PDA

View Full Version : Volkswagen Rally (56k beware)



JtD
12-02-2006, 09:03 AM
My vote goes to the US, simply because they had high quality planes in about every category that mattered for them. It may or may not have been the best of it's class, but it sure was competitive.

The UK did also managed a lot of good designs, but imho it lacked decent designs for naval aviation and also used to keep obsolete designs in service for too long.

The Soviet Union failed to provide their fighter forces with truly competitive designs for a huge portion of the war and their concept of ground support was very costly. The amounts of Il-2's lost speak for themselves. Considering how specialized the whole VVS concept was (almost exclusively ground support), it is somewhat disappointing that they just managed to keep up with the rest.

Japan imho was just one year behind in development of their planes. A6M was no plane to face a F6F and the Ki-61 was an equivalent to the 1941 109 F-4, not the best plane to fight 1944 Spitfires. Applies to almost all categories, even though they had the occasional excellent design.

Germany produced a lot of good plane, but somewhat managed to stall it's plane development in 1942. They got the bill handed in 1944. They obviously also lacked plane for strategic operations as shown in 1941 and how they missed to s

Bewolf
12-02-2006, 09:09 AM
Agreed to all points xept the recce one of the germans. That was more a huge success for allied carmoflage and concealment abolities (rubber tanks) then lack of german recce, which still managed to fly over britain even against massive fighter cover.

But yeah, I agree, overall the US had the best equipment. Germany and the USSR are out for carrier ops and stratic bombing alone already, so in all fairness they do not even count.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

leitmotiv
12-02-2006, 09:09 AM
Latvia

LStarosta
12-02-2006, 09:12 AM
USA<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

Chuck_Older
12-02-2006, 09:13 AM
I also voted US, partly because the breadth of aircraft types exclude other nations-

example- Germany never could develop a great carrier-borne fighter because of circumstance. Similarly, what were the great Soviet carrier-based torpedo bombers?

I think the list gets limited to the US, Great Britain, and Japan<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Jimmychamp.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

LStarosta
12-02-2006, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Similarly, what were the great Soviet carrier-based torpedo bombers?


Grumman sued Stalin.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

VW-IceFire
12-02-2006, 09:20 AM
I'll vote UK. Obviously these are not without contention but here's my justification for each of the plane types:

Heavy bomber: Lancaster was simply the best of the heavy bombload carrying bombers. The massive amount of ordinance carried, versatility in mission, and overall effectiveness cannot be denied.

Medium bomber: Mosquito was the least intercepted medium bomber of the war. It could fly faster and higher than contemporaries and generally carried the same bombload at the expense of mounted defenses.

Attack plane/ground support/fighter-bomber: Let me roll the Typhoon Mark IB into this category since it was generally doing all of these roles. Typhoons were perhaps flawed as a fighter but its hard to deny its ability to deliver its mass quantities of rockets and cannon fire. Using the cab rank system it was basically "aerial artillery on demand".

Transport: The Anson...not the same kind of workhorse like the DC-3 but a good plane in its own right.

Recon: The PR Spitfire models were generally amongst the best photo recon aircraft available. The RAF and USAAF used these to great effect.

Air superiority fighter and interceptor: The Spitfire is fairly close to a perfect mix of performance and ease of use across its complete line.

Escort: Spitfire again...but with a major caveat that its range wasn't great enough for long range escort. Only short range operations across the channel. In those instances (escorting Mitchells, Bostons, Marauders, etc.) it was great. Mostly because of sustained turn rate makes it easier to perform close escort than some other fighters. That and great altitude performance.

Sea plane: Sunderland was a pretty accomplished sea plane.



Obviously I can't make a case for everything. The escort fighter Spitfire is tenuous depending on the operation and the real workhorse transport plane was the Dakota which wasn't UK built.

I suspect I could justify some of the other air forces given the opportunity.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

JtD
12-02-2006, 09:21 AM
I don't think it's fair to dismiss a continental nation because it had no naval aviation. If you don't try you cannot fail.

One could also argue that the whole concept of strategic bombing is a mistake and thus eliminate the need for heavy bombers or escorts fighters.

Obviously, a nation like the UK would need different types than the a nation like the SU.

Well, your choice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LStarosta
12-02-2006, 09:27 AM
How is strategic bombing a mistake other than the casualties? Pray tell how else Germany's industry would have been eliminated?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

GoToAway
12-02-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Pray tell how else Germany's industry would have been eliminated? Except that Germany's industry wasn't elimited.

German production increased every single year and peaked in 1945.

VW-IceFire
12-02-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Pray tell how else Germany's industry would have been eliminated? Except that Germany's industry wasn't elimited.

German production increased every single year and peaked in 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah I have to second that. Strategic bombing didn't, in terms of numbers of things being produced, affect production in Germany. The ironic thing for Germany was that the Allied nations were out producing them for most of the war despite Germany winning so many battles early on. Production efficiency reached its peak in early 1945 for Germany...basically at the time that they could no longer exploit it.

Strategic bombing I think had the effect of keeping the Luftwaffe distracted and whittled them down in the numbers and quality of pilots lost to bomber formation defense (either from the mounted guns or escorting fighters).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/icefire-tempestv.jpg
Find my missions at Flying Legends (http://www.flying-legends.net/php/downloads/downloads.php?cat_id=19) and Mission4Today.com (http://www.mission4today.com).

WB_Outlaw
12-02-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
How is strategic bombing a mistake other than the casualties? Pray tell how else Germany's industry would have been eliminated?

From what I've read, no industry was truly eliminated due to strategic bombing. Fuel production was not seriously hampered until the Spring of '44 and fuel was available in some capacity to some units up until the very end.

Transportation took a hit from strategic bombing but tactical attacks by fighter/bombers also played a large part in disrupting transportation. Railroad tracks are fairly easy to make workable but replacing a boiler on a locomotive is much more difficult, especially if it's hit en route. Transportation disruption can negate ALL other production. It doesn't matter how much of anything you have, if you can't deliver it you might as well not have it.

IMO the most significant effect of allied strategic bombing was the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter arm. By forcing the outnumbered LW to put it's fighters in an inferior position (attacking bombers and ignoring fighters) the escorts were able to wipe them out. This allowed tactical aviavtion to complete the total decimation the transportation system. Fuel production would be second place. From what I've read, no other industry was seriously hampered by strategic bombing except in those cases where a single facility was involved.

--Outlaw.

Aaron_GT
12-02-2006, 09:57 AM
I love the Anson, but you can't really compare it to the DC3. The Bristol Bombay would be more appropriate. The Stirling and Halifax, though, did some stirling work (sorry about that pun) in transport, paratroop, and glider tug roles, and with the option of a tail turret.


Sea plane: Sunderland was a pretty accomplished sea plane.

It was an excellent plane - faster and more capable than the PBY, but the problem it had compared to the PBY was that is was so much more expensive to build, perhaps more than the additional value it brought to missions, which is probably why the UK bought so many Catalinas.

WOLFMondo
12-02-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Pray tell how else Germany's industry would have been eliminated? Except that Germany's industry wasn't elimited.

German production increased every single year and peaked in 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its abilit to produce fuel and get those products where they needed to go was severaly reduced.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Capt Eric Brown says: "I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew."

berg417448
12-02-2006, 10:12 AM
Albert Speer, Spandau, the Secret Diaries (1976)

"The real importance of the air war consisted in the fact that it opened a second front before the invasion of Europe. The front was the skies over Germany. Every square metre of the territory we controlled was a kind of front line. Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in position by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time."

JtD
12-02-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
How is strategic bombing a mistake other than the casualties? Pray tell how else Germany's industry would have been eliminated?

Like I said, one could argue. Didn't say it was a misconception. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG7_Rall
12-02-2006, 11:05 AM
I don't think it's fair to dismiss a continental nation because it had no naval aviation. If you don't try you cannot fail.

Actually, not trying is the most surefire way to fail. If one doesn't try, whether it be an individual or an entire state, it's surely not going to happen.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_______________________________

http://badge.facebook.com/badge/9130947.277.2121856952.png (http://umass.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9130947)

Thank you for contributing to this forum.

Zeus-cat
12-02-2006, 11:30 AM
LStarosta said


Grumman sued Stalin.

frickin' brilliant sir!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Zeus-cat

My Campaigns:
Straight Shot (9 missions in the Japanese Seaplane - A6M2-N "Rufe")
Straight Into an Icy Hell (14 missions for the Rufe in the Aleutians)
Straight Down (26 dive-bombing missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight Down Some More (19 more missions in a carrier-based SBD-3)
Straight and True (30 torpedo bomber missions in an IL-2T)

My campaign page at Miision4Today
http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=22

DomJScott
12-02-2006, 11:43 AM
Unsurprisingly I went for the UK. Overall I think it's close between the US and the UK but the UK get the edge for better Bomber's, better fighter armament and for being the ones who gave birth to the P51 (American built to a UK specification).

Germany had some interesting aircraft but overall lost the chance for the 'title' IMO due to inconsistant policies and the comparitivly high number of gun types in service.

Russia had some good aircraft but where generally lightly armed and mostly inferior.

Japan was obviously very good on the naval front although lost ground to the Americans.

HotelBushranger
12-04-2006, 10:49 PM
A mate of mine runs a DAK reenacting unit, of which I am semi-involved with. On the weekend they attended a Volkswagen day, in which they brought their VW (from The Eagles Have Landed) and a CJ 750 (BMW R71 Replica). I'm m