PDA

View Full Version : The F8F-2 Bearcat



AFJ_Locust
04-25-2006, 01:52 AM
After reading many articals & stuff like this on the web wich Im sure is all propaganda........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Grumman.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/Grumman.html)

I often wonder where are these ac in PF, the ones we have are unstable gunplatforms can hardly outrun a zero the climb vs zero is silly imo

Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????

Aeronautico
04-25-2006, 01:58 AM
IIRC the Bearcat never saw combat: it came to late.
I saw it flying aerobatics in pair with a Tigercat and it's a wonderful plane indeed.

panzerd18
04-25-2006, 02:11 AM
Did it see combat in Korea?

Aeronautico
04-25-2006, 02:16 AM
I doubt so: it was replaced by the Cougar by then I believe.
It might have seen some action in Indocina with the French though.

Aeronautico
04-25-2006, 02:17 AM
Oh yeah, from the link above:


Withdrawn from service in 1952, some were sold to the French government and saw extensive use in Indo-China.

Badsight.
04-25-2006, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????
they were all sent to russia where they were stufffed into a Maddox Games Pacific Fighters game

& make sure its the -2B Bearcat (the B is important for cannon goodness =D)

& no - "they" (the USN) didnt want the Bearcat in Korea but the French flew the **** out of them over Indocina as stated

JG53Frankyboy
04-25-2006, 06:04 AM
the F8F hadnt enough range when loaded with a sufficent bombload for the USN Korea operations AFAIK..........

Chuck_Older
04-25-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:


Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????

I'm really surprised that you didn't know the F8F didn't see action in WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

danjama
04-25-2006, 08:04 AM
Heres a picture of the Bearcat i took last year at Duxford while it was being wheeled over to the flight line....it was very difficult to capture as airmail will tell everyone!! Not bad tho, its a nice plane. Didnt get to see her fly unfortunately as she was havin engine trouble....

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/danjama/cazscamerapics035.jpg

p1ngu666
04-25-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
After reading many articals & stuff like this on the web wich Im sure is all propaganda........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/Grumman.html (http://home.att.net/%7EC.C.Jordan/Grumman.html)

I often wonder where are these ac in PF, the ones we have are unstable gunplatforms can hardly outrun a zero the climb vs zero is silly imo

Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????

nice spot of fishing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

vocatx
04-25-2006, 08:44 AM
Actually it's a very accurate article on the Bearcat. Unless it's been broken, a modified Bearcat held the world record for time to 10,000 feet for propellor driven aircraft: 98 seconds from a standing start! The Bearcat was the ultimate "uber" fighter for it's day.

horseback
04-25-2006, 09:06 AM
About the use of the Bearcat in Korea: it was designed as a 'pure' fighter/interceptor-using the same R-2800 engine series as the Hellcat, Corsair & Thunderbolt, it was a lot smaller & lighter. It was far and away the closest thing to the European ideal of a 'hotrod' (big engine/small airplane) fighter in the US inventory at war's end.

It simply lacked the payload value for air-to-ground vs the amount of deck space it required compared to the Corsairs or Skyraiders available when jets were more capably filling the fighter/interceptor role. As a result, it spent comparatively little time in the Fleet, and was quickly shuffled off to duty with Reserve units, where it was very popular with veteran pilots.

cheers

horseback

Fork-N-spoon
04-25-2006, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Aeronautico:
IIRC the Bearcat never saw combat: it came to late.
I saw it flying aerobatics in pair with a Tigercat and it's a wonderful plane indeed.

In fairness, Aeronautico wasn't the first to make this point nor will he be the last, but consider this:

This is a silly point to make when considering all the aircraft we have in this game that saw no combat. To make it even more silly, we currently have aircraft in this game that never even made it off the drawing board. Yes that's right, aircraft are in this game that never even saw a prototype made.

Seriously whether you're against the aircraft or not, if you're going to make an argument against X aircraft being included in the game atleast make a valid point about it.

Off the top of my head: "Aircraft that saw no combat, were never placed into production, only had one to three prototypes built, or saw such limited combat that they shouldn't even be considered if we are sticking to "not historically accurate because it saw no combat."

Do-335
Me-262 with 50mm cannon
La-7 3 x 20mm (post war prodution/last month or two of the war production began)
Yak-3P
Bf-109Z
I-185
F4U-1C (200 built how many went into combat?)
Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)
YP-80
Ta-152
Fw-190A9
Ki-84Ib
Ki-84Ic

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.

So I ask, why is it an issue that X aircraft never saw any combat? It hasn't mattered up to this point so why start now?

danjama
04-25-2006, 09:28 AM
We have planes that never even saw prototype? Am i missing something?

AWL_Spinner
04-25-2006, 09:36 AM
Got some video of a Bearcat doing engine runups at Duxford if anyone's interested.

Oh, and shedloads of Spitfire Mk VIII's saw service, in response to the post above!

Spitfire Mk VIII's Produced:

(Merlin 70) 160
(Merlin 61/63) 267
(Merlin 66) 1,231

Ok, so that's only about a fifth of the Mk IX total but it's hardly a never-saw-service plane. True - they weren't deployed in any numbers in Northern Europe, being more suited to the Med and Southern climes, but they did fight!

You may be thinking of the high altitude interceptor, the Mark VII. There were only a hundred or so of these (although they too saw service as a specialised type against high altitude recon aircraft).

Chuck_Older
04-25-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Yes that's right, aircraft are in this game that never even saw a prototype made.



I'm drawing a blank, with the exception of the 109Z which to my knowledge is fantasy. Could you refresh my memory?

WOLFMondo
04-25-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aeronautico:
IIRC the Bearcat never saw combat: it came to late.
I saw it flying aerobatics in pair with a Tigercat and it's a wonderful plane indeed.

In fairness, Aeronautico wasn't the first to make this point nor will he be the last, but consider this:

This is a silly point to make when considering all the aircraft we have in this game that saw no combat. To make it even more silly, we currently have aircraft in this game that never even made it off the drawing board. Yes that's right, aircraft are in this game that never even saw a prototype made.

Seriously whether you're against the aircraft or not, if you're going to make an argument against X aircraft being included in the game atleast make a valid point about it.

Off the top of my head: "Aircraft that saw no combat, were never placed into production, only had one to three prototypes built, or saw such limited combat that they shouldn't even be considered if we are sticking to "not historically accurate because it saw no combat."

Do-335
Me-262 with 50mm cannon
La-7 3 x 20mm (post war prodution/last month or two of the war production began)
Yak-3P
Bf-109Z
I-185
F4U-1C (200 built how many went into combat?)
Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)
YP-80
Ta-152
Fw-190A9
Ki-84Ib
Ki-84Ic

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.

So I ask, why is it an issue that X aircraft never saw any combat? It hasn't mattered up to this point so why start now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those planes were put in this sim because 3rd party modellers built them or they were easy conversions to make. I think if someone had made a Bearcat two years ago and got it to Oleg before April last year we would have it in this sim, the same applies to any aircraft.

I'd love to see a Bearcat in this sim along with a Hawker Seafury. Arguably the 2 best prop fighters ever built.

Aeronautico
04-25-2006, 09:52 AM
Fork-N-spoon, you're playing your own movie:

Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????

the Bearcat never saw combat: it came too late
Might be silly or even sillier to you, but it makes quite sense to me if you don't mind: the sentences as displayed let me believe the author claimed the Bearcat was among the fighters which "won the war".

Seriously whether you're against the aircraft or not, if you're going to make an argument against X aircraft being included in the game atleast make a valid point about it.
Seriously, where have I ever claimed that? I love the Bearcat and would love to see it in-game, infact. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

reisen52
04-25-2006, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by vocatx:
Actually it's a very accurate article on the Bearcat. Unless it's been broken, a modified Bearcat held the world record for time to 10,000 feet for propellor driven aircraft: 98 seconds from a standing start! The Bearcat was the ultimate "uber" fighter for it's day.

IIRC the record was never broken by a prop plane but was finally broken by an F-16.

horseback
04-25-2006, 10:02 AM
It was my understanding that a large proportion of the F4U-1C production did see combat along with its stablemate, the F4U-1D. In fact, I believe (can't say definitively, as a coworker 'borrowed' my copy of Tillman's Corsair book a few years ago & promptly 'lost' it) that it was the preferred version of the Corsair for deployment to the fast carriers.

Those cannon, while a bit balky at high alts, were the ideal solution for the fast twin engined bombers and torpedo bombers the Japanese favored for long range strikes at fast carrier groups.

Certainly more of them saw combat than Ta-152s...

cheers

horseback

reisen52
04-25-2006, 10:17 AM
A total of 297 F4U-4Bs or F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon were built by August 1947 when production ended.

If 4X20MM is important 200 F4U-1C's (British) first entered combat in April 1945

Over 2000 F4U-4's 6X.50 were built starting in October 1944 & used in multi squadron strength over Okinawa in the summer 1945.

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 10:17 AM
You are mistaken Fork-N-spoon in that the Fw190A-9 was not produced in numbers and did not see combat. There was more produced than the number of Spitfire XIVs. Production started in late 1944 and some 800-900 being produced.

reisen52
04-25-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
You are mistaken Fork-N-spoon in that the Fw190A-9 was not produced in numbers and did not see combat. There was more produced than the number of Spitfire XIVs. Production started in late 1944 and some 800-900 being produced.

A lot of late war German aircraft had high production numbers but with the shortage of fuel & pilots how many of these planes ever got into the air or even off the production factorys' ramp?

Zeke

Fork-N-spoon
04-25-2006, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
You are mistaken Fork-N-spoon in that the Fw190A-9 was not produced in numbers and did not see combat. There was more produced than the number of Spitfire XIVs. Production started in late 1944 and some 800-900 being produced.

A lot of late war German aircraft had high production numbers but with the shortage of fuel & pilots how many of these planes ever got into the air or even off the production factorys' ramp?

Zeke </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mid 1944 onward the most significant Fw-190A fielded by the Germans was the Fw-190A8. I pointed out the Fw-190A9 solely because it was used to a much lesser degree than the Fw-190A8. My point in all this is just because an aircraft was used in significantly less numbers than another hasn't been grounds for keeping it out of this game thus far so why start now?

600-800 german types produced is a drop in the bucket compaired to the 20,000+ Fw-190s and 30,000+ Bf-109s produced.

800/50000 makes up 1.6 percent of the total fighters that Germany produced. Wouldn't you agree that this constitutes a very insignificant amount of aircraft? Lastly, of the production models that German made before the war ended, how many of these were actually pressed into combat?

To those people who keep twisting my words, I've stated that the aircraft either, "Aircraft that saw no combat, were never placed into production, only had one to three prototypes built, or saw such limited combat that they shouldn't even be considered if we are sticking to "not historically accurate because it saw no combat." You can twist these words however you like, but I've included, "saw such limited combat that they shouldn't even be considered if we are sticking to not historically accurate." So you can say X aircaft was 1/5th the production of the main model and saw combat so you're wrong fork n spoon, but what you're doing is twisting my words because I've included limited combat service.

To recap, in this game thus far an aircraft's historical importance in the war hasn't been criteria for including or excluding it in our game. Even in maps which run historical plane sets you mostly see limited production aircraft being fieled by both teams so that each team is mostly using aircraft that saw limited combat in the grand scheme of things.

Aeronautico, my post in no way was a personal attack against you. I thought I made that clear when I stated, "In fairness, Aeronautico wasn't the first to make this point nor will he be the last, but consider this."

horseback
04-25-2006, 11:24 AM
A little clarification/correction here. The F4U-1C was essentially an F4U-1D with 4X20mm instead of 6X.50. Except for gun armament, they were identical, shiny dark blue airplanes which saw a great deal of action in the Pacific from early 1944 onwards.

AFAIK, the -1C was not 'British,' neither ordered nor used by the FAA in greater proportions than the USN/USMC, if at all.

The F4U-4 models are a whole other animal, with an uprated engine, better high alt performance, and a four-bladed prop. I am not aware of the B versions seeing combat in WWII, although it's quite possible that a few made it to Okinawa in time to swat a few Franks.

cheers

horseback

reisen52
04-25-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
in this game thus far an aircraft's historical importance in the war hasn't been criteria for including or excluding it in our game.

Agree there is no historical logic for plane selection.

I would guess they are putting in the "best quality" planes of those submitted for use by the guys. Generally the guys will build the planes they personally like regardless of historical importance.

Zeke

Fork-N-spoon
04-25-2006, 11:44 AM
Horseback, consider this if you will:

Total F4U-1C production was 200 units
Total F4U production was well over 10,000 units by the time the war ended.
Few F4U-4s participated in WWII
No F4U-4Bs participated in WWII


Since the F4U-4B was produced after the F4U-4, and since F4U-4 production ended after the war ended, there weren't any F4U-4Bs produced during the war. I don't even think it was produced at all in 1945. I believe it was a 1946 - 1947 production model. Total F4U-4B production was less than 300 units.



This to me 200 F4U-1Cs doesn't constitute "significant combat service" when compared to 10,000+ Corsairs fielded by the Allies. Moreover, of the 200 F4U-1Cs produced I understand that the 20mm used had very serious teething problems and was disliked by its pilots due to its unreliability. I have read that the Americans made a major error when producing the 20mm Hispano, they made a part of the gun shorter to try and get a higher rate of fire. A modification similar to what the British did. The problem was that the Americans made it too short and it lead to a lot of stoppages. It is my understanding that the only reliable 20mm that the Americans produced during the war was the one used by the P-38, which didn't have problems with the 20mm being reliable.

The F4U-4 came along so late in the war that it also played a very insignificant role in the war. The dash 4 Corsair only began to see "combat serice" in June of 1945. Now I'm not against any late war/post war American or any other nation's aircraft from being included from this game. My whole point about all this is that thus far the argument that "it never saw combat" is really very silly when considering all the aircraft that we have in this game. I mean it hasn't mattered this far so why should we start now. Moreover if we are going to stick to this historically accurate theme then we need to have some aircraft that we already have in this game removed...

Aeronautico
04-25-2006, 01:58 PM
Aeronautico, my post in no way was a personal attack against you. I thought I made that clear when I stated, "In fairness, Aeronautico wasn't the first to make this point nor will he be the last, but consider this."

No problem Fork-N-spoon, just I never made the point you were commenting on, i.e. planes not to be included for they never saw combat. That's it.

GoToAway
04-25-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:


Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????

I'm really surprised that you didn't know the F8F didn't see action in WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not.

Gibbage1
04-25-2006, 02:08 PM
I offered to model it for PF. Luthier replied "Over my dead body". I think Oleg would be more accepting of late war/post war stuff. Funny considering Luthier modeled the Bi-1.

VW-IceFire
04-25-2006, 02:52 PM
AFAIK...the F8F-1 missed WWII by the span of a few weeks. Had Japan held on for longer the Bearcat would have seen action over Japan...

The F8F-1 was a 4 .50cal version which was slightly less refined than the F8F-2 (which had 4 20mm cannons). The 4 .50cal was felt sufficient for the theater and the fact that the Bearcats incredible climb rate was perfect for fleet defense against the kamikazi attackers.

Bremspropeller
04-25-2006, 03:04 PM
~900 A-9 PRODUCED, add about the same number of A-8s that were retrofitted with the TS or TU engines in late '44 or '45 and therefore became A-9s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
04-25-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:


In fairness, Aeronautico wasn't the first to make this point nor will he be the last, but consider this:

This is a silly point to make when considering all the aircraft we have in this game that saw no combat. To make it even more silly, we currently have aircraft in this game that never even made it off the drawing board. Yes that's right, aircraft are in this game that never even saw a prototype made.

Seriously whether you're against the aircraft or not, if you're going to make an argument against X aircraft being included in the game atleast make a valid point about it.

Off the top of my head: "Aircraft that saw no combat, were never placed into production, only had one to three prototypes built, or saw such limited combat that they shouldn't even be considered if we are sticking to "not historically accurate because it saw no combat."

Do-335
Me-262 with 50mm cannon
La-7 3 x 20mm (post war prodution/last month or two of the war production began)
Yak-3P
Bf-109Z
I-185
F4U-1C (200 built how many went into combat?)
Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)
YP-80
Ta-152
Fw-190A9
Ki-84Ib
Ki-84Ic

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.

So I ask, why is it an issue that X aircraft never saw any combat? It hasn't mattered up to this point so why start now?

Over 1600 Spitfire VIIIs were made, most of which saw combat in the MTO, CBI and the PTO, where its better range was an asset. It was used extensively by the RAAF (which recieved 251 LF. VIII and 159 HF. VIII) and even used by the USAAF over Italy. There were at least 7 sentais armed with the 4 x 20mm cannon variant, most of which were tasked ith B-29 interceptions. It also makes an excellent substitiute for the long range, high altitude Mk VII, which was used in Europe and was essentailly the same airframe fitted with a pressure cabin. 4 RAF squadrons were operational with the type in 1943-1945, and they conducted several medium/long-range daylight escorts for Halifaxes and Lancasters in this period, including to the submarine yards at La Palice.

KI-84b was one of the primary defence interceptors of the Japanese for the last 12 months of the Pacific war. There were at least 7 sentais armed with the 4 x 20mm cannon variant, most of which were tasked ith B-29 interceptions.

horseback
04-25-2006, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Horseback, consider this if you will:

Total F4U-1C production was 200 units
Total F4U production was well over 10,000 units by the time the war ended.
Few F4U-4s participated in WWII
No F4U-4Bs participated in WWII


Since the F4U-4B was produced after the F4U-4, and since F4U-4 production ended after the war ended, there weren't any F4U-4Bs produced during the war. I don't even think it was produced at all in 1945. I believe it was a 1946 - 1947 production model. Total F4U-4B production was less than 300 units.

This to me 200 F4U-1Cs doesn't constitute "significant combat service" when compared to 10,000+ Corsairs fielded by the Allies. Moreover, of the 200 F4U-1Cs produced I understand that the 20mm used had very serious teething problems and was disliked by its pilots due to its unreliability. I have read that the Americans made a major error when producing the 20mm Hispano, they made a part of the gun shorter to try and get a higher rate of fire. A modification similar to what the British did. The problem was that the Americans made it too short and it lead to a lot of stoppages. It is my understanding that the only reliable 20mm that the Americans produced during the war was the one used by the P-38, which didn't have problems with the 20mm being reliable. Out of 10,000 units produced, how many were operational in the combat theaters at any given time? I know for sure that more than one VF/VBF squadron of F4U-1C/FG-1C was operational in late '44/early '45 with the fast carriers, and that they saw combat. The fighters deployed had worked most of the bugs out of the Yankee version of the Hispano 20mm, as I noted in an earlier post. The one big bugaboo was the tendency to freeze up at higher altitudes, not a big problem in the South Pacific, or even Okinawa by spring '45.

My original point was that the numbers of -1Cs was more significant than the number of Ta 152s, that's all.

cheers

horseback

Fork-N-spoon
04-25-2006, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
~900 A-9 PRODUCED, add about the same number of A-8s that were retrofitted with the TS or TU engines in late '44 or '45 and therefore became A-9s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ah but you've missed my point again. 900 total units produced out of Germany's 50,000 plus fighters... that's a pretty insignificant number. Also considering that of all the Fw-190A9s produced how many of those actually saw combat action? I'm not saying that the Fw-190A9 didn't see combat because I know that it did. What I am saying is that its contribution to Germany's war efforts are very small in comparison to other fighters that Germany used.


Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Over 1600 Spitfire VIIIs were made, most of which saw combat in the MTO, CBI and the PTO, where its better range was an asset. It was used extensively by the RAAF (which recieved 251 LF. VIII and 159 HF. VIII) and even used by the USAAF over Italy. There were at least 7 sentais armed with the 4 x 20mm cannon variant, most of which were tasked ith B-29 interceptions. It also makes an excellent substitiute for the long range, high altitude Mk VII, which was used in Europe and was essentailly the same airframe fitted with a pressure cabin. 4 RAF squadrons were operational with the type in 1943-1945, and they conducted several medium/long-range daylight escorts for Halifaxes and Lancasters in this period, including to the submarine yards at La Palice.

KI-84b was one of the primary defence interceptors of the Japanese for the last 12 months of the Pacific war. There were at least 7 sentais armed with the 4 x 20mm cannon variant, most of which were tasked ith B-29 interceptions.

And again, 1,600 Mk VIII Spitfires is a rather insignificant number when considering which model Spitfire saw the most useage, the MkIX Spitfire. The MkVII saw limited combat in comparison to the MkIX.

I've never seen production figures for the Ki-84Ib or Ki-84Ic. Tony Williams book states that the Japanese did experiment with 4x20mm and 30mm armament on the Ki-84, but at the time of his writing he couldn't find any credible evidence to support that any were produced. Can you provide us with some source for your figures? Please no web pages because web pages are not a credible source for accurate information.


Originally posted by horseback:

Out of 10,000 units produced, how many were operational in the combat theaters at any given time? I know for sure that more than one VF/VBF squadron of F4U-1C/FG-1C was operational in late '44/early '45 with the fast carriers, and that they saw combat. The fighters deployed had worked most of the bugs out of the Yankee version of the Hispano 20mm, as I noted in an earlier post. The one big bugaboo was the tendency to freeze up at higher altitudes, not a big problem in the South Pacific, or even Okinawa by spring '45.

My original point was that the numbers of -1Cs was more significant than the number of Ta 152s, that's all.

cheers

horseback

Point taken and understood horseback. It seems that you've caught onto my drift about an aircraft's historical significance in the war. I'm neither for or against any aircraft being added to this game. It's obvious that we've already a bunch of aircraft in this game that fall under one or more of the following criteria: never saw combat, only a prototype, never made it off the drawing board, saw very limited production, saw very limited combat, introduced so late in the war that it was rarely encountered, was a post war aircraft, add infinum.

So why not add the F8F? If it's due to Grumman flexing its copyrights, well then that is a very good reason, but do deny this aircraft because it never saw combat... Then explain to me why we've already several aircraft that fall under this strict guideline "never saw combat."

Sergio_101
04-25-2006, 07:22 PM
How many F4U-1C's saw combat(theatre)?
My information says most of them.

The F8F Bearcat was in Japan BEFORE the surrender.
But there was already a cease fire.

No Bearcat ever fired a shot in anger
for the US Navy.

Similar for the P-51H
They were in the combat theatre
in Alaska and the Phillipines, but
never saw the enemy.
But the P-51H's did in fact do combat
patrolls where the enemy could have been found.
It was that close.

The P-51H against most Japanese fighters
would have been like a jet.
It was over 100mph faster than the fastest Zero.

I can hear the arguments coming.....
The P-51H is the fastest piston fighter ever to
see active duty at 487mph and over 400mph
at sea level.

Sergio

vocatx
04-25-2006, 07:45 PM
Production numbers for the Ki-84 as follows, from The Great Book of Fighters, Gordon and Swanborough:

"...the first of two production prototypes flew in March 1943. Production was launched with 83 service trials and 42 preseries aircraft, deliveries of series aircraft commencing in April 1944 as the Type 4 Fighter Model 1-Ko. A total of 1,670 pre-series and series Hayates was delivered to the Imperial Army by the end of 1944...Apart from prototypes, service trials and pre-series aircraft, production of the Hayate totalled 3,382 aircraft..."

The Ki-84 entered combat on August 24, 1944 in Hankow, China, against the Chinese-American Composite Wing the 23rd Fighter Group, and the 51st Fighter Group. Details of this battle can be read in the May 2006 edition of Aviation History, page 26 in the article entitled "Last Deadly Gale From Japan".

So the Hayate is not a "fantasy" aircraft. It saw considerable combat in the hands of IJA fighter pilots.

SkyChimp
04-25-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
I've never seen production figures for the Ki-84Ib or Ki-84Ic. Tony Williams book states that the Japanese did experiment with 4x20mm and 30mm armament on the Ki-84, but at the time of his writing he couldn't find any credible evidence to support that any were produced. Can you provide us with some source for your figures? Please no web pages because web pages are not a credible source for accurate information.



Agreed. I've never seen any english source that credibly indicates the Ic entered production. Even my issue of Koku-Fan Illustrated No. 69 "Imperial Japanese Army Aircraft" (a Japanese source)indicates that developement ended with the close of the war (if my translation is correct).

SkyChimp
04-25-2006, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
But the P-51H's did in fact do combat
patrolls where the enemy could have been found.
It was that close.

The P-51H against most Japanese fighters
would have been like a jet.
It was over 100mph faster than the fastest Zero.

I can hear the arguments coming.....
The P-51H is the fastest piston fighter ever to
see active duty at 487mph and over 400mph
at sea level.

Sergio

David McLaren, author of AIR FORCE LEGENDS NUMBER 209 "North American P-51H Mustang" inspected every Individual Aircraft Card for every P-51H and found that not a single one left the continental US during all of WWII. Even the P-51H intended to go to Britain for evaluation didn't leave the US during the war.

That doesn't diminish the fact that it was still in service with the USAAF before the end of the war and was bonafide WWII era fighter. I think it should be added, too.

ImpStarDuece
04-25-2006, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:


And again, 1,600 Mk VIII Spitfires is a rather insignificant number when considering which model Spitfire saw the most useage, the MkIX Spitfire. The MkVII saw limited combat in comparison to the MkIX.

Yes, the Mk VII/VIII saw limited production/combat compared to the Mk V or IX. However, 1652 VIIIs were made during the war period. That makes it the third most produced mark of Spitfire. Thats more than the Mk I (1597), more than the Mk II (921) and more than the Mk XIV (957). You wouldn't discount a Mk II Spitfire from a BoB game because there were less produced than the Mk I would you?



I've never seen production figures for the Ki-84Ib or Ki-84Ic. Tony Williams book states that the Japanese did experiment with 4x20mm and 30mm armament on the Ki-84, but at the time of his writing he couldn't find any credible evidence to support that any were produced. Can you provide us with some source for your figures? Please no web pages because web pages are not a credible source for accurate information.

I picked up that figure from the old Aircam Aircraft Serise book from the mid 1960s on the Ki-84 that I read while in Japan. I think the Maru Mechanic on the Ki-84 gave some breakdown on the sub-type production. My Japanese and Kanji comprehension are a little basic, so I didn't really pick up much from the Maru. Bueschel published the 'Nakajima Ki.84a/b Hayate in Japanese Army Air Force Service', but its been a long time since I've seen a copy in print.

IL2-chuter
04-25-2006, 08:49 PM
A number of US aircraft like the Mustang H could have been pressed into combat if it was felt necessary, but it was likely felt the need to not disrupt or complicate the quartermaster's job was far more important. (I'm an expert - not sure of what, though.)


And what aircraft could be more important than the C172 I ask you . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . . . about 33,000 built with most of them still around. About as many 109s were built (some two or three times) but never more than about 2200 serviceable at any one point. Now I ask you, really . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

vocatx
04-25-2006, 09:16 PM
Ki-84-C was produced in small numbers as a bomber interceptor, but I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. I believe it was about 100 examples.

luftluuver
04-25-2006, 09:20 PM
So Fork-N-spoon since there was only ~17-1800 Dora9s produced it should also be excluded? That is less the the number of 109K-4s. Should the K-4 be excluded?

You want to exclude the Spifire VIII because of low numbers (simular to D9 and K-4 numbers).

Where do you draw the line?

Gibbage1
04-25-2006, 10:01 PM
Remember. The big reason why the aircraft like the F7F, F8F, and P-51H did not make it was that they were thousands of miles away! Its not easy to ship an aircraft from the US into the warzone. It takes MONTHS. On the otherhand, even prototypes in Germany saw combat since it was right overhead! All they had to do is roll it out of the factory! They were also desperate enough to use these aircraft!

AFJ_Locust
04-25-2006, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:


Where are the great Pacific fighters that won the war ??? Where is the Bearcat ????

I'm really surprised that you didn't know the F8F didn't see action in WWII. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither did the Do335 but we have it ????

Dont you think I read the articals I post

ImpStarDuece
04-25-2006, 11:23 PM
Do-335 did see action in WW2.

Closterman encountered one in his Tempest. Erprobungskommando 335 was used as the trails unit, and flew several differnt marks, including the A-0 and A-1. III/KG2 may of used it as a night interceptor as well.

AFJ_Locust
04-25-2006, 11:25 PM
To recap, in this game thus far an aircraft's historical importance in the war hasn't been criteria for including or excluding it in our game. Even in maps which run historical plane sets you mostly see limited production aircraft being fieled by both teams so that each team is mostly using aircraft that saw limited combat in the grand scheme of things.


THAT IS A FACT DAY IN & DAY OUT.

Either give us the Bearcat or change the Stupid Unstable flight Model of the Corsair & the Cats

There so unstable right now its Pathetic No one has been raising any issue about it but now its time !!!

KIMURA
04-25-2006, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
Ki-84-C was produced in small numbers as a bomber interceptor, but I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. I believe it was about 100 examples.

AeroDetail Ki-84 Hayate states that the Ki-84-I Otsu surely was in the production line and was produced in very small numbers. IIRC even René Francillion confirms that. AeroDetail also states the Ki-84-I Hei were produce in a very very limited number, maybe below 10 units. And if the Ki-84-I Hei was fitted out with the 30mm there were only fitted 1 of those cannon due the lack of availability.

Badsight.
04-25-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
we currently have aircraft in this game that never even made it off the drawing board. Yes that's right, aircraft are in this game that never even saw a prototype made. thats a complete lie - every single "what-if" plane in FB was at the prototype stage at the least - the Bf-Z is the only plane in FB that didnt fly but it was in the prototype stage


Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The F8F Bearcat was in Japan BEFORE the surrender. no it wasnt

Originally posted by Sergio_101:
But the P-51H's did in fact do combat
patrolls sure it did , just not during WW2

AFJ_Locust
04-25-2006, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Do-335 did see action in WW2.

Closterman encountered one in his Tempest. Erprobungskommando 335 was used as the trails unit, and flew several differnt marks, including the A-0 and A-1. III/KG2 may of used it as a night interceptor as well.

"Even in maps which run historical plane sets you mostly see limited production aircraft being fielded by both teams so that each team is mostly using aircraft that saw limited combat in the grand scheme of things."

This is true of the Do335 as well, I belive there were many more Bearcats built than Do335's
and they were definataly a WWII Era AC.

Personaly I dont think we will ever see the bearcat, Gibbage already posted that he offered to model it & was denyed, The other part of this post is too point out that the Corsair's & the Cat's are still PORKED they wobel and flop around like fish out of water, there FM is pathetic at the moment if the Real life Corsair/Cat was this bad we should be speeking Japanese.

Badsight.
04-26-2006, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
I belive there were many more Bearcats built than Do335's
and they were definataly a WWII Era AC. the bearcat is a WW2 plane - it just didnt get to do anything except fly around the carrier that was transporting it from the states , the P-51H is another WW2 plane , but it didnt get to participate at all . the P-80A however was "over there" but during that last month they were grounded

as for the thread starter post - all the main PTO fighters are in FB/PF

i would LOVE to have the Bearcat in FB - hell even the 1946 cannon model , nearly as much as i would like to see a J7W1 Shinden

here is the actual carrier that was on its way to japan , loaded with Bearcats

http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/bearcatww2carrier.jpg

AFJ_Locust
04-26-2006, 12:04 AM
Nice PIC !!!

Gibbage1
04-26-2006, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
thats a complete lie - every single "what-if" plane in FB was at the prototype stage at the least - the Bf-Z is the only plane in FB that didnt fly but it was in the prototype stage


Not a total lie. The 109Z that was being built was made using the F body and engines. It was blown up before it was finished and never flew. The 109Z we have in-game is from the G body and engine and was NEVER EVER made. It was only a paper aircraft. Same with its fictishious loadout of Mk-108's and Mk-103. Something that was mearly proposed. Like the Do-335 with 3 Mk-108 and 2 Mk-103. Never made. The 109Z we have in IL2 is a 100% pure paper airplane. No other aircraft meet that criteria. Even the Go-229 made some prototype flights.

BigKahuna_GS
04-26-2006, 12:36 AM
S!


Badsight-as for the thread starter post - all the main PTO fighters are in FB/PF


Except for the P47M, The high boost 81" MAP P51D that flew by the hundreds out of Iwo Jima escorting B-29s and the F4U-4 Corsair. The F4U-4 would be a strong contender for best "all-around" fighter being equally strong in the air to air roll and capable of carrying huge amounts of ordanace. I would love to see the Bearcat & George in this sim also.

At least the P47M & F4U-4 should of been in Pacific Fighters from the beginning.


__

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2006, 12:48 AM
The P-47M didn't serve in the Pacific, Kahuna. Only 130 or so were made and almost all of them were either shipped to the ETO or left stateside.

I think you mean the P-47N, which saw action above China, Korea and Japan.

BigKahuna_GS
04-26-2006, 01:14 AM
S!


Imp---The P-47M didn't serve in the Pacific

Excuse me, I made a typo-the M & N keys are right next to each other http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

P47N--P47N--P47N--P47N !!!!!

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Xp-47n.jpg

http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/P-47N-318FG.JPG
Bore sighting the guns on any fighter was meticulous work. To obtain the best result, all the guns were sighted to focus on a specific point. Often, the pilot would specify that point. This P-47N-1-RE served with the 318th Fighter Group operating out of le Shima.

http://www.web-birds.com/7th/318/318th.htm

http://www.web-birds.com/7th/318/seSacHap.jpg

http://www.web-birds.com/7th/318/P-47.JPG



--

Badsight.
04-26-2006, 01:39 AM
you can argue about the Bf-Z till your blue in the face

Maddox Games assumption about it being a G Fuselarge based plane is probably correct - imagine how much better it would be as a DFer if the lighter F were used

but i digress - the Bf-Z was a prototype when the project ended - so Fork-N-spoon is a liar

Fork-N-spoon
04-26-2006, 03:25 PM
You can split hairs any way you like, but if we are sticking to an aircraft's historical importance in actual combat then we have many aircraft in this game that never saw combat, saw combat in such limited numbers that they shouldn't even be considered WW II aircraft, flat out fantacy planes, we currently have aircraft with weapon load outs that were either on paper or tested on prototypes, but never even saw "limited combat use," we have aircraft that cannot use their historical load outs or field mods which were used in "limited combat," post war production types, etc. etc. etc.

Bf-109Z...no text needed

I-185..... " "

La7 3 x 20mm, In Tony William's book he states that this aircraft saw service from 1944 onwards armed with 2 x 20mm, but the 3 x 20mm had serious teething problems and production didn't begin until a month or two before the war ended or possibly even after VE day. This hasn't been grounds for excluding this aircraft.

Yak-3P, It's my understanding that this is a post war aircraft

Do-335, how many saw combat? Two, six, two dozen? This aircraft contributed very little to the war

Ta-152H-1, This aircraft was in production, but the Russians over ran the production facility just as it began getting steam. Some books say a dozen or so may have been pressed into service. The Ta-152H-0 is the aircraft that we really should have, but in light of its limited production and combat history, it too played a very insignificant part in the war and should be excluded.

Anybody can easily expand this list.

Any late 1944 November to early 1945 German aircraft regardless of the numbers produced played a very insignificant part in the war. By this stage the Allies had the Germans under such pressure that they were short on fuel, pilots, spare parts, receiving dud aircraft due to slave labor sabotage, under constant air attacks, to put it bluntly their situation was very grim. If you look at the Allied statistical record from December 1944 until May 1945 you will see that the bulk and majority of the Luftwaffe was destroyed on the ground and in large numbers might I add. From 1944 onward if you reported to a Luftwaffe unit as a fighter pilot you would most likely be assigned a Bf-109G6 variant or a Bf-109G14. These two models made up the bulk of Bf-109 strength until the end of the war. If you were posted to a Fw-190 squadron it would most likely be a Fw-190A8. You can pull out all you hair line statistics about Bf-109K4s, Fw-190D9s, and the like but these late war models were still a drop in the bucket when compared to your run of the mill Luftwaffe fighter. Moreover, once these late model aircraft began showing up there were few experienced pilots to fly them and even less logistics to support their operations. Why were the Bf-109G6, Bf-109G14, and Fw-190A8 the most shot down and strafed aircraft of the war? Answer, because Germany used these fighters more than any other model fighter during the war. Something to think about with German fighter production, Just because there were 900 finished fighters parked nicely in some cave or factory awaiting deployment doesn't mean that 900 of them made it into combat. And in comparison to Germanys 50,000 plus fighters produced wouldn't you say that 900 units is a very insignificant amount? I would. If you don't please lets divide up your wealth, I will take 49100/50000 of your wealth and since you believe that 900/50000 is a significant number, well you can keep that portion.

Japanese fighters.... Answer me this, were most Japanese fighters Ki-43s and A6M Zeros or not? Sure Japan managed to produce fighters such as Ki-44s, Ki-61s, Ki-84s, N1K1s, J2Ms, Ki-100s, and a few others, but even these second generation fighters are an insignificant drop in the bucket compared to Ki-43s and Zeros that served right up until VJ day. The total production of second-generation fighters produced by Japan isn't even half the total production of the Zero.

The reason why I bring this up? Simple, in this game if you join a historical map there isn't any way to limit the number of aircraft that saw limited combat. Make a Pacific map and give it a historical 1944 plane set. Instead of seeing the players on the Japanese side using Ki-43s and Zeros, nearly the entire team will be in J2Ms and Ki-84s. Put in a Ki-84Ic, which no credible source can give production figures for and all sources point to prototype only, the entire team playing on Japans side will be in Ki-84Ics. Sure there are a few die hards who will not do this, but I'm speaking of the bulk and majority not the insignificant minority.

The same can be said of Germany vs the west 1944. Everybody is zipping about in the latest greatest German aircraft that saw very limited service. If they aren't flying around in one it's because some earlier model has been over modeled and that's why. On the Allied side everybody is flying about in Spitfires and Mustang MkIIIs. The Spitfire played a very insignificant role in the war after the Battle of Britain, why? Simple, its short range and limited load carrying abilities relegated it to escorting bombers on their return leg/out bound leg when they were in little danger of attack. A German fighter pilot on the Western front during mid 1944 would have encountered a P-51B/C/D or P-47D well over 90% of the time he encountered enemy aircraft, not Spitfires or Mustang MkIIIs.

Since the historical importance of an aircraft or its combat significance hasn't mattered in this game or in any servers I've personally seen, why should it matter now?

Give Lokost his Bearcat and Tiger cat, give Badsight his J7W1 (at least I've seen a lot of photos of the prototype! and that's more than I can say about a few other aircraft in this game) and stop trying to block some aircraft because you think it's going to take away some advantage to your favorite aircraft in some historical server. How can anybody argue about an aircrafts historical accuracy in this game considering all the unhistorical things we already have in this game?

AFJ_Locust
04-26-2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
so Fork-N-spoon is a liar

Liar is a big word, you might consider not talking to my pall that way.

FNS is not a Liar hes probly read more books on WWII than you me and 10 of the other guys around here put together. Maybe hes misinformed on a subject but hes not a liar. Ive herd the same story gibbage just told so............ maybe all 3 of us are liars or maybe history is a liar ???

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.

?

Lots of Spit Mk8's made, so this doesnt fall into that category. The only reason they were mostly sent to Africa eventually is becasue they were more suited. Very easy to install a tropical filter into the airframe, with no real bulges. Yes they served in Europe.

1652 built, hardly a prototype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-26-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
You can split hairs any way you like, but if we are sticking to an aircraft's historical importance in actual combat then we have many aircraft in this game that never saw combat, saw combat in such limited numbers that they shouldn't even be considered WW II aircraft, flat out fantacy planes, we currently have aircraft with weapon load outs that were either on paper or tested on prototypes, but never even saw "limited combat use," we have aircraft that cannot use their historical load outs or field mods which were used in "limited combat," post war production types, etc. etc. etc.

Bf-109Z...no text needed

I-185..... " "

La7 3 x 20mm, In Tony William's book he states that this aircraft saw service from 1944 onwards armed with 2 x 20mm, but the 3 x 20mm had serious teething problems and production didn't begin until a month or two before the war ended or possibly even after VE day. This hasn't been grounds for excluding this aircraft.

Yak-3P, It's my understanding that this is a post war aircraft

Do-335, how many saw combat? Two, six, two dozen? This aircraft contributed very little to the war

Ta-152H-1, This aircraft was in production, but the Russians over ran the production facility just as it began getting steam. Some books say a dozen or so may have been pressed into service. The Ta-152H-0 is the aircraft that we really should have, but in light of its limited production and combat history, it too played a very insignificant part in the war and should be excluded.

Anybody can easily expand this list.

Any late 1944 November to early 1945 German aircraft regardless of the numbers produced played a very insignificant part in the war. By this stage the Allies had the Germans under such pressure that they were short on fuel, pilots, spare parts, receiving dud aircraft due to slave labor sabotage, under constant air attacks, to put it bluntly their situation was very grim. If you look at the Allied statistical record from December 1944 until May 1945 you will see that the bulk and majority of the Luftwaffe was destroyed on the ground and in large numbers might I add. From 1944 onward if you reported to a Luftwaffe unit as a fighter pilot you would most likely be assigned a Bf-109G6 variant or a Bf-109G14. These two models made up the bulk of Bf-109 strength until the end of the war. If you were posted to a Fw-190 squadron it would most likely be a Fw-190A8. You can pull out all you hair line statistics about Bf-109K4s, Fw-190D9s, and the like but these late war models were still a drop in the bucket when compared to your run of the mill Luftwaffe fighter. Moreover, once these late model aircraft began showing up there were few experienced pilots to fly them and even less logistics to support their operations. Why were the Bf-109G6, Bf-109G14, and Fw-190A8 the most shot down and strafed aircraft of the war? Answer, because Germany used these fighters more than any other model fighter during the war. Something to think about with German fighter production, Just because there were 900 finished fighters parked nicely in some cave or factory awaiting deployment doesn't mean that 900 of them made it into combat. And in comparison to Germanys 50,000 plus fighters produced wouldn't you say that 900 units is a very insignificant amount? I would. If you don't please lets divide up your wealth, I will take 49100/50000 of your wealth and since you believe that 900/50000 is a significant number, well you can keep that portion.

Japanese fighters.... Answer me this, were most Japanese fighters Ki-43s and A6M Zeros or not? Sure Japan managed to produce fighters such as Ki-44s, Ki-61s, Ki-84s, N1K1s, J2Ms, Ki-100s, and a few others, but even these second generation fighters are an insignificant drop in the bucket compared to Ki-43s and Zeros that served right up until VJ day. The total production of second-generation fighters produced by Japan isn't even half the total production of the Zero.

The reason why I bring this up? Simple, in this game if you join a historical map there isn't any way to limit the number of aircraft that saw limited combat. Make a Pacific map and give it a historical 1944 plane set. Instead of seeing the players on the Japanese side using Ki-43s and Zeros, nearly the entire team will be in J2Ms and Ki-84s. Put in a Ki-84Ic, which no credible source can give production figures for and all sources point to prototype only, the entire team playing on Japans side will be in Ki-84Ics. Sure there are a few die hards who will not do this, but I'm speaking of the bulk and majority not the insignificant minority.

The same can be said of Germany vs the west 1944. Everybody is zipping about in the latest greatest German aircraft that saw very limited service. If they aren't flying around in one it's because some earlier model has been over modeled and that's why. On the Allied side everybody is flying about in Spitfires and Mustang MkIIIs. The Spitfire played a very insignificant role in the war after the Battle of Britain, why? Simple, its short range and limited load carrying abilities relegated it to escorting bombers on their return leg/out bound leg when they were in little danger of attack. A German fighter pilot on the Western front during mid 1944 would have encountered a P-51B/C/D or P-47D well over 90% of the time he encountered enemy aircraft, not Spitfires or Mustang MkIIIs.

Since the historical importance of an aircraft or its combat significance hasn't mattered in this game or in any servers I've personally seen, why should it matter now?

How can anybody argue about an aircrafts historical accuracy in this game considering all the unhistorical things we already have in this game?


HALILUA & AMEN TOO ALL OF THAT

THAT IS ALL TRUTH BADSIGHT IF YOU CANT SEE THAT THEN YOU ARE BLIND. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-26-2006, 04:02 PM
Flying Doc is working hard to make planerestrictions work on DOgfightmaps. and so far i heard, it works very good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sure, he will not make this tool puplic - only for thier server in use .

this and the not available weaponrestriction, beside the static carrier c.r.a.p , is the negative point of dogfightservers in general.
fortunatly online play is not only this...... COOP is king http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-26-2006, 04:07 PM
Coops are king

Why wont he share such a valuable tool ???

JG53Frankyboy
04-26-2006, 04:22 PM
dont ask me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

propably he wants that thier servers , http://www.desastersoft.com/ , keep special ?!?!

Fork-N-spoon
04-26-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.

?

Lots of Spit Mk8's made, so this doesnt fall into that category. The only reason they were mostly sent to Africa eventually is becasue they were more suited. Very easy to install a tropical filter into the airframe, with no real bulges. Yes they served in Europe.

1652 built, hardly a prototype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When did I call it a prototype? This is nothing more than you twisting my words. I stated that this aircraft saw limited combat against the Germans when compared to the aircraft which destroyed the Luftwaffe. Spitfires played a very insignificant part of the war other than during the Battle of Britain and even during this conflict they have stolen much of the glory away from the Hurricane which was just as important during this conflict as the Spitfire was. How many aircraft did the Spitfire destroy? I am sure it is many times less than the Mustang or Thunderbolt. The majority of the losses suffered by the Luftwaffe on the Western front came in the last year of the war mostly at the hands of the Mustang and Thunderbolt, not the Spitfire any mark let alone the MkVIII. More German aircraft were destroyed from June 1944 until May 1945 than were destroyed from 1939 until June 1944. I've yet to read scores of history books written about Spitife MVIIs shooting down the bulk and majority of the Luftwaffe during 1944 or 1945, or for that matter during any part of the war. Yes I say the Spitfire MkVIII played a very insignificant part in the war. The Spitfire wasn't a major player in the war after 1942 and up until that point it did little other than the Battle of Britain to put a hurting on the Luftwaffe. It's inability to range from England to Berlin and perform close support left this aircraft relagated to insignifican bomber escort when the bombers weren't even likely to be attacked, ie over the English channel.

I am not here to make a point about excluding any aircraft from this game, but only to state and restate for those who don't seem to grasp the fact that we have fantacy planes and insignificant aircraft already in this game so why should we start splitting hairs and excluding X plane because of its historical value?

I mean we have "Bruce Wayne's Bat plane (Go-229) so why can't we have more?

ImpStarDuece
04-26-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Japanese fighters.... Answer me this, were most Japanese fighters Ki-43s and A6M Zeros or not? Sure Japan managed to produce fighters such as Ki-44s, Ki-61s, Ki-84s, N1K1s, J2Ms, Ki-100s, and a few others, but even these second generation fighters are an insignificant drop in the bucket compared to Ki-43s and Zeros that served right up until VJ day. The total production of second-generation fighters produced by Japan isn't even half the total production of the Zero.

Lets take a look at the total 'second generation fighter' production of Japan:

Ki-44: 1225
Ki-61: 3078
Ki-84: 3514
Ki-100: 396
J2M: 476
N1K1-J: 1007
N1K2-J: 428

TOTAL: 10124

Total Zero production: 10964
Tatal Ki-43 production: 5819

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this is a decision for A) Server makers and B) players themselves. Otherwise go design your own offline 'historic' campaings or run historically based co-ops and let the rest do what they please.

Why limit the variety of planes we can fly? There were more Spitfire XIV squadrons than Tempest V squadrons in the ETO after D-day, but I dont see you complaining about the fact that isn't a Mk XIV available.


The same can be said of Germany vs the west 1944. Everybody is zipping about in the latest greatest German aircraft that saw very limited service. If they aren't flying around in one it's because some earlier model has been over modeled and that's why. On the Allied side everybody is flying about in Spitfires and Mustang MkIIIs. The Spitfire played a very insignificant role in the war after the Battle of Britain, why? Simple, its short range and limited load carrying abilities relegated it to escorting bombers on their return leg/out bound leg when they were in little danger of attack. A German fighter pilot on the Western front during mid 1944 would have encountered a P-51B/C/D or P-47D well over 90% of the time he encountered enemy aircraft, not Spitfires or Mustang MkIIIs.

In mid 1944 there was this little thing called D-day and the invasion of Europe. Ring any bells? From July 1944 to May 1945 USAAF fighters claimed 4,455 kills over Europe. RAF fighters claimed 2067 kills over Europe. The Spitfire was responsible for just over 2/3rds of these claims. A German squadron in France once Overlord had begun was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s. Spitfires began to get additional internal tankage in mid 1944 as well, mostly in the form of larger nose tanks (+10 imp gal) and the fitting of rear fuselage tanks (65-75 imp gal), which allowed them to carry out much longer ranged missions.

P.S. The Spitfire was the primary allied fighter and the most numerically important type in the ETO all the way up to the end of 1943. It was highly active in other theatres as well. But, perhaps you consider the North African campaign, the siege and defence of Malta, the invasion of Sicily and Italy and the 1800+ Spitfires sent to the Russians as "insignificant".


Since the historical importance of an aircraft or its combat significance hasn't mattered in this game or in any servers I've personally seen, why should it matter now?

How can anybody argue about an aircrafts historical accuracy in this game considering all the unhistorical things we already have in this game?

How can you argue that having greater CHOICE that for map and server makers make the game ahistorical? If you were really concerned about historical settings you'd be bucking for single plane type missions, squadron sized formations, maps that are 500-600km wide, aborts due to mechanical failures, wear and tear on the engine being modeled and less than 10% of all flights even seeing an enemy fighter aloft if your flying for the RAF/USAAF. Your complaints aren't about ahistorical planes in the game, hey are about server makers choosing ahistorical setups in online dogfighting maps.

If you don't like it then don't play it. Personally, seeing as this is a GAME and the majority of server makers balance things as much to ensure that people have FUN, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. If you want to SIMULATE things, go fly offline or fly well constructed co-ops, both if which offer FAR MORE historical accuracy, scenarios and plane sets than the online dogifght crowd.

JG53Frankyboy
04-26-2006, 04:56 PM
i can hear all the Spitfire veterans of the RAF 2.TAF rotete in their graves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and propably all the shot down german and italian pilots in the MTO would have another opinion about the spt there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
04-26-2006, 05:03 PM
http://imgboot.com/images/badsight/bearcatww2carrier.jpg

I don't see any Bearcats on the deck. I see planes with wings that swing back. The Bearcat's wings folded up.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.

?

Lots of Spit Mk8's made, so this doesnt fall into that category. The only reason they were mostly sent to Africa eventually is becasue they were more suited. Very easy to install a tropical filter into the airframe, with no real bulges. Yes they served in Europe.

1652 built, hardly a prototype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires played a very insignificant part of the war other than during the Battle of Britain and even during this conflict they have stolen much of the glory away from the Hurricane ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez you really need to read up on WW2, I thought someone said that you were knowledgeable?

First read what YOU wrote about the list in your post, its quoted above, Spit mk8 was in the list if you remember? No word twisting, your list with the text above at the bottom onf the list, if not a prototype which did you mean? It certainly wasnt produced in limited numbers at the end of the war.

2nd you REALLY believe what you wrote about the Spitfire there? Which plane do you think was fighting the Axis from 1940 to 1945 on the Western front/Africa/Malta/? The Gladiator?

4th May 1944 - The Allies could deploy 2371 front line fighters of which 1764 were RAF - and which plane type do you think the majority of these were?

'P51 won the war, anybody?' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 06:51 PM
There should be no RAF fighters, and might as well include RAF bombers as well, since they were used in insignificant numbers, and did little damage to the LW/Germany, compared to American fighters/bombers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Cripes, why have any LW a/c types from late 1943 onwards? Boring with only P-47s and P-51s and nothing to fly against. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


The majority of the losses suffered by the Luftwaffe on the Western front came in the last year of the war mostly at the hands of the Mustang and Thunderbolt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif It was over the Reich. The Western Front and the Reich made up the ETO. There was only 2 JGs on the Western Front which is many times less than the number of JGs in the Reich.


And in comparison to Germanys 50,000 plus fighters produced wouldn't you say that 900 units is a very insignificant amount?
As can be seen these a/c (109 shown) you want to have excluded made up a significant percentage of late war LW fighters. Must thank Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jan 31 1945

109s

Medium altitude types:
502 fighters, 35% of the total
G-6(71), G-14s(431)

High altitude types :
933 fighters 65 % of total
G-14/AS - G-10s,(619) K-4(314)

faustnik should be able to to the same for the Focke-Wulf.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 06:54 PM
I reckon a fair percentage of the 4000 killed would be planes on the ground too.

I htink this guy has been watching too much American History Channel.

Many believe the Spitfire won the war over here in the UK too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I am sure in Russia its the La5/Yak.

and so on. The P51 and P47 werent in the war properly until 1943, do you really belive that they destroyed more German aircraft in the last 2 years than the Spit did in all 6 years of the war? (in the air of course)

Include all the Canadians, NZ, Aus, Polish, Free French, Russian and so on in Spitfires as well as the Brits.

I am ready to be put straight with full kill lists by Spitfires and P51's for the whole war, I have been looking but cannot find any.

shinden1974
04-26-2006, 07:02 PM
This is about the bearcat right?

There are so many planes in this game already that we have long arguments both ways:

1)There's fantasy planes all over the place! How bout finishing all the variants of planes type I want to fly/time period I want to fly first!!

2) We alrady have every stinking version of the Bf-109 and Fw 190! How 'bout planes we'd like simulated in this masterpeice engine no one has ever flown before!!

Me? hope the bearcat makes BOB addon USN '46.

luftluuver
04-26-2006, 07:03 PM
X, you left out the Canadians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif They were second to the number of Brit flown Spits.

Xiolablu3
04-26-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
X, you left out the Canadians. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif They were second to the number of Brit flown Spits.

Sorry, cant believe I missed them out. Fixed.

Sorry continuing the offtopicness, will try and keep out unless the ignorance continues http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'By April 1943 the British day-fighter force comprised sixty-nine squadrons, two-thirds of them equipped with Spitfires and all but four of the remainder with Typhoons.'

Badsight.
04-27-2006, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
THAT IS ALL TRUTH BADSIGHT IF YOU CANT SEE THAT THEN YOU ARE BLIND. blind ? oh please

he's wrong on planes in FB that were not even prototypes <~~ every "what if" plane in FB was at least in the prototype stage

he's wrong on the Yak-3P <~~ tri-cannon Yaks in service before the wars end

he's wrong on the La-7 3B20 <~~ tri-cannon La-7s in service jan 45

hes a whiner - like people who complain about Bearcats being needed - he's just the equal worst opposite end

& SkyChimp - that is the carrier that took the Bearcats to Okinawa - whether its a pic from that actual voyage i dont know

AFJ_Locust
04-27-2006, 01:17 AM
ImpStarDuece Wrote:
Why limit the variety of planes we can fly? There were more Spitfire XIV squadrons than Tempest V squadrons in the ETO after D-day, but I dont see you complaining about the fact that isn't a Mk XIV available.

THATS WHAT WE ARE SAYING !!!

We would like to have Mk XIV also please.

We dont want to limit anything, The freekin point is... That since we have ac that are on the fringes already lets have the bearcat also.

Might as well throw the tigercat in there as well.... Soonnnnnnnnnn we are getting vvs46 ? expansion pack right ?

Not all, but alot of you are trying to justify the UFO's we have currentaly , WHY ???

Well........ lets add more UFO's !!! I begged for bombers before cant get thoes.

By the end of the Year we will have plenty more UFO's Mark my words.

Fork-N-spoon
04-27-2006, 02:13 AM
ImpStarDuece,

I stand corrected on the Japanese second generation fighters. You've misunderstood my point about all this, which is most likely due to my ability to get my message across. I am making a point that every time somebody asks for a certain plane to be added to this sim, somebody comes along and makes a statement that it saw no combat, it played an insignificant part in the war, or similar things along these lines. My point is with several of the aircraft that we've already got in this sim that already fall under this category, why would somebody make such a silly statement. Add all the planes you want to this sim I really do not care.

About your theory on a German fighter squadron was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s during Operation Overlord, there is one thing I'm missing... Did the Luftwaffe ever make its presence known during Operation Overlord? I don't think that they did and if they had they would have probably run into P-38s since that type aircraft was used extensively during the invasion. Not only was the P-38 the single most recognizable Allied fighter during the war, but it could also stay over the beaches much longer than any Spitfire could during June 1944.

Point me to any credible reference that will show how Spitfires could easily provide long-range escort and how these Spitfires were produced in numbers and flew more long range escort missions than American fighters did.

And lastly I've made points about there being no Spitfire MkXIV during the last two years. I've also asked why the Spitfire's rate of roll is so low for later models, especially the clipped wing Spitfire, and why does it shake so badly when you fire the guns? however you wouldn't know this because I was under a different name.

Xiolablu3,

Firstly the three American types destroyed more than 4,000 German aircraft during the war. And yes the number of Aircraft that the Spitfire shot down is a drop in the bucket when compared to what the American aircraft did. I'm not sure why you're stuck on only shot down types because destroyed is destroyed. The fact that the Spitfire destroyed few aircraft on the ground points to the Spitfires inability to range out to enemy bases and perform ground attack missions. The Mustang alone more than doubled the amount of aircraft that the Spitfire shot down and the Mustang did it in 1/5th the time. So yes, American long range fighters shot down and destroyed a couple times the number of German fighters as did the Spitfire.

Yes Xiolablu3, you've twisted my words by saying that I said the Spitfire MkVIII was a prototype. I feel that you purposely selected prototype because it best fit your argument. I never made such a statement and what I originally asked was "how many were produced and did they see service in Europe?" Somebody provided a figure of 1,600+ units produced. 1,600+ units out of 20,000+ Spitfires is a rather insignificant number. I then stated in a later post that the Spitfire MkVIII played a very insignificant part in during the entire war. This I should hope would be grounds for it being removed from the game since some sticklers around here don't want aircraft added to this game that either didn't see combat or weren't major players in this game. To me I could care less how many Spitfires are added to the game. I'm not against aircraft being added.

American fighters destroyed well over 10,000 Luftwaffe fighters, most of them being destroyed during the last year of the war. During the last year of the war, the bulk of German aircraft were destroyed from November 1944 until April 1945. Somebody provided a figure that the Spitfire destroyed just over 2,000 German fighters during the entire war. How many German aircraft did the Spitfire destroy in Italy and North Africa? I'm sure that it is many times less than what the P-38 did. Then consider that the P-51 and P-47 combined nearly amounted to the number of aircraft that the P-38 destroyed.

I don't care if the British had 100,000 Spitfires ready to deploy against the Germans in June 1944, they lacked the range to get to the fight, hence the Spitfire was relegated to yeomen duty and saw little combat in comparison to long range American types. The Spitfire took five years to destroy 1/5th the amount of German aircraft that American long-range escorts and fighter-bombers did in a significantly shorter time frame.

More on the Spitfire, I did say destroyed not shot down. Whether the aircraft was shot down or blown up while sitting on the ground, it has been effectively removed from combat. I also stated the Western front thus excluding any figures that the Russians achieved. Since I was speaking about certain historical servers that use Western front plane sets, why would I write about Russian aircraft and what they achieved during the war?

1,600 plus MkVIII Spitfires is a drop in the bucket when compared to the total production run that England produced during the war. From 1939 until early 1944 the Allies on the Western front did little damage to the Luftwaffe. On the Western front from 1939 until June 1944 the Allies destroyed a significantly lesser number of Luftwaffe aircraft that they did from June 1944 until May 1945. Of the total aircraft destroyed by the Allies during this final stage of the war the lion€s share fell to P-51s and P-47s. If you want to talk about North Africa and Italy then the lion€s share of kills goes to the P-38 not the Spitfire. Why was the Spitfire so ineffective in doing this? It lacked the range to perform high altitude escort missions during day light missions. It also lacked the ability to carry a decent bomb load for air to ground attack. No matter how you dice some insignificant tankage increase that late model Spitfires got, it still couldn't carry an internal fuel load of 270 gallons. It would need at least this amount of fuel with an additional 150 - 200 gallons of external fuel to perform deep penetration missions. If the Spitfire had this imagined range that a few people seem to give it around here, then answer a few questions for me. In Europe why was the P-51 used for long-range escort and not the Spitfire? Didn€t the British in fact begin to perform day light bombing raids during the final months of the war? And what did the squadrons of Spitfires do to provide bomber escort? They switched to using Mustangs because their Spitfires lacked range. In Italy and why were P-38s used for long range escort and P-47s for ground attack if the Spitfire was so capable of doing this? I've never read about Spitfires escorting bombers from Italy to Berlin or Ploesti, but I've read quite a bit about American long-range fighters doing this.

Spitfires in North Africa... Again some hopeful readers have over inflated the Spitfires ability to perform long-range missions. Its short range effectively hampered its abilities to perform effective missions against the Germans. It wasn't until the P-38 arrived in North Africa and that the Allies finally had an aircraft that was capable of performing the missions. In case somebody misunderstands this statement, I'm not saying that the P-38 was more maneuverable, faster, or any other such thing, but only that the P-38 could get to the Germans while the Spitfire couldn't. Moreover the P-38 could get to targets that were beyond the range of the Spitfire and the P-38 could loiter for quite sometime over these targets that Spitfires couldn€t reach.

Spitfire:

Pros, excellent short range fighter. Great maneouverability and climb. Many pilots said it was a delight to fly and I believe them.

Cons, short range, inability to adapt to the changing roles of combat due to its small size, inability to carry a significant payload for ground attack.


SkyChimp do you have the link handy for American records for the destruction of Luftwaffe fighters during WWII? I used to have it, but after a reformat several months ago I forgot to save it.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 02:15 AM
I agree the more planes the better, but there are so many inaccuracies in Forks posts I could not help myself, sorry.

I only picked out the most glaring one, the Spitfire MkVIII being in his 'barely in WW2 planes' list.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Do-335
Me-262 with 50mm cannon
La-7 3 x 20mm (post war prodution/last month or two of the war production began)
Yak-3P
Bf-109Z
I-185
F4U-1C (200 built how many went into combat?)
Spit MkVIII (did these serve in Europe and how many were built in comparison to the MkIX?)
YP-80
Ta-152
Fw-190A9
Ki-84Ib
Ki-84Ic

All of these aicraft fall under the following criteria, only a few prototypes were built, were never produced, only on paper, produced in such limited numbers during the last month of the war that they played absolutely no role in the war.



How can you say I am twisting your words??? It is quoted above without ANYTHING removed. You gave the list and right underneath it state your reasons for the list!! Which one of your 'reason' at the bottom about 'all the aircraft' in the list applies to the Spitfire MkVIII?

Where are your numbers from with the 4000 destroyed? Could I see the lists?

If ImpstarDueces figures are correct then from D-Day in the ETO, the USAAF destroyed 4000 planes and the RAF 2000. Now factor in the years before when the RAF was working its butt off through the BOB, in Africa, Malta, Pacific.
The RAAF, the RCAF, the VVS, NZAF and so on, all using Spitfires. Even without all these 2000 planes destroyed is half of what the USAAF destyoed in only the last year, without factoring in all the other airforces operating Spitfires etc.

I am sure too that many of the USAAF claims are aircraft destroyed when strafing airfields when they have no fuel in the last year of the war. By this time the war was already won and they are just mopping up.

Take a trip to England next year and find out about the RAF, RCAF,RAAF, RNZAF and all the other Spitfires fighting in different parts of the world. You must remember that the war was already won by the time USAAF planes starting performing operations in full swing. Not discounting the USA contribution to the war, but the Germans were stopped by the BOB and beaten in Africa by Canadian, Brits, Aussies and NZlanders. ALso they were already on the back foot at Stalingrad and being pushed back through Russia, the hard work was done and not by the P51 and P47! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You seem to know nothing about the Spitfire at all, it couldnt reach the Germans>? Sorry but thats just completely wrong. You seem to have overinflated views of the USAAFs planes. I have read lots and lots of books about Spitfires in North Africa and all theatres of operations! None seemed to have problem getting to the enemy!

The Yanks shortened the war and their equipment was greatly appreciated (but paid for)

Damn this sounds like a Yank bashing post, but its not. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
The Spitfire wasn't a major player in the war after 1942 and up until that point it did little other than the Battle of Britain to put a hurting on the Luftwaffe. It's inability to range from England to Berlin and perform close support left this aircraft relagated to insignifican bomber escort when the bombers weren't even likely to be attacked, ie over the English channel.

Not meaning to come across rude or anything but thats BS.

You have no idea what your talking about. Couldn' do close support? Do you realise just how many Spitfires were in the 2nd Tactical airforce? Have you any idea of the numbers involved in there close support role? Just how many sorties Spitfires made in supporting both Commonwealth and US ground forces in Europe? Sorry but your comment is extremely ignorant. You also clearly have no idea of the RAF's offensives during 1943 and 44 before the invasion of Europe and the Spitfires role, which was key to this. US fighters didn't even have the strength to the amount of offesnive sorties over the channel until 1944.

Do you realise that the Spitfire VIII was the mainstay high performance fighter of the RAF and RAAF in the Pacific? That it saw extensive action in Italy? Do you even know that with a slipper tank the Spitfire IX could reach the German boarder? YOu obviously don't realise how the US daylight bombing worked and the Spitfires did escort over France and the low countries for them. Insignificant bomber escort? There part was extremely significant. You don't build 20,000 fighters of one type when there not useful in a variety of roles.

And your comments about claims, thats a different discussion but many in the RAF saw US claims as laughable.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 03:08 AM
I suspected you were trolling before and now I am even more sure of it.

Looking through LW aces kills lists to see which planes were the real 'workhorses' and what the LW was most likely to be fighting.

The top 3 with kills lists are overwhelmingly RAF planes, and which is the most popular? You guessed it, the Spitfire. Hardly any P51's P38's or p47s in the lists.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallanda.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/muncheberg.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/mayer.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/priller.html

Seems like the Spitfire was the REAL workhorse of the Allies dont you think?

Either this guy is totally clueless or he is just trolling. Next he will come back with 'Ahh thats because the p51/p38/p47's never got shot down!' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
04-27-2006, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
ImpStarDuece,

.........................About your theory on a German fighter squadron was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s during Operation Overlord, there is one thing I'm missing... Did the Luftwaffe ever make its presence known during Operation Overlord? I don't think that they did ................

it all depends how long you say Overlord was......

on the 9.June 15 Fightergroups based in Germany got order to move to France to fight the landed allied forces.

it was an intesive low to medium altitude Airwar in the summer 44 over the Normandie.
i dont say the german reaction was a succsess (fortunatly it wasnt) , but they were there and fought brave !


but in general you are correct about the IL2 series and adding planes/maps.
lets hope for the BoB series the MAddox team look first what they want and than make it.

about Spit VIII . so far we have no historical map to use it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
we have to wait for the Burma/Imphal one and in some degrees for the Italy-Fake one.
there was a lot of lack about "we have the map X , battles Y take place there, we need the planes Z to simulate the Battle"

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 03:16 AM
Carrying on down the list :-

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/wurmheller.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/schnell.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/rudorffer.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/gallandw.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/hahn.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/pflanz.html


It hardly seems like the Luftwaffe ever engaged the P51 at all, maybe only when they were attacking bombers and ignoring the fighters. There is the odd P47 in there, hardly one p51 or p38.

The majority are you guessed it, Spitfires. I cant belive I trusted him enough to go looking to see if he was correct. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
ImpStarDuece,

.........................About your theory on a German fighter squadron was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s during Operation Overlord, there is one thing I'm missing... Did the Luftwaffe ever make its presence known during Operation Overlord? I don't think that they did ................

it all depends how long you say Overlord was......

on the 9.June 15 Fightergroups based in Germany got order to move to France to fight the landed allied forces.

it was an intesive low to medium altitude Airwar in the summer 44 over the Normandie.
i dont say the german reaction was a succsess (fortunatly it wasnt) , but they were there and fought brave !

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2nd TAF records, which really is just a big list of Spitfire sortes with some Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufihters and mossies thrown in met the Luftwaffe often in France during an after the invasion. The ironic thing is the number of Spitfires lost to US aircraft during this period.

jasonbirder
04-27-2006, 03:42 AM
About your theory on a German fighter squadron was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s during Operation Overlord, there is one thing I'm missing... Did the Luftwaffe ever make its presence known during Operation Overlord? I don't think that they did and if they had they would have probably run into P-38s since that type aircraft was used extensively during the invasion. Not only was the P-38 the single most recognizable Allied fighter during the war, but it could also stay over the beaches much longer than any Spitfire could during June 1944.


Is this guy kidding...one of THE primary factors in the choice of the invasion beaches was that it would be within the combat radius of the Spitfire - as at that point Spitfire marks made up 50% of the Aillies front line fighter strength...


If you were really concerned about historical settings you'd be bucking for single plane type missions, squadron sized formations, maps that are 500-600km wide, aborts due to mechanical failures, wear and tear on the engine being modeled and less than 10% of all flights even seeing an enemy fighter aloft if your flying for the RAF/USAAF

Oh yes please! I'd be as happy as a pig in Poo if they made it like that...

ImpStarDuece
04-27-2006, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
ImpStarDuece,

I stand corrected on the Japanese second generation fighters. You've misunderstood my point about all this, which is most likely due to my ability to get my message across. I am making a point that every time somebody asks for a certain plane to be added to this sim, somebody comes along and makes a statement that it saw no combat, it played an insignificant part in the war, or similar things along these lines. My point is with several of the aircraft that we've already got in this sim that already fall under this category, why would somebody make such a silly statement. Add all the planes you want to this sim I really do not care.

About your theory on a German fighter squadron was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s during Operation Overlord, there is one thing I'm missing... Did the Luftwaffe ever make its presence known during Operation Overlord? I don't think that they did and if they had they would have probably run into P-38s since that type aircraft was used extensively during the invasion. Not only was the P-38 the single most recognizable Allied fighter during the war, but it could also stay over the beaches much longer than any Spitfire could during June 1944.

Your getting OVERLORD (the allied ground invasion of Normandy) confused with NEPTUNE (the allied seaborne landing operations in Normandy). P-38s were the primary fighter type during Operation NEPTUNE, so ship gunners would be able to recognise their distinctive planform and not get itchy trigger fingers. Spitfires flew more sorties over the beachheads in the first month of the invasion than any other type of fighter, with the RAF staging some 55 Spitfire squadrons in Normandy and Southern England in June. They were also the first fighters to stage out of the Continent, both in emergency landings and as Squadron and Wing sized units.

The Luftwaffe did indeed make it's presence felt over Normandy in the days after the initial assault. For example, the RAF claimed 370 aerial kills in July 1944. Of these Spitfires claimed around 280. USAAF claims were for 407 aerial kills, and a further 153 on the ground.



Point me to any credible reference that will show how Spitfires could easily provide long-range escort and how these Spitfires were produced in numbers and flew more long range escort missions than American fighters did.

I never suggested that Spitfires were a long range escort fighter. Spitfire VII and VIIIs did perform daylight escorts of up to 4 hours for RAF mediums and heavies, but these were the exception, not the norm. I was merely responding to your contention that 90% of all engagements the LuftWaffe faught in mid-1944 were against US fighter types, when the historic facts show this clearly wasn't the case.




Firstly the three American types destroyed more than 4,000 German aircraft during the war. And yes the number of Aircraft that the Spitfire shot down is a drop in the bucket when compared to what the American aircraft did. I'm not sure why you're stuck on only shot down types because destroyed is destroyed. The fact that the Spitfire destroyed few aircraft on the ground points to the Spitfires inability to range out to enemy bases and perform ground attack missions. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Mustang alone more than doubled the amount of aircraft that the Spitfire shot down and the Mustang did it in 1/5th the time. So yes, American long range fighters shot down and destroyed a couple times the number of German fighters as did the Spitfire.</span>

Yes Xiolablu3, you've twisted my words by saying that I said the Spitfire MkVIII was a prototype. I feel that you purposely selected prototype because it best fit your argument. I never made such a statement and what I originally asked was "how many were produced and did they see service in Europe?" Somebody provided a figure of 1,600+ units produced. 1,600+ units out of 20,000+ Spitfires is a rather insignificant number. I then stated in a later post that the Spitfire MkVIII played a very insignificant part in during the entire war. This I should hope would be grounds for it being removed from the game since some sticklers around here don't want aircraft added to this game that either didn't see combat or weren't major players in this game. To me I could care less how many Spitfires are added to the game. I'm not against aircraft being added.

[QUOTE]American fighters destroyed well over 10,000 Luftwaffe fighters, most of them being destroyed during the last year of the war. During the last year of the war, the bulk of German aircraft were destroyed from November 1944 until April 1945. Somebody provided a figure that the Spitfire destroyed just over 2,000 German fighters during the entire war.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">How many German aircraft did the Spitfire destroy in Italy and North Africa? I'm sure that it is many times less than what the P-38 did</span>. Then consider that the P-51 and P-47 combined nearly amounted to the number of aircraft that the P-38 destroyed.

I don't care if the British had 100,000 Spitfires ready to deploy against the Germans in June 1944, they lacked the range to get to the fight, hence the Spitfire was relegated to yeomen duty and saw little combat in comparison to long range American types. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Spitfire took five years to destroy 1/5th the amount of German aircraft that American long-range escorts and fighter-bombers did in a significantly shorter time frame.</span>

More on the Spitfire, I did say destroyed not shot down. Whether the aircraft was shot down or blown up while sitting on the ground, it has been effectively removed from combat. I also stated the Western front thus excluding any figures that the Russians achieved. Since I was speaking about certain historical servers that use Western front plane sets, why would I write about Russian aircraft and what they achieved during the war?

Your treading on very slippery ground here unless you can back up those statement with some hard facts.

Just to inject some actual data into these wild claims:

The RAF awarded 10,737 'confirmed' fighter kill claims in the air the ETO between September 1939 and May 1945 (69 months) , as well as 4,779 'probably destroyed' and 3,785 damaged. All figures taken from the Fighter Command log of claims and casualties and John Foreman's excellent 'Fighter Command War Diaries'. Spitfires account for slightly more than 2/3rds of this total. Ground kills weren't recorded by the RAF until late 1944, so only account for 437 extra claims.

The USAAF awarded 7,422 kills in the air to fighters, and a further 6,792 kills on the ground in the ETO between August, 1942 and May 1945 (34 months) . A grand total of 14,218 kills were awarded.

Of this total, 3,703 ground straffing claims were awarded in April, 1945 when the LuftWaffe was essentailly defeated and its fighters were unable to offer resistance. The straffing by USAAF fighters caused enormous damage, but almost 1/2 of them were against an enemy that was at the point of being virtually incapable of defending itself.

US figures are taken from the official US Army Air Forces Statistical Digest.

P.S. Note that these are all claims, not actual kill numbers. The real numbers will NEVER be known because both sides had incomplete record keeping and many documents have been destroyed, lost or misplaced in the past 60-70 years.


From 1939 until early 1944 the Allies on the Western front did little damage to the Luftwaffe. On the Western front from 1939 until June 1944 the Allies destroyed a significantly lesser number of Luftwaffe aircraft that they did from June 1944 until May 1945.

Except for the 700+ LuftWaffe aircraft destroyed over France, the 1800+ destroyed over Britain and the 2-3000+ destroyed between 1941 and the beginning of 1944, I'm in complete agreement with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Of the total aircraft destroyed by the Allies during this final stage of the war the lion€s share fell to P-51s and P-47s. If you want to talk about North Africa and Italy then the lion€s share of kills goes to the P-38 not the Spitfire. Why was the Spitfire so ineffective in doing this? It lacked the range to perform high altitude escort missions during day light missions. It also lacked the ability to carry a decent bomb load for air to ground attack. No matter how you dice some insignificant tankage increase that late model Spitfires got, it still couldn't carry an internal fuel load of 270 gallons. It would need at least this amount of fuel with an additional 150 - 200 gallons of external fuel to perform deep penetration missions. If the Spitfire had this imagined range that a few people seem to give it around here, then answer a few questions for me. In Europe why was the P-51 used for long-range escort and not the Spitfire? Didn€t the British in fact begin to perform day light bombing raids during the final months of the war? And what did the squadrons of Spitfires do to provide bomber escort? They switched to using Mustangs because their Spitfires lacked range. In Italy and why were P-38s used for long range escort and P-47s for ground attack if the Spitfire was so capable of doing this? I've never read about Spitfires escorting bombers from Italy to Berlin or Ploesti, but I've read quite a bit about American long-range fighters doing this.

Internal tankage for a mid 1944 Spitfire IX was up to 160-170 imperial gallons, depending on the production run. 95 imperial gallons in the nose and 75 imperial gallons in the rear fuselage. To get US gallons multiply by 1.201. You then get the not too shabby total of 204 US gallons. Most aircraft with the rear fuselage tanks had the more standard 85 gallons in the nose, so about 160 Imperial Gallons should be taken as the norm for a late war mark. The XVIs with the cut down rear fuselage had around 151 imperial gallons.

Spitfire test pilot Geoffery Quill did test flights in 1943 in a Spitfire IX modified with wing and rear fuselage tanks, with a grand total of 187 imperial gallons (225 US gallons) internally and a 45 imperial gallon (54 US gallon) drop tank and stayed aloft for around 5 hours. In his own words:

"The aeroplane was unstable to start with, but as soon as I had used up the rear fuselage fuel the handling was back to normal and I settled down to a long and enjoyable flight over a great variety of countryside from Salisbury Plan to the Moray Firth and back again, all below 1,000ft. In distance, and not taking into account the various diversions for weather and terrain, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it was the equivalent to flying from East Anglia to Berlin and back. It took five hours.</span>

This flight demonstrated, if nothing else, that there was no fundamental reason why the Spitfire should not be turned into a long-range escort fighter provided that certain problems could be solved."

The Spitfire could be fitted with 90 or even 170 imperial gallon overload tanks as well, giving even more range. Best fuel consumption for the Merlin 66 was around 10 gal/hour at 220mph TAS.

So, it could be done. In truth the Spitfire Mk VII/VIII design probably should of replaced the Mk IX in late 1942/early 1943, giving the Spitfire a 35% increase in effective range. The British chose not to though, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they favoured strategic heavy night bombing, which they had the Mosquito to escort, and short range tactical daylight medium bombing, which their current Spitfires with drop tanks could escort. Secondly was the concern about a drop in production from moving towards the Mk VIII airframe (which was probably unfounded).



Spitfire:

Pros, excellent short range fighter. Great maneouverability and climb. Many pilots said it was a delight to fly and I believe them.

Cons, short range, inability to adapt to the changing roles of combat due to its small size, inability to carry a significant payload for ground attack.

Except that it did change roles in combat.

The Spitfire started as a medium altitude point defence interceptor, but it didn't just stay in that role. The Spitfire was adapted into a wide variety of roles, including long range reconnisance (1940), fighter bomber (1942), low alt interceptor (1943), medium range escort fighter (1943-1944) and even carrier borne fighter. And I wouldn't call 2 x 250lbs and 1 x 500 lbs bombs an 'insignificant' payload. The Mk XVIII could carry 1500lbs. Not as good as the P-38 maybe, but still quite capable.



SkyChimp do you have the link handy for American records for the destruction of Luftwaffe fighters during WWII? I used to have it, but after a reformat several months ago I forgot to save it.

I'm not SkyChimp but you can try http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps51153/airforcehistor...aaf/digest/index.htm (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps51153/airforcehistory/usaaf/digest/index.htm)

AFJ_Locust
04-27-2006, 05:49 AM
PS. Whatever comes of this thred I feal like I learned alot more about Spits.

S^

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 06:06 AM
I agree with everything you are saying Locust but he tried to support it with some very strange facts and mis-quotes. EDIT: Damn you edited after I had replied http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - I agree with what you said before you edited http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When you say a strong statement like 'The Spitfire was insignificant after the Battle Of Britain' you had better be able to back it up.

I learned a lot in this thread too, thanks Impstar and the others. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AFJ_Locust
04-27-2006, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
dont ask me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

propably he wants that thier servers , http://www.desastersoft.com/ , keep special ?!?!

Thanks for the link Ill check it out >>>>....

AFJ_Locust
04-27-2006, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I agree with everything you are saying Locust but he tried to support it with some very strange facts and mis-quotes. EDIT: Damn you edited after I had replied http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - I agree with what you said before you edited http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When you say a strong statement like 'The Spitfire was insignificant after the Battle Of Britain' you had better be able to back it up. If he really believes what he is saying to be true then he needs to be told the truth, otherwise his ignorance will continue.


Sorry that was an accidental edit & cant rember all that was typed LOL.

Kocur_
04-27-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:

he's wrong on the Yak-3P <~~ tri-cannon Yaks in service before the wars end



You mean you belive so? What I KNOW is they started to produce them in late april 1945. Kinda late for service in WW2.

Aaron_GT
04-27-2006, 09:38 AM
Spitfires flew more sorties over the beachheads in the first month of the invasion than any other type of fighter, with the RAF staging some 55 Spitfire squadrons in Normandy and Southern England in June.

An often forgotten Spitfire use was by USN spotters for directing battleship fire onto shore during the first few days of the Normandy campaign.


The RAF awarded 10,737 'confirmed' fighter kill claims in the air the ETO between September 1939 and May 1945 (69 months) , as well as 4,779 'probably destroyed' and 3,785 damaged. All figures taken from the Fighter Command log of claims and casualties and John Foreman's excellent 'Fighter Command War Diaries'. Spitfires account for slightly more than 2/3rds of this total. Ground kills weren't recorded by the RAF until late 1944, so only account for 437 extra claims.

This works out as average of 155/month, and if 2/3rds were by Spitfires it works out as an average of 103 per month. It is likely that the rate of kills would be higher from 1943 onwards.


The USAAF awarded 7,422 kills in the air to fighters, and a further 6,792 kills on the ground in the ETO between August, 1942 and May 1945 (34 months) . A grand total of 14,218 kills were awarded.

This works out as an average of 218/month air-to-air. Again the rate later in the war is likely to be higher.

mynameisroland
04-27-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
ImpStarDuece,

I stand corrected on the Japanese second generation fighters. You've misunderstood my point about all this, which is most likely due to my ability to get my message across. I am making a point that every time somebody asks for a certain plane to be added to this sim, somebody comes along and makes a statement that it saw no combat, it played an insignificant part in the war, or similar things along these lines. My point is with several of the aircraft that we've already got in this sim that already fall under this category, why would somebody make such a silly statement. Add all the planes you want to this sim I really do not care.

About your theory on a German fighter squadron was more likely to encounter Spitfires than P-51s or P-47s during Operation Overlord, there is one thing I'm missing... Did the Luftwaffe ever make its presence known during Operation Overlord? I don't think that they did and if they had they would have probably run into P-38s since that type aircraft was used extensively during the invasion. Not only was the P-38 the single most recognizable Allied fighter during the war, but it could also stay over the beaches much longer than any Spitfire could during June 1944.

Your getting OVERLORD (the allied ground invasion of Normandy) confused with NEPTUNE (the allied seaborne landing operations in Normandy). P-38s were the primary fighter type during Operation NEPTUNE, so ship gunners would be able to recognise their distinctive planform and not get itchy trigger fingers. Spitfires flew more sorties over the beachheads in the first month of the invasion than any other type of fighter, with the RAF staging some 55 Spitfire squadrons in Normandy and Southern England in June. They were also the first fighters to stage out of the Continent, both in emergency landings and as Squadron and Wing sized units.

The Luftwaffe did indeed make it's presence felt over Normandy in the days after the initial assault. For example, the RAF claimed 370 aerial kills in July 1944. Of these Spitfires claimed around 280. USAAF claims were for 407 aerial kills, and a further 153 on the ground.



Point me to any credible reference that will show how Spitfires could easily provide long-range escort and how these Spitfires were produced in numbers and flew more long range escort missions than American fighters did.

I never suggested that Spitfires were a long range escort fighter. Spitfire VII and VIIIs did perform daylight escorts of up to 4 hours for RAF mediums and heavies, but these were the exception, not the norm. I was merely responding to your contention that 90% of all engagements the LuftWaffe faught in mid-1944 were against US fighter types, when the historic facts show this clearly wasn't the case.




Firstly the three American types destroyed more than 4,000 German aircraft during the war. And yes the number of Aircraft that the Spitfire shot down is a drop in the bucket when compared to what the American aircraft did. I'm not sure why you're stuck on only shot down types because destroyed is destroyed. The fact that the Spitfire destroyed few aircraft on the ground points to the Spitfires inability to range out to enemy bases and perform ground attack missions. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Mustang alone more than doubled the amount of aircraft that the Spitfire shot down and the Mustang did it in 1/5th the time. So yes, American long range fighters shot down and destroyed a couple times the number of German fighters as did the Spitfire.</span>

Yes Xiolablu3, you've twisted my words by saying that I said the Spitfire MkVIII was a prototype. I feel that you purposely selected prototype because it best fit your argument. I never made such a statement and what I originally asked was "how many were produced and did they see service in Europe?" Somebody provided a figure of 1,600+ units produced. 1,600+ units out of 20,000+ Spitfires is a rather insignificant number. I then stated in a later post that the Spitfire MkVIII played a very insignificant part in during the entire war. This I should hope would be grounds for it being removed from the game since some sticklers around here don't want aircraft added to this game that either didn't see combat or weren't major players in this game. To me I could care less how many Spitfires are added to the game. I'm not against aircraft being added.

[QUOTE]American fighters destroyed well over 10,000 Luftwaffe fighters, most of them being destroyed during the last year of the war. During the last year of the war, the bulk of German aircraft were destroyed from November 1944 until April 1945. Somebody provided a figure that the Spitfire destroyed just over 2,000 German fighters during the entire war.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">How many German aircraft did the Spitfire destroy in Italy and North Africa? I'm sure that it is many times less than what the P-38 did</span>. Then consider that the P-51 and P-47 combined nearly amounted to the number of aircraft that the P-38 destroyed.

I don't care if the British had 100,000 Spitfires ready to deploy against the Germans in June 1944, they lacked the range to get to the fight, hence the Spitfire was relegated to yeomen duty and saw little combat in comparison to long range American types. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Spitfire took five years to destroy 1/5th the amount of German aircraft that American long-range escorts and fighter-bombers did in a significantly shorter time frame.</span>

More on the Spitfire, I did say destroyed not shot down. Whether the aircraft was shot down or blown up while sitting on the ground, it has been effectively removed from combat. I also stated the Western front thus excluding any figures that the Russians achieved. Since I was speaking about certain historical servers that use Western front plane sets, why would I write about Russian aircraft and what they achieved during the war?

Your treading on very slippery ground here unless you can back up those statement with some hard facts.

Just to inject some actual data into these wild claims:

The RAF awarded 10,737 'confirmed' fighter kill claims in the air the ETO between September 1939 and May 1945 (69 months) , as well as 4,779 'probably destroyed' and 3,785 damaged. All figures taken from the Fighter Command log of claims and casualties and John Foreman's excellent 'Fighter Command War Diaries'. Spitfires account for slightly more than 2/3rds of this total. Ground kills weren't recorded by the RAF until late 1944, so only account for 437 extra claims.

The USAAF awarded 7,422 kills in the air to fighters, and a further 6,792 kills on the ground in the ETO between August, 1942 and May 1945 (34 months) . A grand total of 14,218 kills were awarded.

Of this total, 3,703 ground straffing claims were awarded in April, 1945 when the LuftWaffe was essentailly defeated and its fighters were unable to offer resistance. The straffing by USAAF fighters caused enormous damage, but almost 1/2 of them were against an enemy that was at the point of being virtually incapable of defending itself.

US figures are taken from the official US Army Air Forces Statistical Digest.

P.S. Note that these are all claims, not actual kill numbers. The real numbers will NEVER be known because both sides had incomplete record keeping and many documents have been destroyed, lost or misplaced in the past 60-70 years.


From 1939 until early 1944 the Allies on the Western front did little damage to the Luftwaffe. On the Western front from 1939 until June 1944 the Allies destroyed a significantly lesser number of Luftwaffe aircraft that they did from June 1944 until May 1945.

Except for the 700+ LuftWaffe aircraft destroyed over France, the 1800+ destroyed over Britain and the 2-3000+ destroyed between 1941 and the beginning of 1944, I'm in complete agreement with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Of the total aircraft destroyed by the Allies during this final stage of the war the lion€s share fell to P-51s and P-47s. If you want to talk about North Africa and Italy then the lion€s share of kills goes to the P-38 not the Spitfire. Why was the Spitfire so ineffective in doing this? It lacked the range to perform high altitude escort missions during day light missions. It also lacked the ability to carry a decent bomb load for air to ground attack. No matter how you dice some insignificant tankage increase that late model Spitfires got, it still couldn't carry an internal fuel load of 270 gallons. It would need at least this amount of fuel with an additional 150 - 200 gallons of external fuel to perform deep penetration missions. If the Spitfire had this imagined range that a few people seem to give it around here, then answer a few questions for me. In Europe why was the P-51 used for long-range escort and not the Spitfire? Didn€t the British in fact begin to perform day light bombing raids during the final months of the war? And what did the squadrons of Spitfires do to provide bomber escort? They switched to using Mustangs because their Spitfires lacked range. In Italy and why were P-38s used for long range escort and P-47s for ground attack if the Spitfire was so capable of doing this? I've never read about Spitfires escorting bombers from Italy to Berlin or Ploesti, but I've read quite a bit about American long-range fighters doing this.

Internal tankage for a mid 1944 Spitfire IX was up to 160-170 imperial gallons, depending on the production run. 95 imperial gallons in the nose and 75 imperial gallons in the rear fuselage. To get US gallons multiply by 1.201. You then get the not too shabby total of 204 US gallons. Most aircraft with the rear fuselage tanks had the more standard 85 gallons in the nose, so about 160 Imperial Gallons should be taken as the norm for a late war mark. The XVIs with the cut down rear fuselage had around 151 imperial gallons.

Spitfire test pilot Geoffery Quill did test flights in 1943 in a Spitfire IX modified with wing and rear fuselage tanks, with a grand total of 187 imperial gallons (225 US gallons) internally and a 45 imperial gallon (54 US gallon) drop tank and stayed aloft for around 5 hours. In his own words:

"The aeroplane was unstable to start with, but as soon as I had used up the rear fuselage fuel the handling was back to normal and I settled down to a long and enjoyable flight over a great variety of countryside from Salisbury Plan to the Moray Firth and back again, all below 1,000ft. In distance, and not taking into account the various diversions for weather and terrain, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it was the equivalent to flying from East Anglia to Berlin and back. It took five hours.</span>

This flight demonstrated, if nothing else, that there was no fundamental reason why the Spitfire should not be turned into a long-range escort fighter provided that certain problems could be solved."

The Spitfire could be fitted with 90 or even 170 imperial gallon overload tanks as well, giving even more range. Best fuel consumption for the Merlin 66 was around 10 gal/hour at 220mph TAS.

So, it could be done. In truth the Spitfire Mk VII/VIII design probably should of replaced the Mk IX in late 1942/early 1943, giving the Spitfire a 35% increase in effective range. The British chose not to though, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they favoured strategic heavy night bombing, which they had the Mosquito to escort, and short range tactical daylight medium bombing, which their current Spitfires with drop tanks could escort. Secondly was the concern about a drop in production from moving towards the Mk VIII airframe (which was probably unfounded).



Spitfire:

Pros, excellent short range fighter. Great maneouverability and climb. Many pilots said it was a delight to fly and I believe them.

Cons, short range, inability to adapt to the changing roles of combat due to its small size, inability to carry a significant payload for ground attack.

Except that it did change roles in combat.

The Spitfire started as a medium altitude point defence interceptor, but it didn't just stay in that role. The Spitfire was adapted into a wide variety of roles, including long range reconnisance (1940), fighter bomber (1942), low alt interceptor (1943), medium range escort fighter (1943-1944) and even carrier borne fighter. And I wouldn't call 2 x 250lbs and 1 x 500 lbs bombs an 'insignificant' payload. The Mk XVIII could carry 1500lbs. Not as good as the P-38 maybe, but still quite capable.



SkyChimp do you have the link handy for American records for the destruction of Luftwaffe fighters during WWII? I used to have it, but after a reformat several months ago I forgot to save it.

I'm not SkyChimp but you can try http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps51153/airforcehistor...aaf/digest/index.htm (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps51153/airforcehistory/usaaf/digest/index.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spitfires range with wing tankage on VIII and XIV models

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/europe_95copy.jpg

ImpStarDuece
04-27-2006, 10:23 AM
Thanks for that Roland.

As an aside, which figures is that for, the RAF 660/1085 miles or the RAAF 740/1250 miles range figure?

The longest Spitfire escort mission of the war was by Mk VIIs, who flew cover for Lancasters who bombed the submarine yards at La Pallice.

http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/356/spitfirerange6ok.jpg

mynameisroland
04-27-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Thanks for that Roland.

As an aside, which figures is that for, the RAF 660/1085 miles or the RAAF 740/1250 miles range figure?

The longest Spitfire escort mission of the war was by Mk VIIs, who flew cover for Lancasters who bombed the submarine yards at La Pallice.

http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/356/spitfirerange6ok.jpg

Eh cant really remember its from that thread comparing the P38J to the Spitfire VIII we had a while back! I took the figures from Spitfire Flying Legend book which had a section where a Flight commander spoke about regularly flying through France down to the Swiss border looking for targets of oportunity. Im sure he was flying the Spitfire VII or the XIV which as we know was based on the airframe of the VIII or Spitfire and they most definately would be carrying slipper tanks. This was an operational mission not test conditions or theoretical maximum range so I assume the radius is for the smaller of the two figures. And depending on where the base is the range could stretch further in to Germany.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 10:34 AM
Remember there were Spits based in Africa/Malta too which could fight back after mid-1942 rather than just defend. (They really fought a hard war on Malta the RAF up until mid 1942- start of 1943.)

Another circle could be drawn to add this range, hitting all of Italy.

OT - I wonder if Hitler ever realistically looked at the map of the world and realised what a mistake it was to invade Russia.

Its just MASSIVE.

I know this is for another thread but looking at the map and how small Germany/England/France/Italy/Poland are compared to Russia, its just mindboggling to think that one country would have a hope of conquering all that will a few thousand tanks and planes.

If some people dont realise just how big Russia is, just take a look at it

http://euclid.ucc.ie/appliedmath/images/AM_UCC_world.png

Rjel
04-27-2006, 10:43 AM
Some of you guys need a new song. The "American History Channel" and "the P-51 won the war" quotes are getting as tiresome as the now trite "2 weeks, be sure".

Kocur_
04-27-2006, 10:44 AM
OT - I wonder if Hitler ever realistically looked at the map of the world and realised what a mistake it was to invade Russia.

What if the alternative was waiting for the blow? SU didnt produce those 25.000 tanks or had airborne divisions just for fun, you know.

Fork-N-spoon
04-27-2006, 11:14 AM
WOLFMondo,

Have you read my post in its entirety? You and a few others have kept making reference to Americans not having significant fighter strength until 1944. I€ve never stated that they did. Then you point out that up until this time the major player was the Spitfire, I€ve never said that it wasn€t. However what you seem to be missing is that until mid 1944 the Allies in the ETO did very little to destroy the Luftwaffe. This is a fact and it cannot be argued any other way. Of the total Luftwaffe losses during the war in the ETO, the majority of them came during the last year of the war. Of the Luftwaffe losses during the last year of the war the majority of them came after November 1944.

The slipper tank theory with the Spitfire is a thin line of hope that people seem to cling to. If the aircraft couldn€t carry it internally it hampered its ability to perform long range missions. There is a big difference between internal tankage and slapping on some ungainly slipper tank. If this slipper tank was the savior to the Spitfires significantly short range then why wasn€t it employed more as a long-range high altitude fighter? The amount of German aircraft that the Spitfire destroyed during five years of combat in the ETO shows that the Spitfire rarely got to the fight. No matter how good the Spitfires flying qualities were, it couldn€t get into the fight due to short range and its statistical record for kills proves this.

I realize how the daylight bomber offensive was employed, but you seem to be missing the point. Spitfires providing escort to American bombers over the channel and to the coast of mainland Europe isn€t what I would call a large contribution to the war effort. The odds that American bombers would be attacked when the Spitfires were escorting them were nil so the fact that they provided this escort has little relevance. Spitfires did this because at this stage of the war they proved pretty useless due to their lack of range. Spitfires were relegated to yeoman escort duties to free up long range American fighters that could get to the where the Germans were. You seem to think that this insignificant part of escort duties was significant. If it were so significant then why didn€t the Spitfire destroy thousands of Luftwaffe aircraft while doing this? The reason€¦ because Luftwaffe fighters were RARELY encountered during this stage of bomber escort.

The Spitfire MkVIII saw extensive action in the Pacific and in Italy where it played a significant role in the war€¦ Then where are the statistics for thousands and thousands of German and Japanese aircraft destroyed? I'm not even getting into the Spitfire's contribution to the war effort in these theaters for ground attack, which the Spitfire was ill-suited to perform. Why did the P-38 destroy a more significant portion of the Luftwaffe and the Iperial Japanese Air Force than the Spitfire in the PTO and MTO? In comparison to the 3 American mainstays, the amount of Luftwaffe fighters shot down by the Spitfires in the MTO is a drop in the bucket compared to the American long-range fighters. Again it€s the Spitfires inability to perform long-range missions and get to where the enemy was. Consider that the Americans used the P-40 in the MTO. Due to the P-40s lack of range it was often left out of the fight. The P-40 with similar range abilities as the Spitfires fielded during this part of the war was effectively left out of the fight due to lack of range. If you feel that it was due to shortcomings that the P-40 had, consider this: In the CBI the P-40 shot down more Japanese aircraft than the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined. Was it because the P-40 was superior to the latter types? No, it was because the P-40 was there when the enemy was, by the time the latter three types showed up, they flew unopposed. Again it€s a matter of opportunity. The P-40 out scored the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined because it had the opportunity to. This is similar to why the P-38, P-47, and P-51 our performed the Spitfire in combat against the Germans. Due to their longer range and load carrying abilities, the P-38, P-47, and P-51 had a significant advantage over the Spitfire because they could get to the fight while the Spitfire was left €œin the rear with the gear.€ Had the ETO air war been fought under similar conditions that it was on the Eastern front where range didn€t play a key role, then I€m quite sure that the Spitfire would have excelled and quite possibly out performed the American fighters, but sadly for the Spitfire this wasn€t the case.

Spitfires and ground support€¦ Not only did the Spitfire lack range, but it also lacked an ability to carry a useful bomb load. American fighters could fly farther with external bomb loads and no additional fuel than the Spitfire with out external stores. The Mustang and Lightning could carry a 500-pound bomb load farther than the spitfire could fly with external fuel. Point me to evidence that shows how Spitfires carried 2,000 €" 4,000 pound bomb loads.

To show you how large numbers of short-range fighters contribute little to the war effort consider this: In the PTO during early 1944 the P-47 was the dominant fighter type. During this stage in the war the 5th Air force had about 4 fighter squadrons flying P-38s, while there were four times as many P-47 units. Due to the P-38 having a significant range advantage over the P-47D, the P-47D was frequently left out of the fight. By wars end the total amount of fighters shot down by P-47s was a drop in the bucket in comparison to the P-38. For the same reasons that the Spitfire failed to destroy the majority of the enemy even though it was the most prolific during the war, the P-47 failed to destroy more Japanese fighters than the P-38 did€¦ Range was a very critical factor during the war in the PTO, MTO, North Africa, and the ETO.


Xiolablu3,

You think that the Americans showed up when the war was won and performed €œmopping up operations?€ Had it not been for the American daylight bombing offensive the Luftwaffe would have taken years to defeat if it could have even been done. Until the Americans arrived and began their bombing offensive, the Luftwaffe was left to roam over Europe at its leisure. Once the Americans began daylight bombing, the Germans had to meet this challenge. It consumed vast amounts of the Germany€s men and resources and also made the Germans fight the Allied fight. Germany was sapped into a war of attrition with the Americans and America was the most important factor in the war for supplies and logistics. Germany had no way of winning a war of attrition with America. Up until this point, the allies did very little to hamper Germany€s ability to wage war in the ETO. Why do you think that Germany lost the bulk of its forces after the Americans began daylight bombing? Was it because British Spitfires had broken their back and Americans were only mopping up? How do you think that the Russians would have fared against the Germans if the Americans wouldn€t have caused the Germans to deploy vast amounts of men, machines, supplies, and logistics to try and repel American bombers from bombing Europe? While America€s methods for defeating the Luftwaffe in the ETO may have been costly, ill-conceived, and planned poorly, it still sucked Germany into a war with an enemy that had many times the ability to maintain a fighting force. Thus Germany was bled dry of resources. This is something that England with its night bombing raids and short ranged Spitfires failed to do during the first three to four years of the war.

You€ve stated that €œ4th May 1944 - The Allies could deploy 2371 front line fighters of which 1764 were RAF - and which plane type do you think the majority of these were?€

Just for the record the number of American fighters on hand in front line service was:

April 1944 3,685 American fighters on hand in first line service in Europe
750 P-38s
1,985 P-47s
950 P-51s

May 1944 3,362 American fighters on hand in first line service in Europe
673 P-38s
1,870 P-47s
819 P-51s

June 1944 3,003 American fighters on hand in first line service in Europe
568 P-38s
1,632 P-47s
803 P-51s

It looks like American fighters in service in the ETO during the time you have stated outnumbered the RAF by an easy 2:1 and again no matter how many fighters the RAF had they lacked the range to get into the fight. Why did the British use Mustangs for long range missions if the Spitfires were so capable?

Please spare me the internet links because their credibility is very spotty. If you were to provide credible internet links to official sites then I would consider them, but something that some fan boy typed up about his favorite person, place, or thing€¦

Since you€ve not any reference for the United States Air Force€s statistical records for the destruction of enemy aircraft during world war two, consider the following:

The 8th Air Force fighters destroyed 9,268 fighters, most of them during the last year of the war. Of these 9,268 German fighters destroyed, 5160 were air to air and 4108 were on the ground. This doesn€t include 9th Air Force figures and the 9th Air Force contributed significantly to destroying the Luftwaffe. This figure neither includes statistics for the 14th and 15th Air Forces in Italy which flew long range bomber escort and ground attack missions to targets as distant as Berlin. While the Spitfire was in Italy, it couldn't range over into the ETO and contribute to that fight. Eventhough the Spitifire couldn't range into the ETO from bases in Italy, the P-38 and P-51 could and did from 1944 until the end of the war in Europe.

USAAF destroyed 20,419 enemy aircraft in the ETO, which is double what the RAF managed to do during a period of five years.

The statistical record for 20,419 enemy aircraft destroyed by the USAAF in the ETO

1942 169
1943 3,865
1944 10,425
1945 5,960

Until D-day the Germans were still not effectively defeated. Once the USAAF sapped the Luftwaffe€s ability to wage war, it made the Allied advance through Europe much easier. It also took a lot of pressure off the Russians. The Americans destroyed in a single year what it took the RAF to do in five. Considering that most historians don€t credit Germany as being defeated in the ETO until after D-day, wouldn€t you agree that the USAAF contributed the single most significant effort towards destroying the Luftwaffe in the ETO?

Now if you want to get into the Spitfires ability to perform effective ground attack and ground support missions I am willing. I am quite sure that the Spitfire's air to ground record is less than stellar for two simple reasons; it lacked range and load carrying ability. If you care to get into this debate I am more than willing, but keep in mind the American fighter-bombers destroyed a large amount of Germanys men, equipment, supplies, and logistics on the ground. After the war, many high ranking German officials credit American fighter bombers as being one of the single most effective weapons for destroying the German war effort on the ground.

ImpStarDuece,

http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/356/spitfirerange6ok.jpg

This is a nice chart that shows the maximum range of Spitfire MkVIIs (or MkVIIs, the chart says VII and your text says MkVII) and MkXIV, but I€ve two simple arguments against this. Spitfire MkIXs were the most prolific Spitfire fielded by England and its commonwealths not MkVIIIs and MkXIVs. Secondly if we calculate the maximum range for the P-38 and P-51 using the same methods that were used to achieve a rather impressive range for certain Mk Spitfires, you could easily extend the range of this chart by an exponent of two. Special Spitfires fitted with extra internal tankage and slipper tanks still had a range that was half of the maximum range possible with the P-38 and P-51. These special Spitfire missions are akin to ferry missions and not combat missions where maximum range could be extracted.

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 11:27 AM
I'm outta here, this one is not worth any more effort. He is not answering the original gripes and is picking new ones.

My figures for May 1944 are from 'The Big Show' by Pierre Clostermann. You state the numbers of aircraft in Britain, a fair chunk of these would not be serviceable, plus I was quoting the number DEPLOYABLE on that day, the RAF will have more than 1700 fighters, but not all will be DEPLOYED every day.

His figures say 20,000 planes destroyed 'by the USAAF' probably includes the massively inflated 'bomber destroying fighters' figures. (many gunners claiming one fighter)

You dont say where your figures are from. I dont believe a word you say until you show us your sources.

He is still saying the Spitfire 'could not get to the fight' after all the data printed by well respected members of the forum.

I suspect he is a troll. I suggest you guys dont waste any more time unless you want to bang your head against a wall. (I think I know who it is too)

Fork n Spoon has resorted to posting complete rubbish!

Fork-N-spoon
04-27-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I'm outta here, this one is not worth any more effort. He is not answering the original gripes and is picking new ones.

My figures for May 1944 are from 'The Big Show' by Pierre Clostermann.

He is still saying the Spitfire 'could not get to the fight'

I suspect he is a troll. I suggest you guys dont waste any more time unless you want to bang your head against a wall.

Goodbye,

Xiolablu3
04-27-2006, 12:04 PM
Oooh, just one last thing.

I had better get this thread back on topic.

F8F Bearcat was a great plane.

Ingenious of the USA to build a plane of their own based on what they learned from the Fw190.

' Compared to its predecessor,the Bearcat was 20% lighter, had a 30% better rate of climb, and was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster, In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair the Bearcat [Click Here] was marginally slower but was much more heavily armed, more manuverable and climbed faster, the aircraft was heavily inspired by a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter that had been handed over to the Grumman facilities.'

Sorry for going so off topic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
04-27-2006, 01:11 PM
P-51's destroyed circa 5,000 planes in the air during thier service in the ETO. That is from Dec 1943 until War's end. 17 months.

Asgeir_Strips
04-27-2006, 01:17 PM
Good thread and interesting discussion.

I really learned a lot! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But one thing that we can be sure of is, if the american p51D mustang hadn't been fitted with the brilliant british rolls royce merlin engine (Packard made a lisence built version, that powered probably 99% of the production P51D's) the war would probably have taken a year or more to complete. when the allies got the ability to escort the bombers all the way to the target and home, and WITH time to "Loiter" over the target, it was an invaluable asset. and the P51 provided us with that.

faustnik
04-27-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
Good thread and interesting discussion.

I really learned a lot! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But one thing that we can be sure of is, if the american p51D mustang hadn't been fitted with the brilliant british rolls royce merlin engine (Packard made a lisence built version, that powered probably 99% of the production P51D's) the war would probably have taken a year or more to complete. when the allies got the ability to escort the bombers all the way to the target and home, and WITH time to "Loiter" over the target, it was an invaluable asset. and the P51 provided us with that.

By the time the P-51B/C/D arrived, P-38s and P-47s were both being equipped with long range drop tanks that could extend their range significantly. It might have been harder to do the job, but, the 8th AF would still have got it done.

Slickun
04-27-2006, 01:33 PM
By the time the P-51B/C/D arrived, P-38s and P-47s were both being equipped with long range drop tanks that could extend their range significantly. It might have been harder to do the job, but, the 8th AF would still have got it done.


Neither had the range to go as far as the P-51 in the critical Jan-May 1944 time frame. The P-51 got the job done after the P-47's turned back, with an assist from the P-38's.

Mustang Groups scored twice as many kills/group in the time frame as T-Bolts, and roughly 4 times the Lightning groups.

Do not minimize the effect on the air war the Mustang had.

WOLFMondo
04-27-2006, 01:49 PM
Fork-N-spoon, do yourself a favour and go read the 2nd TAF Volumes. Then come back and argue your point. your really have no clue.

Slickun
04-27-2006, 01:53 PM
BTW.

In the notorious, hated, reviled "Joint Fighter Conference" the Bearcat was rated "Best Overall Below 25,000 Feet".

"America's 100,000" excludes this because it didn't make combat.

P-51D was second.

Above 25,000 feet was the P-47, with the P-51 second there as well.

The Bearcat was a pure fighting machine with great acceleration, climb, turning (for an American plane), visibility, and firepower. And, carrier capable!

Kocur_
04-27-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
BTW.

In the notorious, hated, reviled "Joint Fighter Conference" the Bearcat was rated "Best Overall Below 25,000 Feet".

"America's 100,000" excludes this because it didn't make combat.

P-51D was second.

Above 25,000 feet was the P-47, with the P-51 second there as well.

The Bearcat was a pure fighting machine with great acceleration, climb, turning (for an American plane), visibility, and firepower. And, carrier capable!

I wonder what would be conclusion of a year-later JFC (was there one?), i.e. if P-51H was there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Why 1944 JFC is that ("notorious, hated, reviled") controversial? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Slickun
04-27-2006, 02:50 PM
Some folks hate the conclusions, ratings, and "findings" by this large group of pilots.

Don't really want to get into specifics, but I've been in any number of discussions where the findings were disputed, sometimes rather vehemently.

I personally put great credence in the findings of these contemporary pilots from several services and countries.

Slickun
04-27-2006, 02:55 PM
P-51H was something.

Great speed at all altitudes, better wing-loading than other Merlin birds, massive acceleration, better visibility than the D, gyro sight and G-Suit, superb dive and zoom, same outstanding high speed roll rate, great range.

Quite a package.

But I think the Bearcat would be better at what the Navy needed right then, a close-in dogfighter to take on the kamakazies.

Kocur_
04-27-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
P-51H was something.

Great speed at all altitudes, better wing-loading than other Merlin birds, massive acceleration, better visibility than the D, gyro sight and G-Suit, superb dive and zoom, same outstanding high speed roll rate, great range.

Quite a package.

But I think the Bearcat would be better at what the Navy needed right then, a close-in dogfighter to take on the kamakazies.

I agree! Still if both were present in this game I would choose P-51H over F8F if that would be 'serious' virtual flying, i.e. I would really care about my k/d - quite simply because of speed. OTOH F8F in the game would be a true bliss in energy-orientated (i.e. yo-yo) tnb.

Btw. were planes like F8Fs, later F4Us or P-51Hs equipped with .50 M3 hmgs instead of .50 M2, i.e. were the latter replaced with former after those became available i.e. mid/late 1945? Both guns were of the same dimensions and I guess it would be possible to retrofit older planes with .50 M3.

Vipez-
04-27-2006, 03:16 PM
Fork-N-spoon, so what mushrooms do you use? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

So it would be same as you would say for example FAF's 44 Brewster Buffalos played insignificant role in WW-2 and didn't have any impact on the war (well heck they were only responsible for 496 enemy planes destroyed), and therefore should not be modelled in FB .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Jaws2002
04-27-2006, 04:18 PM
Bolillo put the pipe down brother. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Slickun
04-27-2006, 04:20 PM
Kocur, I think the P-51H had the M3.

IIRC, it had a better rof, that basically put the 6 x .50 with the M3 at the throw weight of 8 x .50 M2.

As for the other late model US types, I don't know.

Anybody?

BigKahuna_GS
04-27-2006, 06:56 PM
S!

http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/F8F.jpg

Best prop fighter my dad ever flew in his 30years with the Marine Corps.
The F4U-4 & F4U-5 werent too shabby either.

__

DIRTY-MAC
04-27-2006, 07:06 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif stupid!

dugong
04-27-2006, 08:02 PM
I remember reading a story somewhere about a demonstration featuring a Bearcat and a few P-51's. They rolled off the runway together and the Bearcat did barrel roll around the Mustangs and climbed away before they could even really get going.

Again, I cannot remember specifics, or where I read it, but the Bearcat put the P-51 to shame.

Badsight.
04-28-2006, 12:17 AM
dugong , that story is supposedly from H Mustang pilots challenging some Bearcat pilots because of how awesome the H Mustang was . the one part of the H Mustang performance that it wasnt that great was climb performance & this was the strongest feature of the Bearcat

if anyone has any data on the Bearcats turning abilities please share it

ive not seen ANY test data on this part of teh Bearcats performance , we know it was lighter & more powerfull than the Hellcat (lower wing load , higher powerload , better power to weight) , theres A LOT more to it , but those are the basic specs to base turn ability off

Kocur_
04-28-2006, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Kocur, I think the P-51H had the M3.

IIRC, it had a better rof, that basically put the 6 x .50 with the M3 at the throw weight of 8 x .50 M2.


Yes, .50 AN M3 was basically a modified .50 AN M2 (lighter bolt, altered shape of bolt's surface cooperating with accelerator etc., no parts interchangability between both types) in order to increace ROF. Result was somewhere between 1100 and 1200 rpm.
4 M3x 1150 = 4600/800 (av. ROF of M2)= 5,75 M2
6 M3x 1150 = 6900/800 (av. ROF of M2)= 8,63 M2

AN M3 was standarised in april 1945 and until end of september 1945 ~2.400 units were produced. IF (some, bit later ones?) F8F-1s received M3s, their firepower would be very close or equal to that of F6Fs, F4Us or P-51D.

Slickun
04-28-2006, 08:18 AM
Bearcats could supposedly pull more G's than an A6M a slower speeds than any other US fighter...I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact speed, but it was pretty slow. Of course, at really slow speeds the A6M could pull more.

The point was the Bearcat offered more turning opportunities at a greater speed range, vs japanese planes, than other US fighters.

I have NO doubts the Bearcat owned the P-51 at takeoff speeds, just like virtually every other Navy plane. No doubt at all. A Mustang pilot finding himself that far out of his envelope was a fool, fighting the other guy's fight.

I also have no doubts that at higher speeds the Mustang would be superior.

Slickun
04-28-2006, 08:19 AM
Oh, and thanks for that info on the M3, Kocur.

stathem
04-28-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
The Bearcat was a pure fighting machine with great acceleration, climb, turning (for an American plane), visibility, and firepower. And, carrier capable!

Sounds a lot like a Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Video Here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Duxford.htm) of the Duxford F8F taxing in after a practice display last year. Beautiful sights and sounds. Sorry it was just done on a digital camera, for the noise, mainly.

Fork-N-spoon
05-17-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:
By the time the P-51B/C/D arrived, P-38s and P-47s were both being equipped with long range drop tanks that could extend their range significantly. It might have been harder to do the job, but, the 8th AF would still have got it done.


Neither had the range to go as far as the P-51 in the critical Jan-May 1944 time frame. The P-51 got the job done after the P-47's turned back, with an assist from the P-38's.

Mustang Groups scored twice as many kills/group in the time frame as T-Bolts, and roughly 4 times the Lightning groups.

Do not minimize the effect on the air war the Mustang had.

The entire reason why the P-51 destroyed more enemy aircraft in the ETO than did the P-38 and P-47 is because Mustang units had many times the opportunity to encounter the enemy than did the P-47 and P-38. In the case of the P-47 vs the P-51 you're right about the range. The Mustang simply had more opportunities than the P-47 did in the ETO simply because of a significant range advantage that the P-51 had. This excludes the P-47N that only served in the PTO. The P-47N had the longest range of any production American fighter aircraft that saw combat service.

In the case of the P-38 vs P51 combat range, the P-51 did not posses a great range advantage if any at all. Both aircraft had a similar combat radius. Berlin was within range of P-38 units flying from England even during the period that you€re speaking of. It has been documented that P-38s flew to Berlin from England. Sure one could consult the USAAC€s official range chart, but even this is misleading because it doesn€t consider new power and rpm settings that gave the P-38 a much extended range advantage over the old power and rpm settings. Units in the MTO and PTO were using these settings while ETO units never did. Again, inexperienced P-38 pilots, ground crews, command, and bomber escort tactics are more at fault than the P-38 was. MTO based P-38s performed the exact same missions as 8th Air Force fighter units did yet MTO based units say little about the P-38 being mechanically unreliable.

In the MTO and PTO the P-38 crews seemed to have more knowledge of the P-38 than those of the 8th Air Force. In the MTO the P-38 flew long-range escort missions to Berlin from Floggia Italy. The distance from Floggia to Berlin is equal to or greater than that of 8th Air Force P-38 units based in England that flew to Berlin. Along side the P-51, the P-38 flew shuttle missions to Russia. P-38s flew missions to Ploesti from Floggia Italy with a 1,000lb bomb load. The distance from Floggia Italy to Ploesti is 600 miles one way. In the PTO the P-38 flew missions of equal or greater duration and distance than that of P-51 units. It was possible to fly 12 hour missions with a combat radius of 1,000 miles or greater with a P-38. I believe that you're forgetting that P-38s could carry two 310-gallon drop tanks and these rather large drop tanks were used for combat missions in the MTO and PTO. I guess that since the P-38 shot down more enemy aircraft in the MTO than the P-51 did we could conclude that this was due to the P-38 having greater range...

Don't be mistaken in thinking that the P-51 had some great range advantage over the P-38 because it really didn€t.

hop2002
05-17-2006, 12:56 AM
http://img277.imageshack.us/img277/356/spitfirerange6ok.jpg

Spitfires range with wing tankage on VIII and XIV models

This actually understates the range of these sweeps. The squadrons in question were operating out of bases in the West Country, roughly due south of Cardiff on that map, so the radius is somewhat greater.


USAAF destroyed 20,419 enemy aircraft in the ETO, which is double what the RAF managed to do during a period of five years.

No. The USAAF destroyed 20,419 fighters in the ETO. But that includes kills by their own fighters in the air, by their own fighters on the ground, and by bombers defensive fire (and anyone who thinks the bomber defensive claims are accurate to within an order of magnitude is deluding themselves). And more than half the ground claims came in April 1945, and consisted of fighters shooting up wrecks on already abandoned airfields.

The RAF figure of 10,000+ kills is for fighters in air combat only. The comparable USAAF figure is for fighters in air combat only, and was 7,422.


Considering that most historians don€t credit Germany as being defeated in the ETO until after D-day, wouldn€t you agree that the USAAF contributed the single most significant effort towards destroying the Luftwaffe in the ETO?

No. This from Strategy For Defeat by Williamson Murray, written for the USAF:

"By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
the number in the bomber force was down to 47 percent. For the
remainder of the war, the percentage of fully operational fighter and bomber pilots
available, with few exceptions, remained below, and at many times substantially
below, the 70 percent level. Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the
Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war
continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in
expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the
Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly. . . . It is a
fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends . A little further
on, there are only flagstones ; and a little further on, these break beneath your
feet."

The Germans did not suddenly collapse when attacked by the USAAF, it just steepened their already dramatic decline.

Fork-N-spoon
05-17-2006, 02:19 AM
For the Spitfire to have equal combat radius as that of the P-38 and P-51, the Spitfire would have to have been able to carry more than 270 gallons of fuel internally and at least 220 gallons of fuel externally. Since the Spitfire had a lower cruise speed than that of the P-38 and P-51, it would have to carry more fuel than the P-51 did. The Idea that the Spitfire had the same range capabilities as that of the P-38 and P-51 is an impossibility. Again people keep referring to special mark Spitfires and their range potential. Even with the special Mk Spitfires, these still do not have the range capabilities as that of the P-51 and P-38. When looking at the Spitfire MkIX, its range is considerably less than that of the P-38 and P-51. Spitfire MkIXs were the most commonly used Spitfire models by a wide margin.

The combat mission that somebody provided shows a range much greater than most Spitfires is more akin to a ferry mission rather than a combat mission. The reason why the combat radius of many charts for the P-38 and P-51 is lower than what was actually possible is because the P-38 and P-51 were escorting bombers that did not fly a direct route to the target and the fighters were forced to weave back and forth to stay with the bombers. The chart provided most likely has the Spitfires flying a direct route to and from the target thus extending the range of limited production Spitfires equipped with special fuel capabilities. All one has to do is to consult the maximum rage capabilities of the P-38 and P-51. Both aircraft could nearly fly 3,000 statute miles. In the case of the P-38, Lockheed test pilots proved that you could fly a P-38 in excess of 3,000 statute miles when equipped with two 310-gallon drop tanks. The P-38 tested was not some specially prepped P-38, but rather a run of the mill production model. I seriously doubt that any Spitfire produced could match this range. I€m more familiar with the P-38 than the P-51, but there are books full of P-38 missions where a combat radius of 1,000 €" 1,200 miles was achieved.

If the Spitfire had equal combat radius, as did the P-38 and P-51 then books would be full of text on how Spitfires flew combat missions where the combat radius was 600 - 1,000 miles.

I never implied that the Germans suddenly collapsed when the Americans began attacking them, but rather implied that the Germans were sapped into a war of attriction with the Americans. The Americans could afford to lose many times more men and equipment than did the Germans.

American fighters destroyed 75% the total that the Spitfire did. The American fighters did this during a much shorter time span than the British did. Moreover, if one takes away German aircraft destroyed during the Battle of Britain you will see the point I am trying to make. Prior to the American bomber offensive the Germans had relatively few fighter units, flak units, and supporting logistical forces in the ETO. The reason for this is simple, the British attacks with their short ranged Spitfires were nothing more than a nuisance to the Germans. The Germans even had a comical name for British fighter sweeps, but I forget what it was called. The Germans would let the British in their short ranged Spitfires fly about because they knew they were of little threat. If the Germans didn't have some type of advantage be it numbers or altitude advantage, then the Germans simply broke combat and headed for home. Once the Americans showed up and put large numbers of both bombers and fighters into the air, the Germans were forced to meet this challenge. Germany lost most of its aircraft during 1944 and 1945. I'm not sure why somebody wouldn't consider aircraft destroyed on the ground. Enemy aircraft destroyed either in the air or ground are destroyed and removed from combat. The fact that the Spitfire destroyed few enemy aircraft on the ground points toward the Spitfire's lack of range and ability to adapt into an effective fighter-bomber and carry a useful bomb load. Also the figures of 20,000 plus enemy aircraft destroyed are 8th Air Force. These figures to my knowledge do not count those destroyed by the 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Forces. The 12th and 15th Air Force units flew from MTO bases into Germany. I seriously doubt the Spitfires ability to fly from bases in Italy to northern Germany. If one were to possibly count the total amount of fighters destroyed by both British and American bombers I would bet that the American bombers destroyed an amount much greater than the British did.

If the Germans were effectively beaten in 1942 and the Americans only steepened the already dramatic decline, then why isn€t it until after November 1944 that pilots began noting that German resistance in the air began to falter? Why were so many German aircraft destroyed in 1944? Why during the last year and a half of the war did Germany lose most of its aircraft?

If the Spitfire had such range capabilities then why did units that switched from Spitfires to P-47Ds suddenly have greater range capabilities? When one considers that P-47Ds were noted as having short range, what does this tell me of the Spitfire?

Do you want to know why I€m missing the entire Spitfire had great range potential? It€s because the Spitfire lacked range.

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 03:55 AM
its not about spitfire equalling p51 in range, it would be like expecting p51 to match spit in climb and turn, its that the spitfire had more than enough range to be sent against the LW, because im pretty sure the air war was only fought over berlin.

"American fighters destroyed 75% the total that the Spitfire did."

yea and bomber gunners shot down the entire lw 10x over.

"if one takes away German aircraft destroyed during the Battle of Britain you will see the point I am trying to make."

allied well commonwealth only at that point, were outnumbered more than 2-1, while in 1944 allies had complete numerical superiorty and the russian front sapping many lw units, the BoB only lasted 3-4 months.

Xiolablu3
05-17-2006, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:

If the Germans were effectively beaten in 1942 and the Americans only steepened the already dramatic decline, then why isn€t it until after November 1944 that pilots began noting that German resistance in the air began to falter?

.

Funny you should ask that, I am just reading a book by Wing Commander Sampson who flew Spits throughout the war.

In June 1943 he states - 'We rarely get into any scraps these days, as soon as the Germans see us they dive for the deck and run for home at 0 feet. They might make one pass at us if they are in a favourable postion, but thats all.'

We already went through why so many fighters were destroyed by longer range P51's, becasue they could roam for longer and hit aircraft on the ground.

Noone is disputing the fat that the p51 had longer range - its what it was designed for. But your original argument was that 'the SPitfire could not get to the fight' which is totally wrong.

'American fighters destroyed 75% the total that the Spitfire did.' this is a typical misleading statement from you, off course if you add all the American types together and put them up against a single British type - the Spit - then POSSIBLY you may be right. But why USAAF fighters and just one British type?


What about the Hurricanes,Tempests,Typhoons,Beaufighters and other fighters in the RAF?

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Spitfire's lack of range and ability to adapt into an effective fighter-bomber and carry a useful bomb load.

so 1000lbs was not useful? what about the 1500lbs of later marks.


I seriously doubt the Spitfires ability to fly from bases in Italy to northern Germany. why, whats wrong with all the juicy stuff in itaily and southern germany, you know im sure the ground troops were more happy to have typoons overhead than 51s over berlin.


P-38 missions where a combat radius of 1,000 €" 1,200 miles was achieved.
but then the performance of the p38 in the eto wasnt much to brag about.

[qoute]American bombers I would bet that the American bombers destroyed an amount much greater than the British did.
[/quote]

the british bombers actually dropped more tonnage, and with greater accuracy.


Do you want to know why I€m missing the entire Spitfire had great range potential? It€s because the Spitfire lacked range.

yet many spit variants existed with pretty dam decent range(la pallice, big arrow on map), what about the LW none of their birds was in the range of the p51 yet why is it a requirement of only the allies that they have range.



One more thing fork if the spit was some worthless peice of machinery that just happened to be produced in over some 30,000 examples why was it still in production a few years post war.

whiteladder
05-17-2006, 05:22 AM
But why USAAF fighters and just one British type?


Maybe its just another example of the anglophobia that seems to becoming more prevalent (and acceptable) on these boards of late. I would expect to see more of it once SoW is released.

WOLFMondo
05-17-2006, 05:25 AM
Another uniformed Spitfire rant from the American 'Won Teh War' guy.

StG2_Schlachter
05-17-2006, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
the british bombers actually dropped more tonnage, and with greater accuracy.


1.More accuracy? Night time bombing runs on big urban areas do not require accuracy. I don't know what you mean. Maybe you can elaborate on that?

2.British bombers simply could carry more bombs, because they carried less defensive armament, which is one of the benefits of night bombing.


One more thing fork if the spit was some worthless peice of machinery that just happened to be produced in over some 30,000 examples why was it still in production a few years post war.

So was the 109, but it was obsolete by 1942.

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:

So was the 109, but it was obsolete by 1942.


i said post war.



1.More accuracy? Night time bombing runs on big urban areas do not require accuracy. I don't know what you mean. Maybe you can elaborate on that?

accuracy aka hit what u aim at more often.

Fork-N-spoon
05-17-2006, 06:49 AM
I wouldn't call a 1,000lb bomb load or a 1,500lb bomb load something to brag about. American fighters could carry 4,000 to 5,200 lb bomb loads. The P-38 could carry a 1,000 lb bomb load farther than the Spitfire could fly with no bomb load and external fuel. Nobody has provided figures for the Spitfire's destruction of enemy aircraft or enemy targets. To even consider that the Spitfire was as capable as American fighters were for ground attack defies common sense. Not only could American fighters carry more than twice the bomb load as a Spitfire, but they could also carry it much farther. The American fighters were better suited for ground attack because they were more stable aircraft and could absorb more battle damage than the Spitfire could. During the last year of the war American fighter-bombers destroyed a large amount of Germany's war machine with targets so varied that it would consume one paragraph alone. If the Spitfire were so capable, why did the British use the Typhoon and Tempest to a much greater extent than they did the Spitfire for ground attack? Is it because the Typhoon and Tempest had greater range, load carrying potential, and ability to absorb battle damage than the Spitfire€¦

I seriously doubt that the Spitfire could reach any part of the combat zone from Italy during 1944. The P-47 was largely left out of the fight in the MTO during this period because it lacked range. The Spitfire had less range than the P-47 did.

While the P-38's combat record is less than stellar in the ETO when compared to other fighters, the fact still stands that it was used in the MTO against the Germans and flew similar missions that the 8th Air Force did. It also shot down more enemy aircraft than both the P-47 and P-51 combined in the MTO. The fact still stands that if the allied air forces had to choose between the Spitfire and the P-38, the P-38 was more capable of performing the missions due to the P-38 having a much greater range. Even with early model P-38s in North Africa the allied forces benefited greatly because of their range advantage over the Spitfire. P-38s could get to important targets beyond the capability of the Spitfire.

Many Spitfires existed with decent range... The ones used in examples by some of the members posting in this thread still only had half the range of the P-38 and P-51. Of these examples how many were produced? In light of the 20,000 plus Spitfire examples produced during the war, special Mk Spitfires with a greater range than the MkIX Spitfire were few.

While the British bombers dropped more tonnage during the war, they still didn't force the Germans to deploy large amounts of fighter groups to the ETO. British bombers flying at night were very hard to intercept while American bombers flying during the day were easily intercepted. This is my point about American day light bombing; it forced the Germans to fight while British bombing at night didn't. More accurate bombing... For some reason WWII heavy bombers flying at high altitude and accurate bombing don't seem to mix too well. Be it the British at night or the Americans by day, high altitude bombing was very costly when one considers the effects that it had on enemy targets.

Take a look at the amount of fighter groups, flak units, and all the logistical support units that suddenly appeared in the ETO once the Americans began daylight bombing. The fact that Germany suddenly began deploying many units to the ETO tells me that up until this point the Germans considered the Allied thread in the ETO minimal. Without this the Germans could have deployed these units to fight the Russians. Somebody has pointed out in the past that both the British and Americans would have suffered fewer casualties had they used Mosquitos instead of other bombers. While I agree that this is true, Mosquitos wouldn€t have forced the Germans into large air battles where many German aircraft were encountered. This is my entire point about the Luftwaffe€s defeat, American bombers forced the Germans to commit large amounts of aircraft into a fight that they had no chance of winning simply due to the Allies having many times the supplies and logistics. Supplies and logistics win wars not who has the better gun or aircraft.

When I stated that combat missions flown by P-38s exceeded a combat radius of 1,000 - 1,200 miles I was making reference to the MTO and mostly the PTO based P-38 units. I'm quite sure that the P-38 destroyed more enemy aircraft in these two theaters than the Spitfire did mostly due to the P-38 having a significant range advantage over the Spitfire.

The Lufwaffe's lack of long-range fighters was important. This prevented the Luftwaffe from effectively striking Allied bases far to the rear. Short ranged Fw-190s and Bf-109s had to be carefully vectored to American bombers. If they weren't their range prevented them from intercepting them. An aircraft at altitude can intercept enemy aircraft much more quickly than one that has to take off and climb to 30,000 feet to intercept the enemy. If Germany would have had fighter aircraft with the ability to loiter about for 8 hours or more I'm sure that the Americans would have lost many more bombers and fighters. The Germans would have also been able to make effective strikes against enemy targets in the rear areas. One of the main reasons why the Germans failed during the Battle of Britain was due to their lack of having a fighter with long range. For one reason or another the Germans failed to do what the Allies were doing, i.e. ground attack of enemy air bases. Late in the war the Germans massed a bunch of fighter aircraft for ground attack. They attacked British and American fighter and bomber bases with great effect. German flak gunners were so unaccustomed to seeing their own fighters at low altitude that many German aircraft were lost to their own flak.

Just because something was made in great numbers doesn€t mean that it was great. Witness the P-40 and Sherman tank both of which were produced in great numbers. The P-40 was still being produced in November 1944. Does this mean the P-40 was some great aircraft? Wouldn€t you agree that the P-40 was outclassed by 1944? Moreover the P-40 suffered the same problem that the Spitfire did, lack of range.

I€ve never stated that the P-38, P-47, or P-51 were better aircraft than the Spitfire in terms of maneuverability. What I€m implying is that they were much better suited for war than the Spitfire was simply because they had much greater range and ability to adapt to the changing roles during the war. What some cannot seem to get past is the fact that despite the Spitfires excellent maneuverability (which I€m quite sure easily exceeded that of American Fighters in the ETO) it lacked range which greatly reduced its ability to fight in the later stages of the war in both the MTO and ETO.

Please spare me the nationalism comments. I can assure you that this isn€t about nationalism.

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 07:35 AM
could the p51 carry 4000lb bomb load ore ven the 47 let alone 5200? The b25 had max load of something like 4000.


Nobody has provided figures for the Spitfire's destruction of enemy aircraft or enemy targets.

i belive they have read back some.


special Mk Spitfires with a greater range than the MkIX Spitfire were few.

well the VIII was many, they all carried more fuel than IX, later models of ix/xvi also included a rear tank.


This is my point about American day light bombing; it forced the Germans to fight while British bombing at night didn't.

Germans were fighting, they were fighting over the eastern front yes they shifted some to germany and took some pressure off the soviets, hardly changed the western front. None of those units were in a position to challange normandy landings or the mto, If the LW was unwilling to fight over france which spit seemed to cover just fine well who needed to bother with killing the lw for dday landings.


The fact still stands that if the allied air forces had to choose between the Spitfire and the P-38, the P-38 was more capable of performing the missions due to the P-38 having a much greater range.

being much more expensive than single engined types, requiring experenced pilots to be competitive with it vs german aircraft im doubt it would be chosen over the spitfire or the 47. For long range bombing missions mosquitos were on hand.



I€ve never stated that the P-38, P-47, or P-51 were better aircraft than the Spitfire in terms of maneuverability. What I€m implying is that they were much better suited for war than the Spitfire was simply because they had much greater range

Suited for what? Escort?, interception? air supremacy there was more to the war than escorting bombers to berlin, spitfires range extended pretty deep over occupied territory now was france part of the war?


and ability to adapt to the changing roles during the war

did the 38 the 47 or the 51 operated off carriers? because the spitfire adapted and did, it operated in ground attack mounting rockets bombs, ultra high alt interception the spitfire is creadited with the highest combat of ww2.
Spitfires range enabled it to even shoot down a few me262s.


One of the main reasons why the Germans failed during the Battle of Britain was due to their lack of having a fighter with long range
mainly because they suffered unsustainable losses.


f Germany would have had fighter aircraft with the ability to loiter about for 8 hours or more I'm sure that the Americans would have lost many more bombers and fighters.

germany had not the fuel even if fighters had the capacity, not to mention its ineffient use of fuel reserves and drain on pilots.


. They attacked British and American fighter and bomber bases with great effect.

the effect was minimal and they lost most of their experenced pilots.

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 07:48 AM
Also a few other aircraft developments,

Eg the bearcat and p51H, bearcat wasnt one for range it was performance, P51H was also for increased performance and reduced the range over the p51D

WOLFMondo
05-17-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
If the Spitfire were so capable, why did the British use the Typhoon and Tempest to a much greater extent than they did the Spitfire for ground attack? Is it because the Typhoon and Tempest had greater range, load carrying potential, and ability to absorb battle damage than the Spitfire€¦


Putting the Tempest in the same basket as either the Spitty or the Tiffy, and especially comparing range and how the Spitfire was used in the ADFU and 2nd TAF, shows your ignorance on the topichttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

More Spitfires were used as ground attack aircraft than the Typhoon, only 3000 Typhoons were built in 4 years, and the Tempest wasn't a ground attack aircraft, its a tactical fighter and was directed to shoot anything in the air or on the ground that might be German. They didn't carry ordanance, just drop tanks. Fact.

StG2_Schlachter
05-17-2006, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:

So was the 109, but it was obsolete by 1942.


i said post war.



1.More accuracy? Night time bombing runs on big urban areas do not require accuracy. I don't know what you mean. Maybe you can elaborate on that?

accuracy aka hit what u aim at more often. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean they produced 30k+ Spitfires AFTER the War?

hop2002
05-17-2006, 08:35 AM
Since the Spitfire had a lower cruise speed than that of the P-38 and P-51, it would have to carry more fuel than the P-51 did.

Actually, at lower speeds the Spitfire is more fuel efficient than the Mustang. At higher speeds the Mustang is more fuel efficient. That's due to the way induced drag drecreases with speed, and parasitic drag increases. The Spitfire had higher parasitic drag, lower induced drag.


In the case of the P-38, Lockheed test pilots proved that you could fly a P-38 in excess of 3,000 statute miles when equipped with two 310-gallon drop tanks.

Look up the RAAF tests of the Spitfire VIII. 10 mpg was possible at low speed at 20,000ft, carrying a drop tank. That particular aircraft was carrying 213 gallons of fuel, it did not have the 70 odd gallon rear fuselage tank that many late Spitfires carried.


If the Spitfire had equal combat radius, as did the P-38 and P-51 then books would be full of text on how Spitfires flew combat missions where the combat radius was 600 - 1,000 miles.

Why? What on earth did the RAF have to attack in daylight 1,000 miles away? What was the radius of action of US fighters in the ETO before the urgent need for escorts for USAAF bombers? Any 600 mile radius missions? No.

The USAAF began fitting extra internal and external fuel when they needed it. Same with the RAF, although they never had as much need.


American fighters destroyed 75% the total that the Spitfire did.

In Europe.


The American fighters did this during a much shorter time span than the British did.

That's because Europe wasn't a particulary active theatre of war in 1939, 1941 and 1942.

In fact, the only year it was active before US involvement was 1940.


Prior to the American bomber offensive the Germans had relatively few fighter units, flak units, and supporting logistical forces in the ETO.

That's because there was little prospect of action in WE at that time. The action was in the Med and East.


The reason for this is simple, the British attacks with their short ranged Spitfires were nothing more than a nuisance to the Germans.

No, the reason is there was no prospect of invasion, the British bombed by night, and there was little for tactical air to attack.


The Germans would let the British in their short ranged Spitfires fly about because they knew they were of little threat.

Well, the Germans had trouble stopping the long ranged Spitfires, which enabled the British to have an accurate picture of what the Germans were doing, whilst the Germans couldn't fly recce over Britain from 1941 onwards.

But the point is, the Germans largely ignored what was going on in the west because a, they were preoccupied elsewhere, and b, there was no prospect of anything serious happening in the west. Invasion was out of the question until 1943, the RAF bomber force was too small to make much difference by night, let alone by day.

Bomber Command, for example, dropped only 45,000 tons in the whole of 1942, rather less than Germany dropped during the Blitz. That compares to their 1944 total of 525,518 tons.

Now, you can criticise Britain for not gearing up for war earlier, but the range of the Spitfire had nothing whatsoever to do with the reason the ETO was fairly quiet in 1941 and 1942. But that's equally true of the US. Think the 2,500 sorties the USAAF managed in the ETO in 1942 made a major impact on the Germans? What about the 1,713 tons of bombs they dropped?


I'm not sure why somebody wouldn't consider aircraft destroyed on the ground. Enemy aircraft destroyed either in the air or ground are destroyed and removed from combat.

Because an aircraft "destroyed" on the ground is usually not destroyed, only damaged, and because the pilot is far less likely to be killed. And in WW2, it was the pilot losses that hurt far more than the aircraft losses. The Germans had enough aircraft almost throughout the war, it was pilots they really lacked.


The fact that the Spitfire destroyed few enemy aircraft on the ground points toward the Spitfire's lack of range and ability to adapt into an effective fighter-bomber and carry a useful bomb load.

Do you have the figures for their ground kills? The RAF didn't usually record them, certainly not in the way aircraft kills were recorded. Don't make the mistake that because few straffing kills were recorded, few were carried out. The RAF did not credit them to pilots the way the USAAF did.


Also the figures of 20,000 plus enemy aircraft destroyed are 8th Air Force. These figures to my knowledge do not count those destroyed by the 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Forces.

No, according to the USAAF Statisical Digest, the 20,419 figure is for ETO kills, which includes all forces in the ETO. The MTO forces counted another 9,497 (again including bombers and ground kills)

The Digest then gives a figure for aircraft destroyed in "theaters vs Germany" of 29,916. As such, it includes all USAAF kills in the MTO and ETO.


If the Germans were effectively beaten in 1942 and the Americans only steepened the already dramatic decline, then why isn€t it until after November 1944 that pilots began noting that German resistance in the air began to falter?

Because it was then that the fuel situation began to bite and reduced German operations. But USAAF losses to German fighters began to tail off after April 1944.
April 516
May 397
Jun 204
Jul 150

For the rest of the war, the monthly losses only exceed 200 to German fighters twice, in Sep and Dec, and never got near 300, let alone 500.


Why were so many German aircraft destroyed in 1944? Why during the last year and a half of the war did Germany lose most of its aircraft?

Because far more sorties were flown against them?

In 1941, Fighter Command flew about 120,000 sorties, a large proportion of which were defensive patrols. In 1944, Fighter Command flew another 120,000 sorties, but the RAF 2nd TAF flew about 240,000. So RAF fighters flew 3 times as many sorites in the ETO in 1944, the USAAF flew another 365,000. That's more than 6 times as many sorties by fighters in 1944 than 1941, and of course the strategic situation had changed as well.


If the Spitfire had such range capabilities then why did units that switched from Spitfires to P-47Ds suddenly have greater range capabilities?

Because most Spitfires were fitted for RAF requirements? Because they only routinely used the 30 gallon drop tank, and only used 90 gallon tanks when the mission required it. Because the RAF had little requirement for extra internal tankage in Europe. Those aircraft that did require it, like recce Spits, Spit VIIIs etc did get the required extra tankage.

In saying most Spitfires did not have a very long range, all you are in effect saying is most Spitfires were built for the European fighter role. That says nothing about the Spitfire design, but a lot about what the RAF required.

luftluuver
05-17-2006, 08:48 AM
Maybe you should just look up the composition the RAF. Here is the composition of the 2TAF single engine a/c F&s.

4 Tempest sqds
8 Typhoon sqds
7 Spitfire sqds

Then there is the order for 30 sqds of IXs and XVIs to convert to 25lb boost. The Typhoon and Tempest were not that robust as they had a fragile engine.

May 31 1944
LW servicable a/c

Single-engined fighters - 1063, on all fronts
Night fighters - 572, most in the ETO

Jan 10 1945
LW servicable a/c

Single-engined fighters - 1462, on all fronts
Night fighters - 808, most in the ETO

The RAF BC had more enemy a/c to contend with than the Americans during the day. The Flak units were in place before the Americans arrived.


American fighters could carry 4,000 to 5,200 lb bomb loads. I did not know that the P-51 could carry such a load.

Btw, the P-47 had a combat radius of only 235mi in June 1943. In Aug 1943 with drop tanks the radius increased to 375mi. The P-51 in Dec 1943 had a combat radius of 600mi. The P-38 could only get 520mi in Nov 1943.

Testing of BF274 with a 170gal overload tank gave the Spit IX a range of 1372mi. This without the extra fuselage and wing leading edge tanks(77gal).

The Spitfire escorted the American heavies on the outbound leg and picked them up on their return. This allowed American escorts to get a better radius.

Why would the Mosquito replacing the American heavy bombers not have forced the LW into large air battles? They would still need some escort and would have forced the Germans to have more fighters in Germany.

Schlachter, RAF heavies didn't suffer any more losses during the day than did the American heavies. American heavies suffered greives losses without escort even with their few extra guns.

hop2002
05-17-2006, 08:50 AM
More accuracy? Night time bombing runs on big urban areas do not require accuracy. I don't know what you mean. Maybe you can elaborate on that?

Albert Speer said something along those lines, but the key example is the one given in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS)

As part of the general summary, they analysed attacks on several German refineries:

"Under the conditions created in Germany by heavy flak, fighter opposition, bad weather, and effective smoke screening, it was necessary in a high percentage of the attacks to use instrument bombing, which proved to be far less accurate than visual bombing. As a result, tremendous tonnages had to be flown from England in order to hit vital parts of plants with a relatively small tonnage. Detailed plant records for three plants (Leuna, Ludwigshafen-Oppau, Zeitz) show that, of 30,000 tons of bombs dropped, only 3,781 tons hit within the plant fences. Different aiming techniques gave the following results:"
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Air Force and Technique Percentage of Hits Within the Plants
8th AF visual aiming 26.8
8th AF, part visual aiming and part instrument 12.4
8th AF, full instrument 5.4
RAF, night Pathfinder technique 15.8
Weighted average 12.6
</pre>
"Figure 7 shows what happened to 146,000 bombs released by the USAAF and the RAF in the strategic bombing of these three large German oil-chemical plants. Their combined area is about 3 1/2 square miles; yet only 12.9 percent of the bombs dropped landed within the plant fence limits."

Note that the average for the USAAF and RAF combined was well bellow the RAF's average, indicating the USAAF average was considerably lower, and probably below 10%. (and before dismissing this example as unrepresentitive, note that the USSBS chose it for their summary, and that the 30,000 tons involved amount to about 15% of all bombs dropped on oil targets)

HellToupee
05-17-2006, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:

So was the 109, but it was obsolete by 1942.


i said post war.



1.More accuracy? Night time bombing runs on big urban areas do not require accuracy. I don't know what you mean. Maybe you can elaborate on that?

accuracy aka hit what u aim at more often. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean they produced 30k+ Spitfires AFTER the War? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no i mean they continued to develope a few marks post war both seafire and spitfire, up to mark 24 for spit close to 100 mark 24s, why would u think 30k post war?

StG2_Schlachter
05-17-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:

So was the 109, but it was obsolete by 1942.


i said post war.



1.More accuracy? Night time bombing runs on big urban areas do not require accuracy. I don't know what you mean. Maybe you can elaborate on that?

accuracy aka hit what u aim at more often. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean they produced 30k+ Spitfires AFTER the War? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no i mean they continued to develope a few marks post war both seafire and spitfire, up to mark 24 for spit close to 100 mark 24s, why would u think 30k post war? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just seemed to think the fact, that the Spitfire was produced in such large numbers was because it was such a good fighter. Then I said the 109 was build in similar numbers and also build and used postwar (by the Israelis, Spanish, Czech). I could not see anything special.

The Spit just was the mainstay of the RAF. This doesn't make it a good fighter.

Chuck_Older
05-17-2006, 09:43 AM
That also doesn't prove that the Spitfire was a bad fighter

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-17-2006, 09:45 AM
Anyone got a list of countries using Spitfires post war?

GBrutus
05-17-2006, 09:56 AM
The Spit just was the mainstay of the RAF. This doesn't make it a good fighter.

Well I'm convinced, the Spit was obviously cr@p then... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

StG2_Schlachter
05-17-2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
That also doesn't prove that the Spitfire was a bad fighter

Rgr. Never said the spitfire was a bad fighter.

Aaron_GT
05-17-2006, 10:44 AM
While the British bombers dropped more tonnage during the war, they still didn't force the Germans to deploy large amounts of fighter groups to the ETO.

As luftluvver has noted, the LW deployed quite a large number of nightfighters to counter the threat. Given that interception was more difficult, as was defensive fire, in some ways being a nightfighter was safer, except that night flying itself was inherently more dangerous.


More accurate bombing... For some reason WWII heavy bombers flying at high altitude and accurate bombing don't seem to mix too well.

RAF night bombing was at medium altitude, not high altitude.

StG2_Schlachter
05-17-2006, 11:01 AM
Correct, this was a reason for the RAF flying at night.

Fork-N-spoon
05-17-2006, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by GBrutus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit just was the mainstay of the RAF. This doesn't make it a good fighter.

Well I'm convinced, the Spit was obviously cr@p then... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh Gbrutus... Monica belluccie is an avatar to have!!! While Italy might not have had the best figher aircraft, tney definately had the hottest women!!!

DIRTY-MAC
05-17-2006, 01:03 PM
He he, he is just continuing to step in the p00 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-17-2006, 04:02 PM
There were some 24 nation used the Spitfire post-war:

Australia
Belgium
Burma
Canada
Czechslovakia
Denmark
Egypt
France
Greece
India
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Sweeden
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Yugoslavia

Low_Flyer_MkVb
05-17-2006, 04:15 PM
Thank 'ee kindly, sir. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Slickun
05-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Fork_N_Spoon wrote:

The entire reason why the P-51 destroyed more enemy aircraft in the ETO than did the P-38 and P-47 is because Mustang units had many times the opportunity to encounter the enemy than did the P-47 and P-38.

You are incorrect. It was one of the reasons. Others were better top speed, better controllability at high speeds, superior roll rate at high speeds, better acceleration, and at least as good dive acceleration and top end as the P-47, and in the case of the P-38, massively superior top end in the dive, and an ability to operate at speeds that the P-38 was uncontrollable.

P-51 Units, operating alonsgside the P-47 and P-38 units, doing the same job, against the same opponents, on the same missions, and in the case of the P-51/P-38 in roughly the same numbers, got kills at a rate twice that of the P-47's and 4 times that of the P-38's, in that critical Jan-May 44 time slot.

During the critical days of Jan-May 1944, the P-51 enjoyed better range than the P-38, able not only to go to Berlin, but to also do a feint dogleg on the approach. Not much more, but enough.



I don't undersztand. You said range was the only reason. Yet you then say the P-38 had equal range. What was it then, if both types could fly as far into the other guys backyard, why did the P-51 destroy so many more A/C? Both in totals and in kills/sortie? Don't say numbers, the P-38's had three groups at the same time the P-51's did.

It was in the PTO that techniques were evolved that got the great, great range from the P-38.

Fork-N-spoon
05-18-2006, 01:32 AM
In the case of the P-51 vs. the P-47 in the ETO, it was range that gave the P-51 the advantage. Due to the P-51's greater range than the P-47D, it had many times the opportunities to encounter enemy aircraft.

In the case of the P-51 vs. the P-38 in the ETO, the reasons very greatly but also include the fact that the P-51 out numbered the P-38 in the ETO. After October of 1944 no 8th Air Force units existed. Had the P-38 units failed in every theater I would say it was due to the P-38 being ill suited. However the P-38 did well in every other theater that it fought in. This leads me to believe it was other factors that include inexperienced pilots, inexperienced ground crews, poor command, and poor bomber escort tactics.

There were four fighter groups in the 8th Air Force that operated P-38s. They were the 20th 55th 364th and the 479th. Of the four fighter groups that operated the P-38, the 20th and 55th never went on to distinguish themselves. Even after switching to P-51s the 20th and 55th Fighter Groups were sub par with the rest of the 8th. The 479th did pretty well with the P-38. Only the 364th did better after they made the switch to the P-51. Was the 364th success due to the P-51? Wouldn€t you agree that the success of any air unit regardless of what aircraft they operated or what nationality they were was more due to proper leadership? There was a fighter group in the 8th Air Force that only flew P-47s and P-51s that was called €œthe hard luck group.€ The 356th didn€t even manage a 2:1 kill to loss ratio. There isn€t a P-38 involved here to blame so what was the reason for their lack of success when compared to the rest of the 8th Air Force?

In the MTO, the P-38 was used in the same capacity as the P-51 was used in the ETO. There were successful P-38 units in the MTO. I've never really read about any dud P-38 units in the MTO. MTO P-38 units seemed to either be above average or average when compared to P-51 units operating at the same time. The P-47D lacked range to provide bomber escort for MTO based bombers. Only the P-38 and P-51 were used as high altitude bomber escorts. The P-47Ds were relegated to fighter-bomber roles and given little opportunity for air-to-air combat. Due to the fact that the P-47D was used mostly for ground attack it didn€t destroy many enemy aircraft in the air. P-38 units in the MTO destroyed more enemy aircraft air to air than the P-47 and P-51 combined.

If you feel that I€m wrong about an aircraft€s success depending upon opportunities to encounter enemy aircraft then consider this, In the CBI the P-40 destroyed more enemy aircraft than the P-38, P-47 and P-51 combined. Is this due to the P-40 possessing some performance advantage over the P-38, P-47, and P-51? Or is it rather due to the P-40 having more opportunities to encounter enemy aircraft than the other three? The reason why the P-40 destroyed more enemy aircraft is because it encountered more enemy aircraft than the other three. By the time the P-38, P-47, and P-51 arrived on the scene they flew unopposed because the P-40s had destroyed the enemy and the enemy never recovered.

The main reason for the F6F€s success in the Pacific is due to the F6F having more opportunities to encounter enemy aircraft. The aircraft carrier proved the F6F with an excellent platform to go out and find the enemy.

Why did Germany have so many high scoring aces? For the very same reason, the German pilots had more opportunities to encounter enemy aircraft.

Lastly how have you come to the conclusion that the P-51 had more range over the P-38 during January thru May 1944? The P-38J was operational during this period.

HellToupee
05-18-2006, 05:07 AM
what aces were in there in the p38 in the eto/mto, most seem to be in the PTO, yet theres no shortage of p47 p51 and spitfire aces.

Fork-N-spoon
05-18-2006, 12:28 PM
Aces prove little about the aircraft and more about the person.

There were 63 MTO P-38 aces that are credited with the destruction of 375 enemy aircraft air-to-air. This figure alone proves that aces don't make up the entire picture. The 63 P-38 aces in the MTO only shot down 26% of the total that all P-38 pilots did.

There were 50 MTO P-51 aces with a total of 399.5 victories that represent 38% of the total victories by P-51 pilots.

There were 6 MTO P-47 aces with 40 victories that represent 15% of the total victories by P-47 pilots.

As you can see, more enemy aircraft were destroyed by non-ace pilots than were ace pilots.

To further prove that aces aren€t the grand total or majority consider the fact that of all the air-to-air victories in the MTO, 75% fell to pilots who never achieved ace status.



In the MTO during 1944, there was 50% more P-51s operating than P-38s. During this same time period in the MTO, there was nearly double the amount of P-47s operating as were P-38s. During 1945 in the MTO, both the P-47 and P-51 nearly had double the amount of aircraft operating than P-38s. If you combine the total numbers of P-47s and P-51s operating during this time period the P-38 was out numbered nearly 4 to 1 by other second generation American fighters. P-38 units flying high altitude deep penetration missions were frequently tied to the bombers. Due to the P-38 being easily recognized bombers were not likely to shoot at it. Bomber crews regardless of the theater seemed to want the fighters to fly with them. P-38s didn€t have opportunities to range out in front of the bombers like P-51 units did in the MTO. Despite this, P-38 units still managed to shoot down more enemy aircraft than both the P-51 and P-47 combined.

Apparently the men of the MTO based P-38 units weren€t inept, accepted their aircraft, and fought with them. I€ve read many unfavorable stories about the 20th and 55th fighter groups and how they didn€t know how to operate the Allison engines, mechanics that were not trained how to maintain an Allison engine, and how they truly believed that the P-38 was at fault and drilled it into every new replacement pilot€s head. With inexperience like this, lack of motivation, and a ramped rumor mill, it€s no wonder that the 55th and 20th fighter groups remained sub par even after their switch to P-51s.

The reason why there are so few ETO based P-38 aces is simple. There were few P-38 units operating that flew bomber escort. The three fighter groups in the 9th Air Force didn't have opportunities for air-to-air combat because most of the missions they flew were ground attack. Regardless of the theater of operations, P-38s weren't numerically superior to other fighter types. P-47s and P-51s outnumbered P-38s in every theater. Even in the PTO the P-47 out numbered P-38s more than 4:1.

Slickun
05-18-2006, 01:09 PM
All that typing failed to change one FACT I posted on my response to you.

The P-51 vs the P-47/P-38H shooting down more planes was NOT simply a numbers game, nor a range thing. The fact is, the P-51 was better at shooting down enemy planes in Jan-May 1944 that either of the other two types in the ETO at that time.

Same missions, same enemy, same day, escorting the same planes.

I know you don't want to compare this time frame, Bolillo, because the facts absolutely smoke your original statement, that the only reason the P-51 shot down more planes than the Lightning and Thunderbolt was more exposure, due only, only to range, a heap of dung.

We've been over and over this, for years now. YOU agree the Lightning had as much range as the P-51. YOU agree that 4 groups of P-38's served in the 8th AF. You also KNOW that before the P-51 outnumbered the P-38, the opposite was true, and that there were THREE groups, circa late Feb, early March in 1944, of both types, serving alongside each other, flying the same missions, under the same ROE, escorting the bomber stream, one type often replacing the other.

YOU also know that even though the P-38 shot down MORE planes in the MTO, the P-51 shot them down at a faster rate when it got to the Theater in numbers. You know because I have told you this many times, back it up, and you can't refute the numbers.

Make the case that the P-38H was ill suited to the ETO, that later versions could have done better, that the P-38L should be considered as good as any other fighter in the war, but stay away from statements like the P-51 dominated the skies over the ETO simply because of range.

Slickun
05-18-2006, 01:14 PM
P-38's operated far longer in numbers in the MTO than Merlin P-51's.

They were there for many more "group months" than the Merlin P-51's.

Yet Merlin Mustang groups downed planes at a rate 1.5 times that of the P-38 groups in the MTO.

To get favorable P-38 numbers, you have to include A-36 units, which were technically Mustangs, but operated as dedicated dive bombers and CAS, which they were built for.

Arrgh, those facts.

Slickun
05-18-2006, 01:22 PM
If you feel that I€m wrong about an aircraft€s success depending upon opportunities to encounter enemy aircraft then consider this

I have NO problem with that. Range is as much a factor in a planes effectiveness as top speed. It GETS a plane to the action. It is a huge factor.

Since the two types shared the same legs, and roughly the same numbers in Jan-May 1944, one must conclude that something else contributed to the P-38H's poor performance alongside the P-51|B/C.

Like slow top end, poor high speed roll rate, lousy dive, low mach limit? Something like that?

horseback
05-18-2006, 02:21 PM
Try ease of use; the Mustang was easier to master, especially after flying P-47s. The P-38, according to all sources, took a good 200 hours in-type to master. In 1943/44 England, that took a minimum of 2 or 3 months of regular flying.

Those successful P-38 units in the Med were original owners of the Lightning who had a lot of prior experienced pilots, and a great deal of direct support from Lockheed before deploying, as were the first P-38 groups in the Southwest Pacific.

The Mustang was almost a "jump in and let's go" kind of fighter, especially for a combat experienced pilot. The 4th FG went from P-47s to Mustangs in combat in less than a couple of weeks, with great success.


The Hellcat was very similar to the Mustang in this respect, with an even more forgiving character.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
05-18-2006, 04:28 PM
Before this degenerates into the usual.

The P-38H was not as effective as the P-51 B/C/D at shooting down other A/C. Not in the ETO, not in the MTO. It was some 30-40 mph slower, rolled poorly at speed, dove poorly, accelerated slower, was more vulnerable to enemy fire (yep, that's right), harder to learn to fly, harder to master, and had a much lower critical mach. Period. Range was NOT the only reason the Mustang downed more planes, nor was numbers, as I keep posting. There was a 5 month comparison period where the P-38H comes out very badly when compared to the P-51 and P-47. The Mustang was a better air to air fighter than the P-38H. Period.

The above was in response to bolillo's claim that more exposure to enemy planes was the only reason the Mustang downed more planes than the P-47 and P-38. That is incorrect. It had other things going for it.

Argue all you want the P-38 J, then L was a better plane. Make sure you include the qualifiers that all the problems the H had were fixed. I agree to an extent, but don't dismiss the problems. The problems that limited its effectiveness compared to the Mustang.

BTW. The P-38 was quite a killer in the MTO. We agree. The Mustang was too, and downed planes at a greater rate than the P-38 groups.

Fork-N-spoon
05-18-2006, 06:08 PM
Slickun, why do you keep making reference to the P-38H? The P-38J began entering service in late 1943. The P-38H production amounts to roughly 6% of the total P-38 production while the P-38J and P-38L represent roughly 75% of all P-38s produced.

8 out of every 10 P-47s that were damaged returned to base
7 out of every 10 P-38s that were damaged returned to base
6 out of every 10 P-51s that were damaged returned to base

Apparently more P-38s returned than did P-51s.

HellToupee
05-19-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Aces prove little about the aircraft and more about the person.


no but a good pilot will do much better with a good plane

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mto_aces.html

from a quick google search

What planes at the top? wheres the p38?

Fork-N-spoon
05-19-2006, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Aces prove little about the aircraft and more about the person.


no but a good pilot will do much better with a good plane

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_mto_aces.html

from a quick google search

What planes at the top? wheres the p38? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is hardly a complete list. With the Americans alone there were well over 100 fighter pilots that achieved ace status in the MTO. Half the MTO pilots that achieved ace status flew P-38s. Since most enemy destroyed in the air were achieved by pilots who never achieved ace status, looking at MTO aces is hardly conclusive. Neither does it consider the destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground or targets that MTO based fighter-bombers destroyed. When you look at the big picture of total destruction caused to the enemy, the Spitfire will be largely left out due to short range and the inability to effectively adapt to fighter-bomber missions.

Your list of aces doesn€t even account for 10% of the total aircraft shot down my American pilots.

Moreover we could conclude by your reasoning that the P-40 was the superior plane to fight the japanese with. Since more aces in the CBI flew the P-40 than did aces that flew the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined, it's the better plane by your rule.

HellToupee
05-19-2006, 06:29 AM
Moreover we could conclude by your reasoning that the P-40 was the superior plane to fight the japanese with. Since more aces in the CBI flew the P-40 than did aces that flew the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined, it's the better plane by your rule.


Well no because im not aware of any high scoring p40 pilots, the highest scored in a p40 alone was around 10 kills.

If you have such a list of 100aces then list them, if one american spitfire pilot can rack up 20+ kills, then other spitfires must have had equal oppertunities, perhaps he was the only spitfire in the theater to see any enemies.

Also spitfire could probly reach LW bases since well the LW planes wernt very long range ither since well i expect they would want to keep them in range of the front lines. The spitfire was used as airsuperority to replace p40s, were high risk airfield attacks was a great way to throw away fighters.



the Spitfire will be largely left out due to short range and the inability to effectively adapt to fighter-bomber missions.

The spitfire did perform fighter bomber missions no worse than any other inline engined fighter, the hurricane also adapted quite well as a figher bomber, even mounting 40mm cannons for use against tanks.

Its not like these planes were flying out of london to hit targets in africa.

WOLFMondo
05-19-2006, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
When you look at the big picture of total destruction caused to the enemy, the Spitfire will be largely left out due to short range and the inability to effectively adapt to fighter-bomber missions.


You might know what your talking about when it comes to US planes but you know jack about the Spitfire and that statement proves that point.

Most of the 2nd TAF's Spitfire IX's, of which it had 700-800 available were used for ground attack, even the new XIV's were used extensivly for ground attack.

I suggest you read all 3 parts of the 2nd TAF Volumes which lists the activities of the 2nd Tactical Airforce from its formation to the end of the war, this includes allot of Spitfires dropping allot of ordanance. I think it can be said with absolute certainty, no other British aircraft performed as many ground attack missions as the Spitfire did. You can probably add up the total Typhoon, Beaufighter and Mosquito ground attack sorties of WW2 and they still wouldn't equal the number of ground attack sorties 2nd TAF Spitfires made in the last 2 years of the war.

horseback
05-19-2006, 08:28 AM
I recently read an article by Col. Charles 'Sandy' McCorkle, who flew both Spit IX/VIIIs and the P51B/D with (I think) the 31st FG in the Med. When comparing the two, he said that the Spit was a bit better fighter once you made contact, but its range was a major limiting factor in making contact.

In order to get the full benefit of the Spits' qualities, his group had to base their a/c much closer to the front, with the result that they were occasionally losing a/c (and sleep) to enemy artillery. Even close to the front, they rarely made contact with the Germans, who had withdrawn their aircraft to points outside the Spitfires' reach.

Once the 31st converted to Mustangs, they were able to base them at a safer distance from the front, still cover their defensive responsibilities, and go out and look for the enemy where he was. The scoring rate increased significantly, and the carping about the Mustang's (presumably lesser) capabilities abruptly ended.

In short, unless you are in a position where the enemy has to come to you, sacrificing some of your dogfighting superiority (but but by no means ALL) for the sake of range makes excellent sense. In an offensive war, when the enemy still has defensive depth (as in the ETO prior to D-Day, and in the Med. theater), the ability to seek him out and make him fight (and lose) is more valuable.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
05-19-2006, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Slickun:


The P-38H was not as effective as the P-51 B/C/D at shooting down other A/C.

Well, it really isn't fair to compare the Merlin P-51s to the P-38H. By early 1944, the P-38J was entering service in the ETO it was a big improvement in altitude performance and range over the H model. All the P-38s certainly had far superior firepower to the P-51B.

Bremspropeller
05-19-2006, 12:14 PM
Face it, P-51s didn't win teh war.

It was all about Hitler loosing it.