i smell a nerf coming. lol. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, don't you see what the problem is?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif No one tells our friend that Spit <span class="ev_code_BLACK">is suppose to be über, and Me109 has to be inferior.</span> So he keeps sending 'em to dirt. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Airmail109
01-09-2005, 11:35 AM
WHY DOES NO ONE LISTEN TO ME!

HERE IT IS AGAIN.......NEWS FLASH THE SPITFIRE IS NOT SUPERIOR TO THE 109 HERES WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (again)

I dont know the truth of this in RL, but the 109 I find (as an expierenced pilot) to be superior to the Spitfire. It has a more stable gun platform, they accelerate well. Thier low speed handling is excellent (I found this out after getting into a low speed/low level dogfight with DEA_Rooster in a Mig-3, I could manuver in such a way as causing him to stall and crash). They are great for evasive manuvers, they declerate quickly especially if you put the Landing flaps down. The K4's climb quicly meaning I can get away. When Im flying with 108s i can shortly pull inside a spitfire and give him a quick shot and blow him to hell. They are great for perfoming vertical stall turns (hammerheads) this is especially good as an evasive manuver if you fly into a cloud to perform the hammerhead. They are also rugged, and take a good battering. I also prefer the view over the wing to the spitfire. In the spitfire you sit to over the wing and it blocks your view. I for one though will be giving up my 109 for a tempest when time comes as im English lol and I love the tempest.

Hristo_
01-09-2005, 12:10 PM
Really, we should not attack the original poster.

Not only the topic title is true, but there is even more to it.

Luftwaffe didn't produce poor planes, Luftwaffe didn't produce planes at all !!

Sure they wore fancy uniforms, flew some planes, were also good at smoking cigars and writing memoirs, but their production abilities were crappy to say the least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Now as for Messerschmit and Focke Wulf, that's another story.

73GIAP_Milan
01-09-2005, 12:27 PM
hmmm, you know what??

There was'nt even a 2nd World War, it was just a race between aircraft manufacturers where each plane was designed to shoot the opposition to bits...

Hristo_
01-09-2005, 12:30 PM
there is no spoon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
01-09-2005, 12:44 PM
Hi,

Samuel Taylor, former commander of tactical bureau, GHQ, for US 8th airforce:

We have always regarded the Luftwaffe as a very dangerous and technically superior adversary. The LW may well have lost 99% of it's pilots...since 1939...and it may have been obliged to put together a front line of inexperienced pilots. However, it has always managed to develop offensive and defensive tactics that have proved to be highly efficient

Group Captain Simmonds, director of technical and ballistic research services, British Army GHQ reported:

German fighter planes were always first class. Although they were not without defects, their jet planes had a demoralising impact on the allied staff. The Me262 and late FW190 models posed a real threat to allied aviation supremacy up until the last days of the war. They flew at exceptional speeds and the German fighter planes' weapons were far superior to ours.

Cheers,
norris

PS: Noob probably doesn't like the 190 because it stalls when he pulls his stick all the way back at 200kmh.

Da_Godfatha
01-09-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yo fanboi, I never said it was "over modeled", I just meant when one overshoots me and the explosions on the ground look like 105mm rounds hitting! BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. One thing that is over modeled, IMHO is the control damaged hits. It does not jive with what the history books say, (or these brave pilots were lying?).
Please do not tell me again to "put a sock in it". That IMO is agianst the rules of conduct here. Noch was, the German guns were the best weapons then. Alot of todays weapons are modeled after WW2 German ones.

LStarosta
01-09-2005, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yo fanboi, I never said it was "over modeled", I just meant when one overshoots me and the explosions on the ground look like 105mm rounds hitting! BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. One thing that is over modeled, IMHO is the control damaged hits. It does not jive with what the history books say, (or these brave pilots were lying?).
Please do not tell me again to "put a sock in it". That IMO is agianst the rules of conduct here. Noch was, the German guns were the best weapons then. Alot of todays weapons are modeled after WW2 German ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL. You calling Pre a fanboy is like calling me a n00b.

Pre and I, like all aces, are simply r0xx0rz. Fact.

Airmail109
01-09-2005, 02:40 PM
109s could out-turn a spitfire shortly, they could pull inside a spitfires turning circle only quickly before they had to starighten out. The Spitfire was better at continuous turns. So if i start turning with a spitty i quickly pull inside his turning circle...pull off a few rounds of 108s and then dive away.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 02:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
WHY DOES NO ONE LISTEN TO ME!

HERE IT IS AGAIN.......NEWS FLASH THE SPITFIRE IS NOT SUPERIOR TO THE 109 HERES WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (again) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well for one thing , thats not the most scienctific of tests

& for another , patch 3.03 closed the small advantage the Bf109s had over the Spitfires (& it was only a small advantage)

now they perform so evenly its down to the pilot who makes the least mistakes

Hetzer_II
01-09-2005, 02:43 PM
Anyone who served in the army and who have seen 20 or 30mm weapons in action will know what they do to weak constructions like fighters... they just produce garbage

Airmail109
01-09-2005, 02:45 PM
Ahem it is a known fact that 109s could pull inside a SPitfire for a short amount of time.

Mackane1
01-09-2005, 02:49 PM
http://home.si.rr.com/skywolf/snoring.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-09-2005, 02:53 PM
Bulldog wrote:
" There was only one plane that could fly to Germany and back prior to D-Day and that was the P-51 Mustang"

I think you mean the P-51 was the only day escort fighter that could do this. The bombers, photo recon, and the Mosquito NF II could also perform this feat.

WUAF_Badsight
01-09-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
Ahem it is a known fact that 109s could pull inside a SPitfire for a short amount of time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
as can spitfires , its all relative to your bandits E-state

as of 3.03 Bf109s & Spitfires are very close to equal over the whole speed range for turning apart from high speed

JG7_Rall
01-09-2005, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yo fanboi, I never said it was "over modeled", I just meant when one overshoots me and the explosions on the ground look like 105mm rounds hitting! BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. One thing that is over modeled, IMHO is the control damaged hits. It does not jive with what the history books say, (or these brave pilots were lying?).
Please do not tell me again to "put a sock in it". That IMO is agianst the rules of conduct here. Noch was, the German guns were the best weapons then. Alot of todays weapons are modeled after WW2 German ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Me, a fanboy? Now THATS funny!

Please show me where you find these reports of IL2 taking "many" Mk 108 hits and surviving it. The B17 typically took 3 to down. Not that I'm saying one or the other is tougher, but it's a good point of referance. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Russians said 30mm instead of 20mm as well, as I've seen many mistakes in literature between the two (ie the author meant 30mm but said 20mm vice versa).

Sincerely,

The Management

Sharpe26
01-09-2005, 03:26 PM
you know I once heard something about unwritten Luftwaffe rules.

One of them went like this:

Never turn with a Spitfire

JG52_wunsch
01-09-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
... and Danschnell must remember that he is as much an expert on Luftwaffe planes as a dog knows about producing a chicken's egg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol,i couldn t have said better myself.good 1.cheers.

p1ngu666
01-09-2005, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yo fanboi, I never said it was "over modeled", I just meant when one overshoots me and the explosions on the ground look like 105mm rounds hitting! BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. One thing that is over modeled, IMHO is the control damaged hits. It does not jive with what the history books say, (or these brave pilots were lying?).
Please do not tell me again to "put a sock in it". That IMO is agianst the rules of conduct here. Noch was, the German guns were the best weapons then. Alot of todays weapons are modeled after WW2 German ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Me, a fanboy? Now THATS funny!

Please show me where you find these reports of IL2 taking "many" Mk 108 hits and surviving it. The B17 typically took 3 to down. Not that I'm saying one or the other is tougher, but it's a good point of referance. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Russians said 30mm instead of 20mm as well, as I've seen many mistakes in literature between the two (ie the author meant 30mm but said 20mm vice versa).

Sincerely,

The Management <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if u hit the armour, nut much will happen.... and rounds would aprently pass thru the wooden sections harmlessly (wings), the il2 dm has been decayed lots, so has fm, it has awful yaw on all of em.... if it was that bad irl, they would add bigger rudder, fin finlet etc...

JG7_Rall
01-09-2005, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yo fanboi, I never said it was "over modeled", I just meant when one overshoots me and the explosions on the ground look like 105mm rounds hitting! BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. One thing that is over modeled, IMHO is the control damaged hits. It does not jive with what the history books say, (or these brave pilots were lying?).
Please do not tell me again to "put a sock in it". That IMO is agianst the rules of conduct here. Noch was, the German guns were the best weapons then. Alot of todays weapons are modeled after WW2 German ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Me, a fanboy? Now THATS funny!

Please show me where you find these reports of IL2 taking "many" Mk 108 hits and surviving it. The B17 typically took 3 to down. Not that I'm saying one or the other is tougher, but it's a good point of referance. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Russians said 30mm instead of 20mm as well, as I've seen many mistakes in literature between the two (ie the author meant 30mm but said 20mm vice versa).

Sincerely,

The Management <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if u hit the armour, nut much will happen.... and rounds would aprently pass thru the wooden sections harmlessly (wings), the il2 dm has been decayed lots, so has fm, it has awful yaw on all of em.... if it was that bad irl, they would add bigger rudder, fin finlet etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even though the Mk 108 had a really low muzzle velocity? Interesting...

Sig.Hirsch
01-09-2005, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi , i have a couple of books on Hans-Ulrich Rudel (maybe the most succesful pilot in history , http://members.aol.com/ab763/rudel.htm , for info ) .

It is said in my books that he managed to come back once with with 3 X 37 mm shells in his Stuka + dozens of mg little holes , and he made it back .

Now , You cannot make that in game either, the Stuka DM is very far from reality sadly , sometimes i wonder if Delta wood is not more solid than metal ingame ...

Anyway , it is very hard for Oleg to simulate true DM and make it run on our machine , almost impossible actually , but Stuka was one of the most solid plane you could find in WWII , not ingame :/ .
Problem is not about weapons effect , it is about DM flexibility to weapon effect .

LStarosta
01-09-2005, 05:33 PM
Pingu, the whole point of a fricken High Explosive shell is NOT to go through hollow structures, but instead to detonate either on impact or shortly after penetration. And I do believe with all my heart that the MK108 fired a High Explosive projectile.

JG7_Rall
01-09-2005, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Pingu, the whole point of a fricken High Explosive shell is NOT to go through hollow structures, but instead to detonate either on impact or shortly after penetration. And I do believe with all my heart that the MK108 fired a High Explosive projectile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Von_Zero
01-09-2005, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
my 2 cents? here they are: http://www.d13-th.com/user/mytzu/daffy/Daffy23.wav
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/images/smiles/icon_troll.gif

Atomic_Marten
01-09-2005, 06:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi , i have a couple of books on Hans-Ulrich Rudel (maybe the most succesful pilot in history , http://members.aol.com/ab763/rudel.htm , for info ) .

It is said in my books that he managed to come back once with with 3 X 37 mm shells in his Stuka + dozens of mg little holes , and he made it back .

Now , You cannot make that in game either, the Stuka DM is very far from reality sadly , sometimes i wonder if Delta wood is not more solid than metal ingame ...

Anyway , it is very hard for Oleg to simulate true DM and make it run on our machine , almost impossible actually , but Stuka was one of the most solid plane you could find in WWII , not ingame :/ .
Problem is not about weapons effect , it is about DM flexibility to weapon effect . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is impossible to emulate wonder cases in our game. And those events that you guys are describing are fairly in that category (luck+miracle..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I don't want to debate about FMs and DMs, just I think they must be of far more complex nature than they currently are in order to implement some of these -one in a million shots-..

zzzhacker
01-09-2005, 07:09 PM
If u guys want to know more about the fw190 series aircrafts as well as learn something about the "jagdgeschader" successes, losses, tactics, airdefence and so on, I can recommend a book from Willi Reschke, who himself survived the war as a pilot of the Jagdgeschwader "Wilde Sau" Jg300/301.
The book is basically a list of the combat-records of the "Wilde Sau" Jagdgeschwader from each and every day from its foundation to the end of the war. Some interesting chapters are about the Ta152-H1 also, describing its performance, shortcomings and its actually true combat record.

I don't know, whether it is available in english, but who is interested can find out himself.

best regards,
zzzhacker

p1ngu666
01-09-2005, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
109's dont outturn spits or zero's. That's the most f*cking rediculous thing I've heard in a long time. If 109's appear to be outturning spits and zero's then they're either turning harder or the spit and zero are suffering from elevator stiffness, as crash has mentioned. And the 30mm was a very powerful cannon in real life, don't try to be clever by "accidentally" calling it a 105mm thus alluding to what you believe is an overmodelled gun. German guns suffer the most, so put a sock in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yo fanboi, I never said it was "over modeled", I just meant when one overshoots me and the explosions on the ground look like 105mm rounds hitting! BTW, I have read various accounts of IL2's taking many 30mm hits and still come home, not like in the game. One thing that is over modeled, IMHO is the control damaged hits. It does not jive with what the history books say, (or these brave pilots were lying?).
Please do not tell me again to "put a sock in it". That IMO is agianst the rules of conduct here. Noch was, the German guns were the best weapons then. Alot of todays weapons are modeled after WW2 German ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Me, a fanboy? Now THATS funny!

Please show me where you find these reports of IL2 taking "many" Mk 108 hits and surviving it. The B17 typically took 3 to down. Not that I'm saying one or the other is tougher, but it's a good point of referance. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Russians said 30mm instead of 20mm as well, as I've seen many mistakes in literature between the two (ie the author meant 30mm but said 20mm vice versa).

Sincerely,

The Management <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if u hit the armour, nut much will happen.... and rounds would aprently pass thru the wooden sections harmlessly (wings), the il2 dm has been decayed lots, so has fm, it has awful yaw on all of em.... if it was that bad irl, they would add bigger rudder, fin finlet etc... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even though the Mk 108 had a really low muzzle velocity? Interesting... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the remark was about rounds in general, not mk108 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i think mk108 wouldnt be effective against the armour, but the softer bits, sure..

the stuka is odd, in coops they pwn my il2 really quickly, infact those twin 7.7mm are stupedously deadly, even if im hittin stuka with cannons... he will do serious damage. oddly this only happens when im in il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

the stuka is odd, many will atest to that..

LStarosta
01-09-2005, 07:42 PM
Yeah, I was strafing rifle caliber AAA sites in my Stuka, and I got hit ONCE in the nose. My engine caught fire and I burned to death. Fact., albeit a sad one.

StellarRat
01-10-2005, 12:04 AM
I think you better wander over to Warclouds some night and see how "inferior" all those LW planes are....LOL!

WTE_Ibis
01-10-2005, 03:07 AM
The original poster has long since gone to bed
with a smile on his face as he thinks of everyone
here arguing about absolutely nothing.
What was,was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
And as we all know,it's the man not the machine.
Cheers, Ibis.

anarchy52
01-10-2005, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
I think you better wander over to Warclouds some night and see how "inferior" all those LW planes are....LOL! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 factors:
1) most LW pilots fly with mk108 option
2) allied pilots are generaly less experienced (red planes are easier to fly/fight instinctively and attract novice players)

I noticed a few common mistakes of red pilots in warclouds:
1) Spit pilots often try to chase 190s for a long time unaware that they are being set for an easy drag & bag kill. Many of Spit pilots in warclouds are "green" pilots and have problem with "target fixation"

2) Pony drivers b'n'z ing and overlooking high bandit - usually they get hammered while doing a stall turn on the top of their envelope. They often get suckered into low alt prolonged fighting which is not what P-51 excells at.

3) P-47 jocks that come at grass cutting level and when caught with their pants down do as-hard-as possible continuous turns till they lose all their speed and get blasted in slow low-level turnfights. Although Jug can dogfight FW-190 it takes a good P-47 pilot to win the fight.

4) P-38 pilots who have this wild idea about defensive tactics being "firewall the throttle, fly in a straight line and try to outrun a late war FW-190. Or diving vertically, deploying divebrakes to pull out and then be surprised when a 190 using more shallow dive catches them in no time and shoots them down when they run out of altitude.
Then they come to ubi forum and make silly demands on the developers.

I'm not trying to teach anyone a lesson or tell him how to fly I just made an observation from my perspective as a LW pilot.



Actually I think USAF vs LW is a pretty well balanced fight (unlike VVS vs LW or VVS vs USAF)

Atomic_Marten
01-10-2005, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Yes.. another words,

http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/catalog/images/import/v10037.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OldMan____
01-10-2005, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
I think you better wander over to Warclouds some night and see how "inferior" all those LW planes are....LOL! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 factors:
1) most LW pilots fly with mk108 option
2) allied pilots are generaly less experienced (red planes are easier to fly/fight instinctively and attract novice players)

I noticed a few common mistakes of red pilots in warclouds:
1) Spit pilots often try to chase 190s for a long time unaware that they are being set for an easy drag & bag kill. Many of Spit pilots in warclouds are "green" pilots and have problem with "target fixation"

2) Pony drivers b'n'z ing and overlooking high bandit - usually they get hammered while doing a stall turn on the top of their envelope. They often get suckered into low alt prolonged fighting which is not what P-51 excells at.

3) P-47 jocks that come at grass cutting level and when caught with their pants down do as-hard-as possible continuous turns till they lose all their speed and get blasted in slow low-level turnfights. Although Jug can dogfight FW-190 it takes a good P-47 pilot to win the fight.

4) P-38 pilots who have this wild idea about defensive tactics being "firewall the throttle, fly in a straight line and try to outrun a late war FW-190. Or diving vertically, deploying divebrakes to pull out and then be surprised when a 190 using more shallow dive catches them in no time and shoots them down when they run out of altitude.
Then they come to ubi forum and make silly demands on the developers.

I'm not trying to teach anyone a lesson or tell him how to fly I just made an observation from my perspective as a LW pilot.



Actually I think USAF vs LW is a pretty well balanced fight (unlike VVS vs LW or VVS vs USAF) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

incredbly precise observations. That spit flyers target fixation is the most pure truth. Many times I dragged a spit for endless time.. probably he was thining " oh only a few more minutes and his engine will overheat and I will get it" without knowing a FW can outrun a spit on deck withut even stressing engine. Justa a 102% power setting is enough .

carguy_
01-10-2005, 05:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This simply has to be a troll because I rarely read so much BS in one post.

About replies ppl keep forgetting that teamwork,SA and tactics are factors which present a bigger influence on the battlefield.

Regarding western skies both USAAF and RAF had trained their pilots so they could pose a serious threat to LW.How many hot shot LW aces were there in the west?It is a molecular number,bigger role is played by experience and skill level of your average Joe pilot.

Numbers do have a huge influence also.
Regarding LW planes,yes the Me109 was always somewhat inferior to the Spit.Pierre Clostermann recalls Me109 to be a mediocre plane whereas a formation of FW190 being higher than the Spits made RAF pilots s_h_i_t their pants though reading his accounts made me think that once FW190 got into classic DF with Spits,they were making a big mistake because that is not the way FW190 should be flown.However do not forget that tactics and teamwork was very good and FW190 armament could give a chance of shooting Spits down faster than FW190 were downed.

And don`t get me started on the quote that Germany produced worst planes in WWII.

And do not compare real life WWII combat with online fights.

English speaking pilots have no clue how to communicate with Russians in one sortie thus in missions with this pilot combo allies perform like n00bs because the vast majority of LW flying pilots speak smooth English thus if they communicate,they gain superiority.

Another problem is that also the same majority consists of so called lonewulfs who always have their own way how to achieve mission targets.Once I get into a mission with more than two of those persons I have small if no hope of mission objectives being accomplished.

Sometimes I get into great sorties where all pilots communicate and help each other.LW performs wonderfuly in those conditions.
All LW needs in a sortie is:
1.A leader.
2.Comms like TS or good chat comms(everyone talking about the situation).
3.Higher point in accomplishing the mission.

Without those LW is based only on individual pilot skills but we don`t have much pilots who can shoot down more than two VVS/RAF/USAAF in one sortie alone and fulfilling the objectives becomes a mracle.


IMO the main and biggest LW problem online are ambitious ppl who do not give s_h_i_t about the mission.

No matter what plane you fly,if you got numbers and tactics you win the mission.

ploughman
01-10-2005, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think you better wander over to Warclouds some night and see how "inferior" all those LW planes are....LOL! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL indeed. A slice of reality with your Gin and Moronic...Warclouds might be "full-real" but it's not "actually real." Hosing some fella, who's playing on a computer at home after a hard days double-entry accounting, with a computer generated Whine-Oh-Nein is not the historical "proof" of Luft-uberness you seem to think it is. I've yet to read a book or see a doco that refers to FMs in IL-2 blah de blah as evidence of the flight characteristics of WWII fighters.

Hristo_
01-10-2005, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:


2 factors:
1) most LW pilots fly with mk108 option
2) allied pilots are generaly less experienced (red planes are easier to fly/fight instinctively and attract novice players)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never tought of it that way, I tended to connect it with opportunistic approach, but you might be on to something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I noticed a few common mistakes of red pilots in warclouds:
1) Spit pilots often try to chase 190s for a long time unaware that they are being set for an easy drag & bag kill. Many of Spit pilots in warclouds are "green" pilots and have problem with "target fixation"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. Certain Spit pilots seem to be fighting their own war all by themselves. It is incredible how often an inferior blue force (speaking of numbers) defeated overwhelming red numbers only because reds were coming one by one, while blue were always close together.

Many times I've seen Spits trailing smoke acting as if the fight only started with them getting hurt. Some of them chased blue planes to their base, only to lose engine near the field or die at at the hands of ten 109s who just took off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
2) Pony drivers b'n'z ing and overlooking high bandit - usually they get hammered while doing a stall turn on the top of their envelope. They often get suckered into low alt prolonged fighting which is not what P-51 excells at.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually they start with advantage, but if the victim dives to the deck and home, many of them follow. Once without speed and alt, they are forced to turn and burn, usually at the wrong side of the map.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3) P-47 jocks that come at grass cutting level and when caught with their pants down do as-hard-as possible continuous turns till they lose all their speed and get blasted in slow low-level turnfights. Although Jug can dogfight FW-190 it takes a good P-47 pilot to win the fight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although Jug seems to be the smartest flown red ride, yes, many of them can be found down low, turning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
4) P-38 pilots who have this wild idea about defensive tactics being "firewall the throttle, fly in a straight line and try to outrun a late war FW-190. Or diving vertically, deploying divebrakes to pull out and then be surprised when a 190 using more shallow dive catches them in no time and shoots them down when they run out of altitude.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their specialty is to come low and alone. An instant invitation for blue planes.

Da_Godfatha
01-10-2005, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This simply has to be a troll because I rarely read so much BS in one post.

About replies ppl keep forgetting that teamwork,SA and tactics are factors which present a bigger influence on the battlefield.

Regarding western skies both USAAF and RAF had trained their pilots so they could pose a serious threat to LW.How many hot shot LW aces were there in the west?It is a molecular number,bigger role is played by experience and skill level of your average Joe pilot.

Numbers do have a huge influence also.
Regarding LW planes,yes the Me109 was always somewhat inferior to the Spit.Pierre Clostermann recalls Me109 to be a mediocre plane whereas a formation of FW190 being higher than the Spits made RAF pilots s_h_i_t their pants though reading his accounts made me think that once FW190 got into classic DF with Spits,they were making a big mistake because that is not the way FW190 should be flown.However do not forget that tactics and teamwork was very good and FW190 armament could give a chance of shooting Spits down faster than FW190 were downed.

And don`t get me started on the quote that Germany produced worst planes in WWII.

And do not compare real life WWII combat with online fights.

English speaking pilots have no clue how to communicate with Russians in one sortie thus in missions with this pilot combo allies perform like n00bs because the vast majority of LW flying pilots speak smooth English thus if they communicate,they gain superiority.

Another problem is that also the same majority consists of so called lonewulfs who always have their own way how to achieve mission targets.Once I get into a mission with more than two of those persons I have small if no hope of mission objectives being accomplished.

Sometimes I get into great sorties where all pilots communicate and help each other.LW performs wonderfuly in those conditions.
All LW needs in a sortie is:
1.A leader.
2.Comms like TS or good chat comms(everyone talking about the situation).
3.Higher point in accomplishing the mission.

Without those LW is based only on individual pilot skills but we don`t have much pilots who can shoot down more than two VVS/RAF/USAAF in one sortie alone and fulfilling the objectives becomes a mracle.


IMO the main and biggest LW problem online are ambitious ppl who do not give s_h_i_t about the mission.

No matter what plane you fly,if you got numbers and tactics you win the mission. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WORD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif That is why this game (on most servers) has degenerated into "Air Quake". The Heroes and Wannabes go only for the scores and forget the objective.
Jg_7 Rall, read the Squadron History of of JG51 Moelders (I have it in German). Even REAL Ace pilots said they had problems withthe IL2 series. Hartmann also said it was one hell of a Mutha to bring down. It is possible that the Red Air Force used 30mm instead of 20mm. As alot of posters commented, the DM can only go so far.

JG301_nils
01-10-2005, 10:23 AM
Well I can agree with the poster up to a point where one talk about manufacturing. I honestly don´t think germany produced worse planes than it´s opponents, construction wise. But when it got down to the manufacturing that´s another business.
Try this trick: Capture some people, do not feed them or pay them, beat them regulary or even kill some of them.
Then make them assembly the warplanes (with shi**tty replacement materiels) you are going to fight their own boys with.

StellarRat
01-10-2005, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
LoL indeed. A slice of reality with your Gin and Moronic...Warclouds might be "full-real" but it's not "actually real." Hosing some fella, who's playing on a computer at home after a hard days double-entry accounting, with a computer generated Whine-Oh-Nein is not the historical "proof" of Luft-uberness you seem to think it is. I've yet to read a book or see a doco that refers to FMs in IL-2 blah de blah as evidence of the flight characteristics of WWII fighters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wasn't talking about real life. I was talking about in this game, duh. There are a lot of others factors that come into play IRL.

horseback
01-10-2005, 10:45 AM
One final factor to consider-

A lot of Luftwaffe drivers have been flying the 109 and 190 online at least from the days of the original Il-2 Sturmovik, lo these many (okay, three) years ago. They have formed effective squadrons, friendships, working alliances, and no doubt, a few petty feuds.

Despite all the adjustments in FM and weapon effectiveness, they appear to enjoy a huge advantage in familiarity with their rides & the most effective tactics for them. Having so many of them able to team up effectively confers a pretty good sized advantage over latecomers.

Except for the P-39, the P-40 and the P-47 are the 'oldest' Western Allied fighters in this sim series, and the two earlier types appear to have fallen out of favor. Only the P-47 afficianados appear to have any semblance of long term 'unit cohesion'.

The Spitfire and the Mustang are relatively new to the arena, and many who fly them online are newer to the Il-2 series. Besides the problems of mastering their aircraft, they have apparently not formed effective working relationships with each to the degree that the 'old hands' flying LW rides have. Some of them may be more experienced online pilots who have changed their primary mounts, and they are more effective than the general run of Allied fliers (which makes LW n00bies whine about them).

New Allied fliers may be having a hard time accepting that air combat is a team sport, that without a buddy to watch your back (and have you watch his), the 'historical advantages' of their rides are just so much toilet paper. All of the frontline fighters of 1944-1945 fell into the same general performance envelope, and it was unit cohesion (the ability of any member of the unit to effectively team up with another member of the unit) that made the difference, not the Mustang's range and speed, or the Spitfire's turning circle and accelleration, or the P-47's roll rate.

Basically, it takes time. Time to learn your chosen aircraft and the best tactics for it. Time to learn to keep your virtual head on a swivel. And time to develop teams and then teamwork. As in RL, the LW fliers have a head start in this area.

Time will tell if they can maintain their lead.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
01-10-2005, 11:42 AM
i agree with ya on that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

some new pilots maybe put off by some lw fliers, some arent the friendest bunch o ppl. but there a plenty of nice ppl about too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

allied planes are probably more inturative than lw planes also, this helps in war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lw have there best planes, more or less, while raf fliers have 43 spitfires, a 42ish beu with single stage low alt supercharger (fine for its intended role) the spit mark V's are also rather odd, and i think our hurri's are to VVS spec abit worse than raf spec.

lw fliers will have a nasty shock when raf gets more planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ps spit drivers shouldnt try catch 190 for long, once hes geting away climb up and look for another target http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WUAF_Toad
01-10-2005, 11:43 AM
What happens on WC is not a good indication of which side is superior. A better way to find out would be to have two well trained squads go at it. If any blue squad wants a challenge, please post something on www.wuaf.com (http://www.wuaf.com) forum and we can do this. Note I said blue squad because I'm picking the red side this time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

JG5_UnKle
01-10-2005, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Toad:
What happens on WC is not a good indication of which side is superior. A better way to find out would be to have two well trained squads go at it. If any blue squad wants a challenge, please post something on http://www.wuaf.com forum and we can do this. Note I said blue squad because I'm picking the red side this time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True indeed. Two competent squads fighting is always very educational. We often fly against other squads and those fights are the most interesting.

EFG_beber
01-10-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Pierre Clostermann recalls Me109 to be a mediocre plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could you scan me this page of the book because i don't remenber this on my edition and i lend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif my book.

StellarRat
01-10-2005, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG301_nils:
Well I can agree with the poster up to a point where one talk about manufacturing. I honestly don´t think germany produced worse planes than it´s opponents, construction wise. But when it got down to the manufacturing that´s another business.
Try this trick: Capture some people, do not feed them or pay them, beat them regulary or even kill some of them.
Then make them assembly the warplanes (with shi**tty replacement materiels) you are going to fight their own boys with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't recall if they used slave labor in the aircraft factories. Does anyone know for sure? I think it was mostly used for unskilled tasks. I'm sure the Germans knew that using the slaves for complex manufacturing would lead to sabotage.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-10-2005, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EFG_beber:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
Pierre Clostermann recalls Me109 to be a mediocre plane <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Could you scan me this page of the book because i don't remenber this on my edition and i lend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif my book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall that, either, so I'll support your request. What I do know is that Clostermann shot down more 190s but it seemed that he came up against more, too. He definately had a soft spot for the long nosed variety, and for Nowotny...

Cheers,
Norris

p1ngu666
01-10-2005, 01:24 PM
some factories used slaves, some didnt, remmber all the 1000's of parts that go into a aircraft, say rubber tubes could be made by slaves, there quality got bad towards the end, randomly birst and u covered in oil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Airmail109
01-10-2005, 02:17 PM
I can kill Spitfire pilots in a G.50 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LStarosta
01-10-2005, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
I can kill Spitfire pilots in a G.50 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I downed two Spitfires in my P.11c online. Fact.

Cajun76
01-10-2005, 02:42 PM
I've seen pics of workers in those death camp striped rags, appearing to manufacter Bf-109 wings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I think I saved the pics SkyChimp posted, but I'm not at home.

Fenna
01-10-2005, 03:28 PM
LStarosta check private topics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif!

Atomic_Marten
01-10-2005, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
I can kill Spitfire pilots in a G.50 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I downed two Spitfires in my P.11c online. Fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LA7 3x20 falls to my four Browning guns online. In J8A http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. Head-on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Airmail109
01-10-2005, 03:44 PM
I HERE BY OUTLAW......LA, KI, and Spitfire pilots......thou shalt never speak of thier cursed names again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

geetarman
01-10-2005, 04:02 PM
Re: Warclouds-WF - Many of the points made regarding blue vs. red, I basically agree with.

However, IMHO, the biggest problem is that many times the objectives of the game require each side to slug it out to win. Where do they slug it out? 2000'-3000'over Mother Earth.

You have to go after the opponent (blue) and most are milling around at 5k-7k. A Mustang pilot, doing 240mph at 13k, wants a kill. So he dives, misses, the pilot blacksout, he recovers and gets mixed up in a furball. 9/10 he goes down. That's not how (for the most part) Mustangs and Thunderbolts flew in the ETO.

I always though it would be fun to start WC as an airstart at 27,000'. You know, where the B-17's were. Then let's see what happens. Who cares about takeoffs anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

darkhorizon11
01-10-2005, 04:30 PM
WoW.

Bold statement, although not 100 percent true. There's two extremes in here. I generally favored the Allies, but you must remember what part of the war your talking about. The status and ability of the German war machine was completely different in 1940 than in 1945.

You can say the 109 has the most kills from the war. But it also saw more combat in European theaters than any other aircraft. The Me 109 was used on all Russian fronts, Battle of Britain, North Africa, air war over western Europe, Italy, and in Finland. No Allied aircraft saw combat in all those theaters except for the Spit. Although its use in Russia and in Scandanavia was very limited. Initially Britain held back the Spit from France when the Nazi's overran it in 1940 for fear the Germans would capture one. On the other hand, the 109 saw extensive use. Plan and simple 109 pilots had much more oppurtunity to score kills throughout the war than any other.

I love the German planes. When flying online I fear and respect a 109 or 190 I'm flying against the same way USAAF, RAF, and VS pilots.

Later in the war the quality of the 109s and 190s were junk considering the state of the German war machine. My uncle and grandfather told me about this first hand when they entered Germany in 1945. My uncle said one guy gave him a little tour of 262 and the officer pointed to the engine and said that was the future of aviation. He the pointed to the wooden wings and said that was the past.

You can crunch numbers all you want, but most aerial totals are a result of pilot skill and simple luck in battle. LW pilots were half the threat in 1944 than in 1941. Some were as young as 15 with under 25 flight hours.

LW aficionados tout the Battle of Britain as an exception to their early dominance. They love the early war and read stories of Hartmann, Moelders, Galland. They intimidate RAF and USAAF junkies by saying their aircraft blasted Spits, Fortresses, and Mustangs from the sky.
But that was a short lived time. By late 1943 the tide turned instead. Germany was lossing pilots by the hundreds. The improved Mustang and the P 38 were too much for the 190 and 109. At higher altitudes anyways.

I mean argue it all you want guys, but make no mistake that the Allies won the air war despite the slow start. By January of 1945 the LW was a mere shadow of what it had been in 1941.

The Luftwaffe FAILED due to bad leadership, bad quality of aircraft, and inadequate training for the majority of pilots.

_Neveraine_
01-10-2005, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Later in the war the quality of the 109s and 190s were junk considering the state of the German war machine. My uncle and grandfather told me about this first hand when they entered Germany in 1945. My uncle said one guy gave him a little tour of 262 and the officer pointed to the engine and said that was the future of aviation. He the pointed to the wooden wings and said that was the past. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If its not broke don't try and fix it, Delta wood worked for the LA7 and mossie.

Note: After a bit of research i couldn't find any sources stating that the Me 262 was made of wood. The He 162 is another story though.

p1ngu666
01-10-2005, 05:57 PM
germany had little fuel, and the quality of late equipment was pretty poor too

so no use (no fuel, no fly) and deubious quality = safty hassard. so in a way they are junk

WTE_Galway
01-10-2005, 09:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Note: After a bit of research i couldn't find any sources stating that the Me 262 was made of wood. The He 162 is another story though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not have a reference but my impression was some bulkheads/spars some underbody panels and doors and perhaps the flaps were wooden .. sorry i do not have a source for this, its just from memory

darkhorizon11
01-10-2005, 10:15 PM
"If its not broke don't try and fix it, Delta wood worked for the LA7 and mossie.

Note: After a bit of research i couldn't find any sources stating that the Me 262 was made of wood. The He 162 is another story though"

True. But still not as durable as metal, and it will wear out faster. I not to familiar with the La-7 but they wooden frame of the Mossie was actually caked with a thin layer of concrete.

As for the wooden Me 262 its true. I just don't feel like looking for a source but trust me, they were. My uncle was telling me first hand and I'm sure many a special on the history channel shows it.

Mind you I don't agree with 100% with the orginal poster. To say that the Germans planes were **** and completely inferior to the allies is ignorant.

Hristo_
01-10-2005, 11:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Re: Warclouds-WF - Many of the points made regarding blue vs. red, I basically agree with.

However, IMHO, the biggest problem is that many times the objectives of the game require each side to slug it out to win. Where do they slug it out? 2000'-3000'over Mother Earth.

You have to go after the opponent (blue) and most are milling around at 5k-7k. A Mustang pilot, doing 240mph at 13k, wants a kill. So he dives, misses, the pilot blacksout, he recovers and gets mixed up in a furball. 9/10 he goes down. That's not how (for the most part) Mustangs and Thunderbolts flew in the ETO.

I always though it would be fun to start WC as an airstart at 27,000'. You know, where the B-17's were. Then let's see what happens. Who cares about takeoffs anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it also happens in WC. Not al fights start down low.

Just the other day I was in a WC server, flying the Ta 152 at 4000m (about 13000 ft), thinking I was high enough. Needless to say, reds were way higher, at least 5000m. A P-38 bounced me, I managed to turn the tables after prolonged maneuvering and kill it, just as a P-51 dove on me and damaged my engine.

Happy to be still alive, I dove for the deck and home and there the typical red mentality showed. At least 4 planes dove after me. All of them, from 4000m + to the deck and straight for the blue base. Is that smart flying ? Sure this approach would kill my plane but would hurt the red cause in the long run.

What happened next ? The P-51 was the smartest as he soon quit the chase. I was now at the deck, running for home. Another P-51 tried to make a pass but hit the ground instead. Then a Spit tried the same and he also hit the ground. Second Spit was closing from behind. My engine was badly damaged and I was losing speed rapidly - doing 400 kph on the deck. Spit was firing at me until he rammed my plane.

Well, that's 3 red planes lost for the price of one blue (4 red planes if you count the first P-38). I was lonewulfing as always. I can only imagine what would happen if there were more blue planes around.

As for plane quality, I don't know enough about WW2, but I can say what happens in the game. A Fw 190 is what keeps me alive, against all planes I face. With conservative approach it is simple - stay fast, hit hard and get out before they know it. Using this approach, I have yet to get shot down in greatergreen server. I always fly alone, just turn on TS to get my SA up, but that's it.

The only Allied plane I believe is capable for such use is P-51 and maybe the La-7. 109s can't do it, Spits can't do it, Yaks can't do it.

What counts most for me is gun package, high speed control, dive ability, deck speed, durability, range and cockpit visibility. Translation - Fw 190 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
01-11-2005, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
...Happy to be still alive, I dove for the deck and home and there the typical red mentality showed. At least 4 planes dove after me. All of them, from 4000m + to the deck and straight for the blue base. Is that smart flying ? Sure this approach would kill my plane but would hurt the red cause in the long run.

What happened next ? The P-51 was the smartest as he soon quit the chase. I was now at the deck, running for home. Another P-51 tried to make a pass but hit the ground instead. Then a Spit tried the same and he also hit the ground. Second Spit was closing from behind. My engine was badly damaged and I was losing speed rapidly - doing 400 kph on the deck. Spit was firing at me until he rammed my plane.

Well, that's 3 red planes lost for the price of one blue (4 red planes if you count the first P-38). I was lonewulfing as always. I can only imagine what would happen if there were more blue planes around... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely right. That is common scenario online (regardless of server and settings). That however, is not limited to red side only.

MEGILE
01-11-2005, 06:41 AM
That is because we don't have the real fear of death.. and all pilots are concerned with is throwing themselves into danger for the fun and points.

This negates any diving advantage the TA-152/FW-190/P-47 has over the enemy. In real life the Spit would have seen that the TA-152 was accelerating away, and following him would end up in a very dangerous low alt, prolonged chase. The spit pilot, knowing of this danger, would have broken off and regained alttitude. But In the virtual world.. this danger does not exist.

There has to be perogative for the pilot not to die...
Get rid of points, and increase death kick to 1 Death = 20 minute ban http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It's all I can suggest.

This is exactly why Oleg shouldn't listen to whiners who base their opinions on experiences from DogFight rooms.. they simply are not realistic.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-11-2005, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is exactly why Oleg shouldn't listen to whiners who base their opinions on experiences from DogFight rooms.. they simply are not realistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never a truer word said.

Cheers,
Norris

faustnik
01-11-2005, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:


There has to be perogative for the pilot not to die...
Get rid of points, and increase death kick to 1 Death = 20 minute ban http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It's all I can suggest.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch! That would do it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Slick750
01-11-2005, 12:47 PM
My landlord is an ex-luftwaffe machinist/mechanic. He once told me that german numbers/stats ect. where to be taken with a grain of salt, many fighters performed sub-par, lack of hi-compression capable gas forced them to de-tune alot of engines. High numbers of kills claimed where caused because many countries trew everything they had at them, many untrained and many more just plain obsolete. A bit like the Iraq info minister, those brown shirts where full of promises and full of ****.

StellarRat
01-11-2005, 01:49 PM
So, let's say that that the LW planes didn't perform up to specs at all times, does that mean that they should be modeled in FB at below spec too? What about Allied planes? I'm sure some of them weren't running perfectly at all times. Where do you draw the line for FB? Maybe on the day your virtual pilot is flying the crew chief had the plane running perfectly and the right gas was available. I don't know. Ideas? A variable chance that your planes would be minus some % of horsepower everytime you spawn?

horseback
01-11-2005, 02:06 PM
If I read Galland's official biography right (there are other sources confirming this, but I've read 'Fighter General' most recently), Jagdewaffe's aircraft availability rates (aircraft actually able to operate out of the aircraft on hand) were well below the Western Allies' rates as early as 1943; something like an average of 65% for the Jagdewaffe versus an average of over 85% for most US FGs in the UK (P-38 groups tended to pull the overall average down until mid-late '44).

The Kanalfront geschwadern were well below the average, possibly because they were not granted the luxery of an early warning of incoming raids to the degree that the JGs in Germany had, and/or simply because of the difficulties of getting parts and ground personnel to France and Belgium. Either way, the LW did not match the USAAF in the area of logistic effiency.

On the other hand, the 'shooters' in the jagdewaffe often got preferential treatment for parts and the best maintenance service in their units unless they specifically requested that they get the same as their fellow pilots.

The last thing you want to do is have those kinds of things modelled in the game, on or off line.

cheers

horseback

NorrisMcWhirter
01-11-2005, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
My landlord is an ex-luftwaffe machinist/mechanic. He once told me that german numbers/stats ect. where to be taken with a grain of salt, many fighters performed sub-par, lack of hi-compression capable gas forced them to de-tune alot of engines. High numbers of kills claimed where caused because many countries trew everything they had at them, many untrained and many more just plain obsolete. A bit like the Iraq info minister, those brown shirts where full of promises and full of ****. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's odd because Pierre Clostermann, who flew for the allies, said that overclaiming was widespread although particularly in the USAF.

I'll dig out the quote but let's not suggest this is one sided.

Cheers,
Norris

Bull_dog_
01-11-2005, 02:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
My landlord is an ex-luftwaffe machinist/mechanic. He once told me that german numbers/stats ect. where to be taken with a grain of salt, many fighters performed sub-par, lack of hi-compression capable gas forced them to de-tune alot of engines. High numbers of kills claimed where caused because many countries trew everything they had at them, many untrained and many more just plain obsolete. A bit like the Iraq info minister, those brown shirts where full of promises and full of ****. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's odd because Pierre Clostermann, who flew for the allies, said that overclaiming was widespread although particularly in the USAF.

I'll dig out the quote but let's not suggest this is one sided.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overclaiming I think was widespread in all countries...but not all countries awarded everything claimed... Don't mix claimed with confirmed.

I think that in the heat of battle, it is likely and possible that several aircraft shoot at the same enemy...parts come off planes etc...

I once read somewhere that German pilots claimed "victories" if they prevented an aircraft from conducting its mission...whether that was shot down or not?

I don't know if that means anything really other than all statistics should be read with a grain of salt...but don't mix claims with confirmed victories...big difference

horseback
01-11-2005, 03:13 PM
Clostermann was flying with RAF units, which weren't getting the amounts of 'trade' that USAAF escorts were getting over Germany proper. While not often openly stated, there was some envy if not resentment about this.

Johnny Johnson said in 'Wing Commander' that he enquired about getting his Canadian wing Mustangs so that they could get in on the escort action & the scoring opportunities, but was told that there would be plenty of trade in range of his Spitfires once the invasion started.

We loud, gum chewing, overpaid, overfed Americans tended to overstate the same way (and for the same reasons) that the upper class Brits in the RAF tended to understate things. It's a group thing. To someone from a different culture and language, it may have seemed offensive and of a piece with the multiple claims.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
01-11-2005, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slick750:
My landlord is an ex-luftwaffe machinist/mechanic. He once told me that german numbers/stats ect. where to be taken with a grain of salt, many fighters performed sub-par, lack of hi-compression capable gas forced them to de-tune alot of engines. High numbers of kills claimed where caused because many countries trew everything they had at them, many untrained and many more just plain obsolete. A bit like the Iraq info minister, those brown shirts where full of promises and full of ****. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's odd because Pierre Clostermann, who flew for the allies, said that overclaiming was widespread although particularly in the USAF.

I'll dig out the quote but let's not suggest this is one sided.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He didn't say the LW pilots were overclaiming. He said that high numbers were the result of poor opposition.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-11-2005, 04:27 PM
Hi,

You're right he didn't make that statement - my mistake.

In answer to horseback, we are not talking about resentment from "upper-class Brit RAF officer types" but a Frenchman who could be deemed to be relatively independent. Of course, he might be a little biased with knowing about deliberate bombing of French civilians/seeing some of his friends shot at by P51s (something he writes about) but he didn't appear overly anti-anyone.
Also, the suggestion that all those 'senior' in the RAF is perhaps borne out of perception (movies) rather than reality; of course, I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Getting back, I said I would quote Clostermann, so:

"There was one point on which all fighter pilots were agreed, whether British, French or Polish: the obvious superiority of the surviving LW pilots in 1944 and 1945. The Americans, as always, considered themselves to be the best but the kills they claimed for their P51s and P47s and the numbers of Me109s supposedly shot down by B17s and B24s were the stuff of Hollywood movies, outlandish and ridiculous. Were were amused by their naivete, as were most likely the LW. We realised, of course, that this was for public consumption back home : the authorities only dared to release only partial statistics of their losses, thereby strengthening the national conviction of superiority.

That doesn't sound like sour grapes to me but a reasonable assertion from someone who was there at the time.

He also goes on to say that, after the war, specialist RAF and allied commissions looked into LW archives and found that the records were 'meticulously kept' and that the LW claims were 'reasonably correct' when tallied against reported (presumably corrected) allied losses.

Cheers,
Norris

faustnik
01-11-2005, 04:34 PM
Norris,

I had never read that particular quote before it is very interesting. This line in particular:

"There was one point on which all fighter pilots were agreed, whether British, French or Polish: the obvious superiority of the surviving LW pilots in 1944 and 1945."


He must mean that they could easily recognize the LW "old timers" and had much respect for them. The average LW pilot by that time was pretty much a green kid or an ex-bomber pilot right?

MEGILE
01-11-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "There was one point on which all fighter pilots were agreed, whether British, French or Polish: the obvious superiority of the surviving LW pilots in 1944 and 1945." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are saying that LW pilots were superior in 44 and 45, then this would cast doubt over the much toted "aixs pilots were rookies late in the war" statement, would it not?
I'm not arguing either way, I would just like some clarification.

_Neveraine_
01-11-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "There was one point on which all fighter pilots were agreed, whether British, French or Polish: the obvious superiority of the surviving LW pilots in 1944 and 1945." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are saying that LW pilots were superior in 44 and 45, then this would cast doubt over the much toted "aixs pilots were rookies late in the war" statement, would it not?
I'm not arguing either way, I would just like some clarification. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Clostermann was refering to the older pilots (Aces) who had "Survived" rather then the new pilots.

faustnik
01-11-2005, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _Neveraine_:


If you are saying that LW pilots were superior in 44 and 45, then this would cast doubt over the much toted "aixs pilots were rookies late in the war" statement, would it not?
I'm not arguing either way, I would just like some clarification. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think Clostermann was refering to the older pilots (Aces) who had "Survived" rather then the new pilots.[/QUOTE]

All eight if them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

jensenpark
01-11-2005, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _Neveraine_:


If you are saying that LW pilots were superior in 44 and 45, then this would cast doubt over the much toted "aixs pilots were rookies late in the war" statement, would it not?
I'm not arguing either way, I would just like some clarification. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think Clostermann was refering to the older pilots (Aces) who had "Survived" rather then the new pilots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All eight if them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif[/QUOTE]

Too true. Funny enough, I think the same could be said of Closterman...he certainly was one of the few survivors from his original group...and his skill was certainly far, far above average...which, like the LW vets, explained why he continued to survive while newer, less experienced/talented squadmates died.

Blackdog5555
01-12-2005, 01:16 AM
Im laughing all the time at some (not all) of you guys. Some of you should do a little research before you post. And after you some research do a little more because all of recorded history has its problems. But, really you can't clump LW as better than RAF or USAAF or vice versa. Same with planes. If your joking, then thats funny. If you think your right, then you are a moron. LOL. Well maybe just ill informed is a better word. The truth is very complicated. just for quick example. The Spit Vb is completely out performed by but the FW190 but outperforms the early 109 in all respects. But that doesnt matter at all. RAF pilots were only given 8 hours air time to learn TO and landing and how to turn in a circle (no gunnery) before they were given their wings to go against veteran LW pilots. It was pure murder....LW had the same problem(s). I dont know, it seams most people like to post just to vent their "feelings" or "biases" as a form of forum therapy. Anyway..who cares about the truth. Read one source and take it as gospel. Sorry for patronizing but ****.

FA_Maddog
01-12-2005, 02:03 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

_"........The Americans, as always, considered themselves to be the best but the kills they claimed for their P51s and P47s and the numbers of Me109s supposedly shot down by B17s and B24s were the stuff of Hollywood movies, outlandish and ridiculous. Were were amused by their naivete, as were most likely the LW......._"


Yes I read many times how Goring was "amused" when he saw the P-51's flying over Berlin, knowing the war was lost. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
01-12-2005, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Clostermann was flying with RAF units, which weren't getting the amounts of 'trade' that USAAF escorts were getting over Germany proper. While not often openly stated, there was some envy if not resentment about this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not at all true. The 2nd TAF held the mid and low altitude frontline from the invasion right to the end. Clostermans last missions were out of Lubeck. Thats IN Germany, 1 hours drive from Hamburg. The RAF were conducting missions into occupied France before the US even entered the war and later were flying from the same forward bases as US planes.

Closterman refers to the overclaiming and give his reasons. When you have 400 B17's in formation and they get attacked you get 5 B17's and a few escorts making the same claim for 1 109 or 190 kill. This is the overclaiming he talks about. That added to whats already been said means for one reason or another there was allot of overclaiming.

Aaron_GT
01-12-2005, 04:59 AM
"It is said in my books that he managed to come back once with with 3 X 37 mm shells in his Stuka + dozens of mg little holes , and he made it back ."

I presume that these were likely either unexploded 37mm HE shells or holes from AP shells or HE shells that failed to explode?

Aaron_GT
01-12-2005, 05:17 AM
Megile wrote:
"If you are saying that LW pilots were superior in 44 and 45, then this would cast doubt over the much toted "aixs pilots were rookies late in the war" statement, would it not?"

What Closterman said was the SURVIVING pilots. I.e. those that had survived (by implication from earlier in the war). I think Closterman could have used slightly clearer language, though.

WOLFMondo
01-12-2005, 07:04 AM
In one paragraph he clearly says there was a minority of pilots who had been around since Spain and had forgotten more about dogfighting than most other pilots would ever learn.

He also stated that the majority of LW pilots later on were not sufficiently trained enough to get the best out of there planes.

I get the impression he rated the 190D's incredibly highly, more highly than any allied fighter apart from the Tempest...sort of in the same league and that K4's with a good pilot were always dangerous encounters.

Edbert
01-12-2005, 08:36 AM
I find it curious that there's a discussion on the relative weakness of German hardware compared to Allied when the most glaring defecit is clearly between the IJN and Allied, with only the IJA to Allied being a close second in depth of chasm.

lrrp22
01-12-2005, 08:46 AM
deleted

NorrisMcWhirter
01-12-2005, 11:50 AM
Hi,

The quote is from the bottom of page 212 in the new, hardback edition.

In answer to blackdog, who said I took it as gospel? I'm mere passing on the opinion of someone who was there at the time and who actually wrote his memoirs almost immediately after the war when it was still fresh. In fact, it's been an argument of mine for some time that you cannot treat pilot evidence as a yardstick for aircraft performance because most of it is purely anecdotal. But, it is both useful and insightful to present it for comparison and contrast, don't you think, rather than attacking posters (in)directly?

In particular, the quote does contradict the assertion that Germany was putting pilots with no experience up against the allies towards the end of the war but how different is that from the BoB where Galland, Wick, Molders etc would do 90% of the work shooting planes down while they had inexperienced 'cover' wingmen simply to protect (i.e. run the very high risk of being shot down) them from attackers and to permit them means of escape.

Ta,
norris

p1ngu666
01-12-2005, 12:18 PM
think he means the old hands, ive read about pilots trainned in 44-45 in germany, basic to say the very least. the pilots ability to fly on instuments just wasnt there for example, cut down training, so in a dogfight it doesnt matter, but for navigating and non combat stuff they where poor.

for combat stuff they may have been good or bad, depends on the pilot

horseback
01-12-2005, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:

In answer to horseback, we are not talking about resentment from "upper-class Brit RAF officer types" but a Frenchman who could be deemed to be relatively independent. Of course, he might be a little biased with knowing about deliberate bombing of French civilians/seeing some of his friends shot at by P51s (something he writes about) but he didn't appear overly anti-anyone.
Also, the suggestion that all those 'senior' in the RAF is perhaps borne out of perception (movies) rather than reality; of course, I'd be happy to be enlightened.

Getting back, I said I would quote Clostermann, so:

_"There was one point on which all fighter pilots were agreed, whether British, French or Polish: the obvious superiority of the surviving LW pilots in 1944 and 1945. The Americans, as always, considered themselves to be the best but the kills they claimed for their P51s and P47s and the numbers of Me109s supposedly shot down by B17s and B24s were the stuff of Hollywood movies, outlandish and ridiculous. Were were amused by their naivete, as were most likely the LW. We realised, of course, that this was for public consumption back home : the authorities only dared to release only partial statistics of their losses, thereby strengthening the national conviction of superiority._

That doesn't sound like sour grapes to me but a reasonable assertion from someone who was there at the time.

He also goes on to say that, after the war, specialist RAF and allied commissions looked into LW archives and found that the records were 'meticulously kept' and that the LW claims were 'reasonably correct' when tallied against reported (presumably corrected) allied losses.

Cheers,
Norris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Norris,

as usual you have managed to mix & match and mangle my comments in order to misinterpret them. I can only assume that you are a close relative of my ex-wife. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, as I have had to do countless times before ridding myself of her, I will clarify at length and in detail. You have only yourself to blame.

I was referring to the six months prior to the invasion of France, when there was indeed a certain amount of incredulity at US 8th AF fighter claims (I think that everyone realized early on that the bomber gunners' claims were just a bit overstated). There was a sudden outburst of American fighter claims during the campaign to destroy the LW before the invasion, and at the same time, the numbers of young (and otherwise) American males stationed in the UK was reaching an all-time peak.

Since there had not been a corresponding increase in young attractive females in the British Isles, there were some problems. Besides being from a 'safe' and wealthy country, American soldiers of all ranks received much higher pay than did their Allied counterparts, had access to food and products unavailable in heavily rationed Britain, and were all somewhat more 'expressive' in their conduct than their reserved (mostly) British competition.

A lot of pretty English girls sought out American escorts, who could afford to be more generous, offered the possiblity of escaping to the wealth and safety of America after the war, and had a bit of a 'bad boy' persona, often to the exclusion of members of the British and other Allied militaries. As a US Air Force brat in England in the 1960s, I saw that it continued to be an issue for some time after the war. The numbers of foreign born brides I see in my city of San Diego, a big Navy/Marine Corps area, tells me that things still haven't changed much.

Of course, this had no effect on those British young men's attitudes about their fine American Allies...

One of the most basic human attitudes is that "if someone doesn't do things the way we do them, they must be bad or lesser in some way." It's almost an instinctual reaction to overt differences from our tribal mindset (or to physical appearances, if one can tell at a glance that "they aren't our kind"), and quite rational well into the 19th century, when the sudden appearance of foreigners usually meant that you were being invaded, or in danger from whatever drove these 'others' to your shores.

Americans are often loud and boistrous, particularly when they are males between the ages of say, twenty and twenty five. They exaggerate for effect (a man who took to his 'chute from a burning fire might loudly proclaim that "...my dang zipper was starting to melt-so I got the hell out of there!"); they know that they're exaggerating, and they expect their audience to understand (and if they don't understand, they aren't part of the group, so they don't matter).

In the USAAF, the pilots were officers or warrant officers--there were no sergeant pilots to speak of. Their RAF counterparts in the officer corps were largely upper class, and had the tendency to understate for effect (a man who had parachuted from his burning fighter might quietly say that "it was getting a bit smoky in the cockpit, so I decided to get some air."); they knew that they were understating things and expected their audience to know that they were doing so (and if you didn't, well, see the paragraph above).

Clostermann was a member of the RAF, and like Americans who joined that organization and stayed, he was inculcated in that culture, and it was a frame of reference and filter for the things he saw and heard during the war. In other words, people to tend to absorb the attitudes and beliefs of the people they associate with.

Clostermann and his fellow RAF pilots had fought a long and hard war against the Jagdewaffe, and rarely came home with the kind of 'bag' the Americans claimed with some regularity. They had a tough time believing that something as large and unwieldy as a P-47 (or even a Mustang, for that matter) could be successful against the FW 190s that were giving the Spitfire Mk IX a stern test. The Yanks' almost immediate departure from British tactical advice to find their own way of doing things had seemed almost ungrateful as well.

Of course they were skeptical of American claims that they could not witness for themselves, or duplicate with the tools they had on hand. The RAF's fighters rarely fought what could be called a 'downhill' battle against the Germans, where the Jagdewaffe had to come up to them, and I suspect that there may have been an unspoken consensus that it was mildly unsporting (a view shared, no doubt, by the jagdewaffe).

Generally speaking, people do not read a lot about the history of the period they lived through; they lived through it, and they think they know what went on because they read the newspapers, watched the newsreels, listened to the radio and discussed events with their friends and coworkers.

Even if an ace or combat veteran sets down his memoirs, he is not going to do a lot of research on areas outside the events that directly affected his career, and he might not note facts or circumstances that would contradict his attitudes about things that happened outside his immediate area. Hence, we see the Soviet ace Golodnikov stating as fact that German aces were paid more money if they got more kills, or your grandparents still believing some bit of wartime propaganda.

American authorites never, to my knowledge, knowingly understated US air combat losses. US fighter claims after the first three to four months of combat experience were no more exaggerated than the RAF's; that was a function of experience. Fighting over enemy territory at high altitude is not conducive to seeing your victim crash; it takes too long for him to hit the ground (assuming that you could still see him-clouds), and you have more important things to do, like staying with your unit, and staying alive. There was no opportunity to keep track of crash sites or enemy losses from anything other than pilot and bomber crew reports, filtered through intelligence officers trying to make sense of what they heard from these men. Errors were inevitable, but they were made in good faith.

Developing a bureaucracy to confirm fighter pilot kills like the Germans did would have been scorned as wasteful, and rightfully so.

A final note on Clostermann. He has been 'credited' with some widely varying totals - I believe that his official RAF credits are around 17 victories vs his own claims of over 25 or so. He wrote a good book, but as some might point out, it wasn't the Good Book (i.e., the Gospel).

cheers

horseback

NorrisMcWhirter
01-12-2005, 01:00 PM
Hi,

I must admit to skim reading your last post but I'm off out in a bit so forgive me.

Also, I made no deliberate attempt to misinterpret your initial post so if that has occurred, maybe it wasn't presented in the best way in the first place? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As I have said already, I never suggested that what Clostermann said as being gospel truth but, rather, a version of events presented by someone who was there (as opposed to us); this is something I can apply to any other assertions made, such as those made by people you use as your sources. I'm not saying that I'm right and you are wrong, or vice-versa, but that how you view this principally depends...well...on your viewpoint and what you are inclined to accept as the truth.

Now, I wouldn't want to be presumptous but you have, in another thread, suggested that the British air effort prior to the Americans turning up was merely a sideshow so forgive me for thinking that you are biased and feel that the British/RAF pilots were inferior and simply jealous of the Americans.

I'm not so naive to disregard the notion that some jealousy would have existed, for the reasons you have suggested but I've also read accounts of RAF pilots saying that the Americans they were flying with were 'bloody good blokes' and got on well with them in general.

As a counter, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to expect those 'loud and boisterous' Americans you to be eager to please and to out-do each other, so we can view that as a reasonable explanation for any gross overclaiming. To back up that assertion, there were many instances of Americans bouncing friendly aircraft in the attempt at increasing scores; I know this to be true not only because of written memoirs but because a friend of my father was shot down in such a manner.

So I also think it's fair to say that we can dilute the opposing views to arrive at something more towards the middle as being the correct version of events.

Cheers,
Norris

horseback
01-12-2005, 02:34 PM
Norris-

1) The sideshow I was referring to in the "Our worst opponent" thread was RAF fighter participation in the CBI theater, which was, for the purposes of my statistical arguement, a relatively minor effort numerically speaking. I did later on (correctly) point out that at the time of America's entry in the war, Fighter Command had been getting its brains beaten out by the two JGs left on the French coast.

But apparently you just skimmed over that one too.

2) You are the only person I have ever heard of claim that American fighter pilots (or any pilots of allied nations in any war) intentionally shot down aircraft they knew were friendlies - to wit:

"...there were many instances of Americans bouncing friendly aircraft in the attempt at increasing scores; I know this to be true not only because of written memoirs but because a friend of my father was shot down in such a manner."

I think it is more than safe to say that the American pilots in question had essentially the same identification problems that some Hurricane pilots had when they shot down a pair of Spitfire Mk Is early in the war(the first loss of Spitfires in the war, I believe); the other aircraft were not recognized as being friendlies.

The idea that an American pilot would knowingly shoot down a British aircraft (commit murder) in order to pump up his score is ludicrous on its face.

Friendly fire was a problem throughout the war: Typhoons went through a number of special identifying paint schemes (white noses, wing stripes, etc.) to protect them from bounces by Spitfire units or friendly AAA units. All RAF fighters had the yellow 'distemper' stripes on their leading edges and over Britain, that 'sky' colored fuselage band. Allied fighters in the Med had red noses, and finally, Mustangs and Thunderbolts had white noses and stripes on tails and wings to keep from being mistaken for the much smaller German 109s or 190s.

As far as I know, the only Allied fighter not to have been mistaken for an enemy aircraft and shot down by another fighter was the P-38 (although the C-54 that contained the first major shipment of divebrake kits for 8th AF Lightnings was shot down off the coast of Ireland when a Spitfire pilot mistook it for a FW 200 Kondor). I think that we can safely say that the problem was not one-sided.

Apparently your father took it personally when his mate was shot down, and passed on his attitude to you. Maybe the American in question never knew he had done it, or was unable to apologize in person. Well, let me do it for him.

It was a stupid and regrettable waste, and I'm sorry for his loss. I wish I could say that it will never happen again, but I would be wrong to do so.

cheers

horseback

WOLFMondo
01-13-2005, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

A final note on Clostermann. He has been 'credited' with some widely varying totals - I believe that his official RAF credits are around 17 victories vs his own claims of over 25 or so. He wrote a good book, but as some might point out, it wasn't _the_ Good Book (i.e., the Gospel).

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its 33 confirmed and 12 unconfirmed by RAF recordshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I saw one website say his list of kills was wrong, saying he got only 12 but ignoring his time in Spitfires. Seems people like to undermine him.

carguy_
01-13-2005, 02:06 AM
Funny no1 mentioned him saying the FW190D9 had a 30mm cannon in da propeller hub or is my book translated very badly?

I think they were facing Ta152 and FW190D12 in last days of war.

Clostermann`s saying that Me109K with 1700hp powered engine with a good pilot could SUPPOSEDLY stand up to the Tempest which actually makes me laugh concerning what this game treats energy high speed aircraft like.

WOLFMondo
01-13-2005, 02:59 AM
I wondered that as well but its possible he could have come up against one (D12), he was more likely to than anyone else, after all he came up against 262's, He162's, a Do335 etc.

He didn't say it could stand up to one, he said it could be a dangerous opponent. An I16 could be a dangerous opponent to a K4, Tempest or D9 in the right curcumstanceshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-13-2005, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Norris-

1) The sideshow I was referring to in the "Our worst opponent" thread was RAF fighter participation in the CBI theater, which was, for the purposes of my statistical arguement, a relatively minor effort numerically speaking. I did later on (correctly) point out that at the time of America's entry in the war, Fighter Command had been getting its brains beaten out by the two JGs left on the French coast.

But apparently you just skimmed over that one too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm well aware of fighter command's failures immediately following the BoB but I do hope you can see that unfortunate wording (sideshow) may provoke certain responses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
2) You are the only person I have ever heard of claim that American fighter pilots (or any pilots of allied nations in any war) intentionally shot down aircraft they knew were
friendlies - to wit:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As above...unfortunate wording bearing in mind I was rushing as I was on my way out, here. I was not intending to suggest that American pilots deliberately shot down friendlies to increase scores and I'm well aware that misidentification is not the preserve of the USAF, although there have been several recent cases during the Gulf Wars. The suggestion was that, IMO, they are often "more associated" with misidentification/bounces of friendlies than most. something which may have been associated with higher claiming/eagerness to down aircraft (e,g, Colin Downes/George P Barrett incidents, Clostermann's recollections, father's friend etc).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Apparently your father took it personally when his mate was shot down, and passed on his attitude to you. Maybe the American in question never knew he had done it, or was unable to apologize in person. Well, let me do it for him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no need to apologise as luckily he wasn't killed...just bloody annoyed. As an aside, my father also has a friend who was shot down at least twice through jettisoned US bombs(!) Needless to say, he wasn't impressed, either.

Thank you for your concern, though.


Cheers,
Norris

horseback
01-13-2005, 01:07 PM
The "association" of Americans with misidentification of friendlies as targets (ground and air) may have more to do with our greater numbers of combatants and 'friendlies' not being where they were reported to be or using out of date IFF, in recent times. As I pointed out, it is hardly an American monopoly.

I have been associated with a couple of recent development efforts at providing better air to ground and air to air passive ID systems to prevent fratricide, in my job as a field engineer for a major defense contractor. It's danged hard to keep track of units outside of your own immediate organization, even with the modern communications systems we have today, because of the plethora of communication systems used exclusively by one service and not the others.

IFF, as it exists today, is an active system (i.e., the aircraft broadcasts it's ID codes in response to a 'challenge signal') and has to be turned on, have the correct codes, and is easily detectable by friend and foe in these modern times of electronic countermeasures, so its military use is becoming somewhat limited.

Ground units are most often identified by their location and lack of perceived hostility. Especially at night, anything that might be interpreted by a pilot as hostile fire can be a Very Bad Thing for units on the ground. In daylight, not being where you were reported to be, wearing the wrong color of paint (or just appearing to due to local light conditions), or operating vehicles unfamiliar to the strike aircraft commander can also lead to friendly fire accidents.

In the cases of RAF aircraft being 'bounced' in the combat areas of late war Europe, the probability is that they were ID'd by US pilots as enemy because they were small and camoflauged, instead of being big and a nice, shiny silver.

American aircraft were more easily identifiable as Allies than the 'Spinach and Ocean Grey' worn by the RAF.

cheers

horseback

PS- I had no idea that the period "immediately following" was generally understood to mean periods of up to two years-the "Leaning Forward into France" campaign through the spring of 1943 (ending, coincidentally enough, at almost the very time that the first three P-47 groups become active combatants) is generally understood to be the "Happy times" of the Kanalfront geschwadern.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-13-2005, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
PS- I had no idea that the period "immediately following" was generally understood to mean periods of up to two years-the "Leaning Forward into France" campaign through the spring of 1943 (ending, coincidentally enough, at almost the very time that the first three P-47 groups become active combatants) is generally understood to be the "Happy times" of the Kanalfront geschwadern. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've no doubt that the RAF had some problems during this time but you are referring, presumably, to the same P47s which had a very rough time of things initially if Clostermann is correct. He suggests that they were ill-equipped to deal with the LW when they first arrived and had quite a few teething troubles with their machines. Not quite a step change but the tide was beginning to turn against Germany in 1943, anyway, so there are other factors at play.

Cheers,
Norris

horseback
01-13-2005, 05:58 PM
Of course they had teething troubles. It would have taken an act of God on the order of the parting of the Red Sea for it to have been otherwise.

Any unblooded unit entering combat against a well equipped, experienced opponent who generally holds the initiative can expect to take its lumps, yet the 4th, 56th, and 78th Fighter Groups all appear to have 'turned the corner' by August of 1943. That is just 4 or 5 months after they started combat operations in the P-47. By that time, they were coming out ahead or even in most of their confrontations with JG2 & 26.

After experimenting with (and discarding) RAF style tactics, working the 'bugs' out of what was still a largely (okay, just plain large) experimental aircraft in the P-47C, and developing their own tactics and doctrine appropriate to their aircraft and skills, they started making the Abbeville boys "watch their step", to use an Americanism. Their 'reach' was already longer than the Spitfire Mk IX, which was only just becoming the more numerous RAF fighter in Southern England.

This was done at the end of the second longest logistic chain in the world at the time (units in the Southwest Pacific being even farther away from any prewar established US facility).

The accomplishment of even near parity so quickly was a tremendous accomplishment, especially when achieved largely in the absence of cold beer or decent pizza.

cheers

horseback

horseback
01-13-2005, 10:02 PM
One final word about Clostermann...

From Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942-45, by Dr Alfred Price, from Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces Volume 5:

(Profile No. 39, page 94) "The Frenchman was flying this converted Mk V when he damaged a Bf 109 over France on 17 June 1943, thus opening his tally. His claim of 33 kills is refuted by historians who have studied official records. Some scores in which he claimed shares were downed by others in his unit when Clostermann, though in the area, did not fire his guns. According to most figures his score was 11 aircraft shot down (plus possibly 7 more), with 2 (plus possibly 3 more) probably destroyed, 9 damaged and 2 destroyed on the ground."

Dr. Price is one of the foremost historians of the RAF in WWII.

cheers

horseback

NorrisMcWhirter
01-14-2005, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
One final word about Clostermann...

From _Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942-45_, by Dr Alfred Price, from Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces Volume 5:

(Profile No. 39, page 94) "The Frenchman was flying this converted Mk V when he damaged a Bf 109 over France on 17 June 1943, thus opening his tally. His claim of 33 kills is refuted by historians who have studied official records. Some scores in which he claimed shares were downed by others in his unit when Clostermann, though in the area, did not fire his guns. According to most figures his score was 11 aircraft shot down (plus possibly 7 more), with 2 (plus possibly 3 more) probably destroyed, 9 damaged and 2 destroyed on the ground."

Dr. Price is one of the foremost historians of the RAF in WWII.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

And Dr Price has also been known to quote heavily from the Faber 190 vs Spit V test which was "denounced" in the ORR thread even though, IMO, the Faber test seems reasonable.

As for anyone's claims, it's rather difficult to tell what the outcome is unless you see something break up on camera/someone in your flight sees it. I wonder how many other 'aces' scores we can deride/knock down for lack of absolute evidence?

Even so, to make at least 7 kills AND to survive the war is not to be sniffed at; many were not so fortunate.

Cheers,
norris

horseback
01-14-2005, 09:03 AM
Agreed that scoring 7 or more kills and surviving the war is a worthy accomplishment, but to score 11 (possibly as many as 18) and proclaim that you are credited with 33 might make you a less trustworthy source of information.

That Dr. Price would come out and baldly refute Clostermann's claims is a pretty strong indication that some of his wartime squadronmates might be less than happy with his self-promotion. It has always been my impression that this sort of thing was kept private in the wartime RAF.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
01-14-2005, 12:31 PM
yeah the ace thing was more a german thing. to surive the war u need a biiiiiiiiig slice of luck thats for sure.

i think raf was much more on the team aspect, some of the most respected pilots in the raf wherent fighter pilots, bomber and photo recon pilots where respected once ppl found out what they did and the dangers of it.

WOLFMondo
01-14-2005, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
One final word about Clostermann...

From _Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942-45_, by Dr Alfred Price, from Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces Volume 5:

(Profile No. 39, page 94) "The Frenchman was flying this converted Mk V when he damaged a Bf 109 over France on 17 June 1943, thus opening his tally. His claim of 33 kills is refuted by historians who have studied official records. Some scores in which he claimed shares were downed by others in his unit when Clostermann, though in the area, did not fire his guns. According to most figures his score was 11 aircraft shot down (plus possibly 7 more), with 2 (plus possibly 3 more) probably destroyed, 9 damaged and 2 destroyed on the ground."

Dr. Price is one of the foremost historians of the RAF in WWII.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So he simply made up large chunks of his books and flight records despite being backed up by gun cam film and fellow pilots testimonies?

Given there were very few RAF aces with that higher scores don't you think both the RAF and French government would have said somthing if he was that much of a fraud either during or after the war. How does someone get away it? given the skepticism over claims without film evidence or other pilots confirming the kills?

WUAF_Badsight
01-14-2005, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
And Dr Price has also been known to quote heavily from the Faber 190 vs Spit V test which was "denounced" in the ORR thread even though, IMO, the Faber test seems reasonable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what do you mean by "denounced"

all that was showen in the Faber test is that the FW-190 was running at a higher boost than they were at that time

skewing the results in the FW-190s favour more than it was

horseback
01-14-2005, 02:32 PM
First of all, I am not aware of a gun camera installation in the wartime Spitfire fighter marks, and I've been making models and reading books about Spitfires and almost every other WWII aircraft I could get my mitts on for over 40 years. There simply appears to be no place to put one, no lens holes in the wings' leading edges, or underwing bumps or protrusions that are unaccounted for.

It is my understanding that RAF fighter victory confirmations were based almost solely on the pilot's word and eyewitness confirmations (including a ground controller's radar plot), or upon the discovery of the destroyed aircraft's wreckage at the reported location. An officer and a gentleman should be taken at his word, after all.

As for the inflation of Clostermann's claims, one should first recall that at war's end, he transferred to the French Armee d'Aire, and originally wrote his book in French during the 1950s (I think). As far as I am aware, the RAF is not in the business of censoring wartime memoirs, particularly those of foreign nationals printed in their country of origin, even for the sake of accuracy.

Many pilots have claimed more victories than they were credited with, and it was certainly Clostermann's right to list the ones he thinks he actually got. However, the popularity of his book, and its timing (France was re-establishing itself as an independent power, and her people were more than a little defensive about their role in the last war) appears to have allowed him to establish his 'legend' without direct contradiction. According to my reading of Dr. Price's terse statement, the records of the time don't record show that he tried to make those claims when they supposedly took place.

In any case, I get the impression that by the time 'Le Grande Cirque' was translated into the English version, the French government would have backed him against RAF censure without hesitation, if only for the sake of national pride.

The various Frenchmen who continued in the fight from overseas had a great deal of resentment about their treatment by their Allies. While the petty squabbling between their own various factions no doubt contributed as well, they had reason to think that their contributions were undervalued, and Clostermann might maintain that his unrecognized victories were the result of British prejudice.

As I pointed out, however, his claims are not supported by the official record, nor, apparently, by the memories of British pilots who served with him, or Dr. Price would not have been nearly so blunt, IMHO. That business about a gentleman's word still holds some weight with him, I suspect.

What you read at websites promoting his books have no legal requirement to be factual. Their job is to sell books, not check facts.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
01-15-2005, 01:49 AM
"First of all, I am not aware of a gun camera installation in the wartime Spitfire fighter marks, and I've been making models and reading books about Spitfires and almost every other WWII aircraft I could get my mitts on for over 40 years. There simply appears to be no place to put one, no lens holes in the wings' leading edges, or underwing bumps or protrusions that are unaccounted for."

There's plenty of gun camera footage from Spitfires, though. So there must have been somewhere to place them.

WOLFMondo
01-15-2005, 05:16 AM
Theres even gun cam photo's in the big show (hitting a 190) and he makes reference more than once to adding to the cam fotage by flying over the planes he shot down and running the film so he can get conformation in his IXB

To add, the British meticulously went over German records after the war and many pilots recieved there conformations at this point.

You could be correct horseback but I have a very hard time beliving given a 33 kill ace could get away with lying about his kills despite getting conformation of them, somthing the RAF (behind the publics back, free from propaganda needs) was quite careful of.

harryklein66
01-15-2005, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
so there must have been somewhere to place them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/spitfire.jpg

shrike_426
01-15-2005, 08:16 AM
I belive that the point has some how been lost from the origins of this conversation. To answer the origanal question where the luftwafe planes inferior, the answer is quite clearly no. to prove it lets look at some history of the aircraft involved.
the FW190s first flew in june 1939, on its first active service in the summer of 1941 over the skies of britian, it sent shockwaves throught out the fighter controls high command. the FW190 could out manover out gun and fly fast and higher than the lattest spitife mk5s. it wasn't untill about 1942 that the spitfires could begin to rival the fw190s. By this time most of the luftwafe's intrest was now ingaded in the me262s. however due to Hitlers insistence on the fact that the me262 should be a bomber, to few me262 fighter where produced to aid its war effort.
On the other hand the BF109 do not match the spitfires. the Bf109s had been seeing action from the early 1930s in the spanish civil war. Originally built with the hispannio 500hp engines there where the first aircraft to be able to pull negative G manoveruse with out cutting of its fuel supply. As all other aircraft boosted a gravity fuel pump, unlike the brand new carbateors of the BF109s. By the 1940s this aircaft was outdated. Still flown by die hard pilots, there where far to many to be replaced with the luftwafes more desired FW190s. The remaining BF109s in production where converted to ground attack roles, where spped and rigidy where required rather than tighter turnning circles. the cost of rebuilding all the productions line to manafacture FW190s was no deemed acceptable by the NAZI bugdet. thus latter BF109s such as the BF109G bost more amour and speed and guns but little in the the manoverablity department.
However the BF109 bosts a more favoruable performance at high altitudes compared to that of all its counterparts. when compared to its main adverasry the Huricanes ( with hurricanes out numbering the number of british spitifers by more than 5 to 1) the BF109 bost a better turing rate but a lower roll rate. a spitifre and a BF109 have similar ( within in a few feet) turinig cricles but the spitfires roll rate is far superea to any other fight apart from that of the zero.

harryklein66
01-15-2005, 08:58 AM
"Originally built with the hispannio 500hp engines".
only licence built spanish model(HA1112/1110) where equiped with Hispano engine (12Z 89,and 12Z 17)
109 prototype was equiped with RR Kestrel V,
and early series(A to C) with Jumo 210

horseback
01-15-2005, 10:58 AM
I stand corrected on the gun cameras. I'd always assumed the wing root hole to be some kind of air inlet. No mention of gun camera film is made in most of the RAF fighter pilots' memoirs that I've read, and most, if not all of the gun camera film from the ETO that we see in the various documentaries and (God forgive me) the History Channel appears to be from USAAF fighters.

But my position on Clostermann stands. The RAF officially credits him with between 15 and 17 victories, while the Armee de l'Air (which did not exist during Clostermann's combat tours) credits him with 33 (a total greater than his RAF credits including shared, damaged and probables). The combat reports that he and his squadronmates made during the war are in the hands of the RAF, so, again, I have to believe that the RAF are right.

As for why he has not been denounced and prosecuted for some kind of fraud, I can only point out that the RAF doesn't recognize the 'ace' status. They simply state that Clostermann is credited with X numbers of German aircraft destroyed, shared destroyed, probably destroyed, destroyed on the ground and damaged during his wartime affiliation with the RAF. If the Armee de l'Air somehow detected an extra 18 kills in their records, well, that is the concern of the French military, and it is up to the historians to decide which record is right.

It is instructive to note that 'le Grande Charles', Clostermann's Tempest, is not depicted in any of the Osprey 'Aces' series with its starboard side (where his victory symbols were painted) showing. I made the Heller 1/72nd kit of that aircraft over 20 years ago, and I don't think it had even 25 crosses on it, even though it was supposed to depict the aircraft in close to its end of the war scheme.

Every English language source (other than his book) I have does not come out and call the man a liar, but simply points out the conflict between his wartime credits and claims, and those made in his book, and then moves on to other pilots' stories. They simply ignore Clostermann, which speaks volumes. There is a definite cloud over his reputation, which no amount of shameless self-promotion can obscure.

He wrote a marvelous book, but in my estimation, it is at best semi-autobiographical.

cheers

horseback

harryklein66
01-15-2005, 11:57 AM
23 was the official credit he had from
the Air Ministry.There is a copy of this doc at
the Musée de l'Ordre de la Liberation.
But like for all other aces, it doesn't mean that it was his real score.

horseback
01-15-2005, 01:26 PM
That still leaves 10 victories pulled out of uhmmm...thin air, to be charitable.

Price makes it clear that Clostermann makes postwar claims at variance with his wartime reports, which would have been juxtaposed with the reports of others in his squadron, photographic evidence, if any, or other witnesses by his squadron & Wing Intelligence Officers, at the very least. His book was apparently examined only by literary critics for artistic content.

Without official RAF sanction to his full list of claims, he remains well down on the list, with demerits for inflating his record. A British or American pilot with a remotely similar record would have been tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail.

The 'everybody did it' arguement just doesn't fly.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
01-15-2005, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shrike_426:
I belive that the point has some how been lost from the origins of this conversation. To answer the origanal question where the luftwafe planes inferior, the answer is quite clearly no. to prove it lets look at some history of the aircraft involved.
the FW190s first flew in june 1939, on its first active service in the summer of 1941 over the skies of britian, it sent shockwaves throught out the fighter controls high command. the FW190 could out manover out gun and fly fast and higher than the lattest spitife mk5s. it wasn't untill about 1942 that the spitfires could begin to rival the fw190s. By this time most of the luftwafe's intrest was now ingaded in the me262s. however due to Hitlers insistence on the fact that the me262 should be a bomber, to few me262 fighter where produced to aid its war effort.
On the other hand the BF109 do not match the spitfires. the Bf109s had been seeing action from the early 1930s in the spanish civil war. Originally built with the hispannio 500hp engines there where the first aircraft to be able to pull negative G manoveruse with out cutting of its fuel supply. As all other aircraft boosted a gravity fuel pump, unlike the brand new carbateors of the BF109s. By the 1940s this aircaft was outdated. Still flown by die hard pilots, there where far to many to be replaced with the luftwafes more desired FW190s. The remaining BF109s in production where converted to ground attack roles, where spped and rigidy where required rather than tighter turnning circles. the cost of rebuilding all the productions line to manafacture FW190s was no deemed acceptable by the NAZI bugdet. thus latter BF109s such as the BF109G bost more amour and speed and guns but little in the the manoverablity department.
However the BF109 bosts a more favoruable performance at high altitudes compared to that of all its counterparts. when compared to its main adverasry the Huricanes ( with hurricanes out numbering the number of british spitifers by more than 5 to 1) the BF109 bost a better turing rate but a lower roll rate. a spitifre and a BF109 have similar ( within in a few feet) turinig cricles but the spitfires roll rate is far superea to any other fight apart from that of the zero. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

190 was better than the mark V spitfire, the IX spit was its equal or better, the typhoon was also pretty good against 190, and the p51's the raf where getting. 190 could fly faster, but at high alt is pretty cr4p, im not sure a V would be better than a 190 at high alt, but it could well be, the IX most certainly was.

i think 109 had fuel injectors not carbs, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. i think some ww1 planes could pull neg g without cut, but im not 100% sure

VOL_Hans
01-15-2005, 03:17 PM
I bet you that if I made a "FW-190 View is Still Porked" thread it would get closed before this....

Just looking at the title is enough to tell its obviously a troll attempt...

Hastatus
01-15-2005, 06:27 PM
I dont see what Clostermanns score has zip to do with the arguments being made here. I will say that he is certainly not the only fighter pilot to have his official score different than his unnoffical score. Very few pilots records can be 100 percent verified, and few are.

That being said there are *much* better sources on WW2 air combat and a/c than his one book, and I dont see what the heck difference his comments about "plane X" have to do with how accurate his WW2 score is anyways? How are they related?

"Why didnt the French or British governemnts say something if X was true"?

...Because an aces tally in WW2 was not a matter for some big public debate, thats why. Its a footnote in history, and governments have better things to do with their time than run around trying to confirm or refute what some Free French ace said he shot down in the last war? Get real.

shrike_426
01-16-2005, 06:57 AM
I think i shall have to do some rereading on BF109 engine specification. But my point in the earlier posting is still valide. the luftwafe aircraft are still a good match for anything the allies had. Espicially in the hands of the luftwafe pilots.

harryklein66
01-16-2005, 08:08 AM
I agree with you your point is still valide http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Gustavflyer
01-16-2005, 01:00 PM
This has got to be the most ridiculous post I have EVER seen on these forums. Hey like em or not but every publication I have read on German fighters rates the 109 as one of the greatest. The 190 was another deadly fighter, hell the Luftwaffe was on the verge ot stopping the 8th AF bombing offensive, but thanks to the 51 that did not happen. The 109 was nearly a 10 year old design when the 51 appeared over Europe and even though it was an older design, the 109 could hold its own but I am not going to state what all of the people here know for themselves.Also I am not going to start whining about the spit and be accused of being another Luft-whiner, Sometimes I get them and then they turn around and get me, but the author of this post is way off in my opinion for saying that the Luftwaffe produced poor planes.

PBNA-Boosher
01-16-2005, 05:28 PM
109's and 190's ROXORS!

109F ROXORS more

Stoyanov
01-17-2005, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Danschnell:
I'm a big fan of the Fw190 and Bf109, and I love to fly both, but I cannot complain these days if they aren't capable of air to air combat.
A lot of people forget that the Germans produced the worst planes of WW2. Only their prototypes were any good.
Let me explain. The Fw190 had a historical turn radius of 23-24 seconds, as did most Bf109s. This made them all less maneuverable than ALL allied fighters.
Also, they were slower. The Fw190A-8 went 408 mph, and the rest were slower, whereas the lightning had always been faster than this, the Thunderbolt was, and the Spitfires and Mustangs of the same period were 430mph plus. No matter what period you look at, all German fighters were both less manueverable and slower.
Which means that they will never be able to bring their guns to bear if they are against equal pilots.
Everyone online now seems to be really good, so of course the Spitfires have about a 5-1 kill ratio. There just isn't any way for German planes to fight them. Some people say 'learn to fly your 190. They ARE good.' but that seems to be mainly an excuse. Both historically and in game, Axis planes cannot be used for air superiority.
This may be historical, but its making the game pretty pointless now. I'm all for Russia vs Americans servers and other fantasy scenarios like that. Not because they're historical, but because they'd revitalise the game.
Its a pitty I can't host on my machine, but maybe you hosts could think about it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm what can I say....
ROFL ROFL ROFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

MEGILE
01-17-2005, 04:20 AM
This guy could teach Sir.Robin a thing or two.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif To everyone who took the bait.

shrike_426
01-17-2005, 12:23 PM
Another point i think is that the plane only performs 30% of the overall performance 70% is pilot based. For example a FW190 is a superb aircraft but nobody that dosen't no it will likely lose in it. it has huge problem with high speed high angle of attack manoverous. such as loops and half loops. This means to get away from a fw190 rev up and pull back hard. How ever a clever pilot in the fw190 can use this to stall his aircraft temporarly to put himself behind pesuers. Pilot skill is far more important than your aircraft.
I personally find that a yak 1,3 or 9 are far better at manoverus than a fw190, but then pull a couple of tricks in a fw190 and watch his wings fall off. A fw190 is also more ridgid than most aircraft with the exception of no fuel tank armour under the cotpit. The same can be said for the me109s only in these aircraft i find that the punishment they can take is far in excess of even the Il2s. perhaps the point is that the luftwafe aircraft to the noob are the hardest to pilot and clame results in but anybody that understands one can rule the sky.