PDA

View Full Version : What makes the P-38 legendary.



jugent
11-13-2005, 04:17 PM
Few a/c:s in this game is so loved or hated by pilots as the P-38.
Why do you love/hate it so much?
Have you read Bongs memoires?

Personally I think that the P-39 family a/c are the most overvalued and overmodelled a/c right now.

RAF replaced the P-39 faster than the Hurricane in the desert.

jugent
11-13-2005, 04:17 PM
Few a/c:s in this game is so loved or hated by pilots as the P-38.
Why do you love/hate it so much?
Have you read Bongs memoires?

Personally I think that the P-39 family a/c are the most overvalued and overmodelled a/c right now.

RAF replaced the P-39 faster than the Hurricane in the desert.

Low_Flyer_MkII
11-13-2005, 04:19 PM
P-39 Aircobra or P-38 Lightning? Please clarify.

VW-IceFire
11-13-2005, 04:31 PM
Yeah I'm confused...P-38 or P-39 are we on about?

The P-38 is not overmodeled. Its still somewhat on the undermodeled realm. Its climb is still not representative of the models we have present, its stall is still somewhat more violent than its made out to be by the pilot manuals, and its present damage model bestows a number of glaring problems.

Such as:
The P-38 had dual control lines in either boom for redundancy - in-game if one line is cut than so is the other (double liability)

Or:

General strength of the airframe and its resistance to enemy fire has been decreased. Fuel tanks will now burst from 500m or more with Japanese light machine gun bursts (lucky shots really) or much closer in without any effort.


But that discussion is present in another thread. I'd just thought I'd point out to you how the P-38 is not overmodeled. Infact its somewhat undermodeled when it comes right down to it.

As for the RAF's experience with the P-38...they did indeed order the Lightning Mark I. Unfortunately there were several key differences. Firstly, there was no turbosuperchargers on it (for whatever reason - there are two alternate stories about this) and so its altitude performance was weak. Secondly, RAF Lightning's had only one Allision engine type and thus both engines turned in the same direction rather than counter to each other. The RAF's experience was therefore very disatisfactory.

The Lightning's legendary status comes from its experiences in the North African Deserts, Italy, and in the Pacific. In all of these cases, the P-38 was rugged in its ability to sustain damage, reliable with its twin engines, fast due to its superb aerodynamics, and able to travel extremely long ranges.

Its experiences in Europe were not as good. A combination of problems including the cold and damp conditions, fuel problems with the engines, and the combination of high altitude operating altitudes, superb diving abilities of Bf109s and FW190s, and the compressability problems in high altitude dives meant that the P-38 was not the best fighter for high altitude operations in Europe.

However, at low altitude, the P-38 was considered a bit of a nightmare for the unwary Luftwaffe pilot as the P-38 was capable of some unique manuevers for a plane of its size. The infamous cloverleaf technique and the aircrafts general ability to hold itself in a stall turn without the flicking that a single engine (thus one direction of torque) aircraft would experience.

I'm mostly pleased with the way the 4.02 P-38s handel...its just the DM that currently makes surviving any minor hit difficult and thus quite a few dedicated P-38 pilots are a little miffed with this. Personally, as a mudmover, sustaining flak hits is important and when you suddenly loose total control of your aircraft or the entire tailsection flies off for no reason a'tall then it does become somewhat annoying. I also mudmove in FW190F-8s, Bf110s, and other types of aircraft.

WarWolfe_1
11-13-2005, 05:10 PM
3 of the top scoring US aces were made flying p-38. It was the most formidable USAAF AC in the PTO, only the hellcat had a better kill/loss ratio.

Richard "Di_ck" Bong had 40 confirmed kills in the 38. Alot of this was due to luck, by this i mean how often he engaged the enemy. Most pilots could fly 10 sorties and never see an enemy airplane. Bong encountered them nearly ever time he left the ground. He was pulled out of combat after his 40th kill, which was more than likely less than what he shot down. Sadly he was killed while test flying a P-80 on landing.

Enforcer572005
11-13-2005, 08:05 PM
it was the best fighter we had in service at the beginning of the war, at least when used properly. I thnk the corsair also had a better kill ratio, but it was still the very effective. Martin Caidens book on the p38 (forked tail devil i think) is excellent and had some well done research in it that counters alot of the criticism i see on here sometimes.

Bong and Mcquire, and several others, really racked up high scores in it, even in the early days.

once lindberg showed them how ot nurse more range out of it, htey were the longest ranging fighters in the pacific until P51s arrived late in the war.

One thing i havent seen discussed much on here (maybe i missed it) is the incredible manuverability that could be had using differential throttle, which we can use in htis sim. I wonder if much experimentation has been carried out by any1 on that.

Kuna15
11-14-2005, 03:07 AM
I like the P-38 mainly because it looks really cool and have good nose armament which I prefer. And it is good performer too as a fighter and GAttack plane...

stathem
11-14-2005, 03:12 AM
From The Aeroplane, October 1940

"Many reports from the USA in recent weeks, given prominence in the lay press, have spoken of new "500 m.p.h. interceptors". The machine usually mentioned as endowed with this fantastic speed is the Lockheed P-38 single seat fighter. These stories seem to be founded on an announcement made by Maj. Gen. Henry H. Arnold, Cheif of the US Army Air Corps, when he visited the Lockheed aircraft plant last month. He described the P-38 as "the world's fastest", and said it could fly at 500 m.p.h., cruise 1,100 miles and climb 4,000ft per minute.
Either the Americans haev discovered a wonderful new law of motion, or Gen. Arnold is talking through his hat. At present no aeroplane in the world has reached a speed of 500 m.p.h. in level flight, although there are quite a number of new types, heavily armed too, which are doing well over 400 m.p.h. It is a pity that, once again, we have to throw doubts on the American claims. Unfortunatley, our friends in America delight in "shooting a line" about some of their products - a practice which invites suspiscion that they suffer from **CENSORED**"

F19_Ob
11-14-2005, 04:01 AM
to continue on what others said....

The stallturn capability gave the p38 possibility to pull off climbs wich single engined planes could not follow easily. When it reached the stall in climb it could pull some more with less effort and the plane flew on smoothly, while single engined planes would flip when closing stall if trying to pull, not only because the tourque would throw the plane out of aim , and the turn, but also because the single-engined pilot had to push full rudder all the way to manage the climb and on top this also was a cause to flip.

The torquefree stall enabled the P-38 to pull of things like "pulling" streamers (vapor from wingtips) almost until the wheels touched down when landing. No other allied plane could do this trick although others tried but with disaster as result.

With this said, the 109 G2 was probably better in close combat although it was at great risk in a furball situation because of the p38'armament, wich was one of the reasons for its success in africa. If the p38 only would had machineguns it would have been considerably degraded.

Problems with P38 was that u had to be trained on two engines and the general management was tricky wich hindered ok pilots to use it to its full capacity, wich many of the senior experts stated.
The enormous cost of mantaining two engines and the high level of experience required to fly it are perhaps the main reasons for it being replaced by single engined types.


In the sim the p38 really wont survive in a dogfight with 109's from G2 and up (according to me). The reason is that the 109 can stay inside in any maneuver the P38 can do. sometimes a p38 may use its divebrakes but that is easy to counter by extending above it and dive down when its slow.
I Gladly fly the p38 anyway but I know any victory over a 109 is because of lucky placement in the beginning of the fight.

I have so far denyed all p38's to point their guns at me while flying a 109 although I sometimes, softhearted as I am, eas up on my turns and let inferior planes take a few shots and return home with atleast one victory that evening. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BSS_CUDA
11-14-2005, 08:25 AM
it was sleek, elegant, fast and gracefull.
it could do EVERYTHING well from Jabo to Dogfighting, from longrange combat to recon missions. it took the war TO Germany long before the 51 was around. it had an incredible climb matched by few other prop aircraft ot its era, it was incrediably nimble for a fighter of it size. it could perform manouevers impossible for any single engine aircraft. it could carry payload unmatched by anything in its class during the war. below 25,000 feet it was rivaled by few in a dog fight. and it was the only U.S. fighter to be produced from before the war till its conclusion. the p-38 was truly an extrorodinary plane.

SALUTE Kelly Johnson and his creation the P-38 Lightning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

jugent
11-14-2005, 03:08 PM
What is needed to be clarify?
I asked about the P-38 and stated my opinion about the P-39

faustnik
11-14-2005, 03:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:


Personally I think that the P-39 family a/c are the most overvalued and overmodelled a/c right now.

RAF replaced the P-39 faster than the Hurricane in the desert. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


How is the P-39 overmodeled? P-39 performance was very good under 15,000 feet. P-39s were faster than any other Lend Lease a/c tested by the Soviets in 1943 (including the Hurri II, Spit Vb, and P-40E) . The Cobra also had the best climb rate and an excellent turn rate. For pure firepower the Cobra was tops too.

berg417448
11-14-2005, 03:32 PM
The main RAF complaints about the P-39 were the drop in performance above 20,000 feet, its spin and spin recovery tendencies. They also complained about short range on internal fuel. Some reported that fumes would fill the cockpit after firing the guns. These flaws were often exaggerated however. They did admit that it was competitive with the Bf-109 at low to medium altitude.

Soviet pilots also reported handling problems, primarily spinning. Some had problems with the radio. But overall the Russians were very satisfied with the P-39. They liked its low altitude speed and maneuverability, and its armament.

The air war on the Eastern Front suited the P-39. No long range, high altitude, strategic type bombing.Only tactical bombing at medium and low altitudes. On this type of battlefield the P-39 seemd to be matched well with early and mid-war Bf-109s.

Aleksandr Pokryshkin (59 kills), Aleksandr Gulaev (57 kills), and Grigoriy Rechkalov (56 kills) all attained a large portion of their kills while flying the P-39.

jugent
11-14-2005, 03:46 PM
Yes if the P-39 only fullfilled what you write but it is fast and climbs very well above 15000 feet to.
It bleeds little E, it can take almoust as much damage as the P-47, it is very stable.
It can outspeed a Kurfurst or a Dora in dive.

The Soviet union according to my sources, took away much armour of it.

They liked it because it was reliable and it got a radio.
It seems as if the P-39 was more thoroughly assembled than many Laggs and La:s
There were many reports about the low quality in the assembly line of many soviet products.
The prototype, and the overall idea was in many aspects very good, but the industrial production wasnt so god.

A friend of mine owned a Dniepr motorcycle. He had to take it apart, clean and correct many parts. The idea was sound (German BMW-copy)

One report about this was that the pilots should check that the undercarriged was totaly up, othervise it would cause more drag.

The P-39 was used for basic pilot training and for firepractise with plastic? bullets.

RAF got some P-39 wings in the desert but they where replaced ASAP.
They replaced the P-39 by Typhoons? Tempest? before they replaced the Hurricane.
What would you choose to fly in this game, Hurri or P-39.
Perhaps is the Hurri undermodelled.

They gave the P-39 to the Soviet union toghter with Spits that had so many hours that it would be scrapped.
They also gave the M3 Lee tank to the russians in 1943.
It would have been obsolete 1941.
It was used against Tigers and Panters at the battle of Kursk.
Lets say that US/UK didnt bring their best equipment to Soviet Union.

The gun had such a recoil that the pilots where afraid to fire it.

Gibbage1
11-14-2005, 03:53 PM
Beggers cant be choosers. Russia did wonders with the P-39 and other equipment we gave them. The P-39 was very well suited for the war on that front. Some of the top Russian aces scored the bulk of there kills in the P-39. As for the US and UK not giving the Russians good stuff, the P-63 was a very good fighter and we gave them 2000+ of them. Also we gave a lot of PBY Catalina's. They may not be the most shining examples of the best equipment we had, but at least it was something! Would you prefer we gave them nothing?

berg417448
11-14-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:



RAF got some P-39 wings in the desert but they where replaced ASAP.
They replaced the P-39 by Typhoons? Tempest? before they replaced the Hurricane.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


In many cases the P-39 was replaced by Spitfires.

VW-IceFire
11-14-2005, 09:09 PM
I think we've been trolled...the original poster never came back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAF didn't have any P-39s in the desert to my knowledge. All P-39s were sent to the Russians.

Typhoons were trialed in the desert with tropical air filters (no problem to be fitted in that monsterous intake) but were never sent in operational squadrons. I think they were considered too valuable and busy over the channel.

Grey_Mouser67
11-14-2005, 09:25 PM
The ingame P-38 suffers from poor compressibility and elevator modelling too. In real life it was a fantastic B/Z plane with devastating gunfire...something about its guns isn't right in game...I just don't know what it is. I find a G2 cannon/LMG configuration to be just as powerful as the Lightning albiet with a little less ammo...I'm thinking it is a ROF and/or shaking/dispersion issue but I really don't know.

In game, the J model has a poor climb rate compared to its real life contemporary. I think the plane is legendary because it is so unique. The only successful twin engined fighter of the war...it was the fastest at the beginning of the war and was the first to experience compressibility which was not understood and created myths that we currently see modelled.

As far as its altitude performance in Europe, I have come to understand that the majority of the problem was with the intercoolers and above 27,000 ft it was unable to pull and sustain max horsepower. This left it vulnerable and due to compressibility, it just couldn't dive away at that altitude either....if the fight began below that altitude and especially below 20,000 ft it was a match and then some for anything it fought. The J and the definitive L model were awesome dogfighters that had been relagated mostly ground attack so they have some of the unknown mystique of the late model Luftwaffe planes...how good were they??? In the Luftwaffe's case, we don't know because of lack of good pilots and sufficient numbers and in the case of the P-38, it was mostly moving mud so didn't see so much air to air...but when it did, the J and L model often dominated.

The P-39 was overmodelled and might be in some cases, but as near as I can tell the only plane that seems to be overbaked is the P-39D-2. It outperforms the N and has a higher horsepower engine...maybe that is what it had, but I can't find references to the engine 1590HP that is listed in the viewer. The D-1 has like 1150hp and the N has 1400something....doesn't seem right to me but like I said, I can't confirm or deny it.

What is badly modelled is that spin...not that you get into it easily, but everytime and I do mean EVERYTIME I stall I immediately go into an unrecoverable flat spin....sorry, it had poor handling in real life and was prone to violent and dangerous stalls but there would not have been any P-39 veterns left if it were that much a death trap.

Remember, the P-39 was successful in Russia and not in the US...different applications and different cultural values...it shows in the modelling too.

Professor_06
11-14-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Yes if the P-39 only fullfilled what you write but it is fast and climbs very well above 15000 feet to.
It bleeds little E, it can take almoust as much damage as the P-47, it is very stable.
It can outspeed a Kurfurst or a Dora in dive.

The Soviet union according to my sources, took away much armour of it.

They liked it because it was reliable and it got a radio.
It seems as if the P-39 was more thoroughly assembled than many Laggs and La:s
There were many reports about the low quality in the assembly line of many soviet products.
The prototype, and the overall idea was in many aspects very good, but the industrial production wasnt so god.

A friend of mine owned a Dniepr motorcycle. He had to take it apart, clean and correct many parts. The idea was sound (German BMW-copy)

One report about this was that the pilots should check that the undercarriged was totaly up, othervise it would cause more drag.

The P-39 was used for basic pilot training and for firepractise with plastic? bullets.

RAF got some P-39 wings in the desert but they where replaced ASAP.
They replaced the P-39 by Typhoons? Tempest? before they replaced the Hurricane.
What would you choose to fly in this game, Hurri or P-39.
Perhaps is the Hurri undermodelled.

They gave the P-39 to the Soviet union toghter with Spits that had so many hours that it would be scrapped.
They also gave the M3 Lee tank to the russians in 1943.
It would have been obsolete 1941.
It was used against Tigers and Panters at the battle of Kursk.
Lets say that US/UK didnt bring their best equipment to Soviet Union.

The gun had such a recoil that the pilots where afraid to fire it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comrade; Russians were lucky. Russians got the M3. We should have given Russians the Shermans, they were really terrible. Russian pilot accounts of the P39 give it a very high rating. Better than Mig or La3 or early Yak. BTW Those Merchant Marines who lost their life supplying Russia with war supplies would be frowning at your comments. Your welcome...Jeesh.

jugent
11-15-2005, 01:25 AM
I have no objections against allieds helped Soviet Union. Uncle Joe was a massmurder as Mao Tze **** Pol Pot, and AH.
The best help Soviet got from US/UK was rolling stock for the railroads and Corned Beef for the soldiers, food supply.

As for the RAF use of aircobra
¨
I quote

"The Airacobra served successfully in the ground-attack role in North Africa, and in the Pacific theater, until more powerful fighters began replacing it in 1944.

The Airacobra, though hampered by its lack of a turbocharger, was a very satisfactory low-altitude attack airplane, and served as faithfully as any other combat aircraft."

Check http://www.warbirdalley.com/p39.htm

Isnt it very good at high altitude although it feed by its own sucking.

darkhorizon11
11-15-2005, 02:10 AM
You never give away your most secret weapons not even to your allies...

mynameisroland
11-15-2005, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
You never give away your most secret weapons not even to your allies... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless your British and you actually believe your Allies have good intentions.

faustnik
11-15-2005, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Yes if the P-39 only fullfilled what you write but it is fast and climbs very well above 15000 feet to.
It bleeds little E, it can take almoust as much damage as the P-47, it is very stable.
It can outspeed a Kurfurst or a Dora in dive.

The Soviet union according to my sources, took away much armour of it.

They liked it because it was reliable and it got a radio.
It seems as if the P-39 was more thoroughly assembled than many Laggs and La:s
There were many reports about the low quality in the assembly line of many soviet products.
The prototype, and the overall idea was in many aspects very good, but the industrial production wasnt so god. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outdiving a Dora? Outspeeding a Bf109K? I don't think so. Look at IL-2 Compare the Cobra's performance fall off rapidly over 10,000 feet.

The USAAF and the RAF were looking for high altitude performance. Without a supercharger, the V-1710 started losing power at the altitudes the Western Allies were fighting at. The Soviets fought on the deck where the Cobra was right at home.

The early P-39s that the Western Allies flew ran a maximum of 1150 hp. By 1942, the P-39D-2s were coming off the line with a rating of 1590hp. It was heavier than the Bf109s it faced but, had excelent aerodynamics for low drag resulting in excellent dive and zoom characteristics. If you think all the Soviets liked about the Cobra was the radio, read more about it.

The Soviet Cobras were modified by removing the .30 wing guns and rear oil tank armor. Ballast was added to the nose of the plane to further shift the COG. The result was a lighter a/c with a better center of gravity. Using almost entirely P-39s, Pokryshkin was credited with shooting down 59 LW aircraft.

Professor_06
11-15-2005, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
You never give away your most secret weapons not even to your allies... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I was watching a history channel special on the Browning Automatic Rifle(BAR). It entered service just as the US entered WWI. troops were not allowed to us it as to fears that it would fall into Germans hands and be replicated. Many soliers lost their lives on Flander Field using oudated and poorly designed weapons. Just strikes me funny that you develop a gun as war weapon and dont use it during an actual war because it is so good. Im sure the Generals didnt want the French or British to have the technology too. Real military genius. (sarcasm)

jugent
11-15-2005, 11:59 AM
Dont look at IL2-compare its a source of desinformation.

Case P-39 I flew FW-190 D9 1945, I met a P-39 head to head at 4.5 k. Put my throttle from 80% to 100% Continued my flight without changing speed or course.
Looked behind and the P-39 was chasing me and aproaching my 6.
When I saw his tag, (Icons where on), I dowe down made a slow turn to come over my own territory and decending to 4 k and found the P-39 on my 9 aclock slightly above me, 4.2 4 k, rolled underneat him and dived down, held my speed at 800-750 km/h and the P-39 zoomed up my 6, and shoot and took my wing off.

Assumption 1 the Dora is supposed to be the fastest plane at 5k.
Assumption 2, the Dora is supposed to have superb acceleration in dive, and second only to P-47 and Mustang in diving.

Next encounter;
I flew the Me-109 G6 nose-gun at 4.5k. Sneaked up behind a P-39, he saw me when I was at 200 m behind his 6, fired a burst MG and hit him with 15+ shots according to my hits from stats.

The P-39 dived I followed, he gained speed and started to climb at aprox 4-3.8k, I followed him knowing that he probably would outdive me, but he started a zoom-climb. During the climb the distance between us became larger, on 100 km/h I wingtipped over my right wing and made spiral-dive and tried to hold my speed below 350 km/h and stayed on the edge of blackout.

The P-39 followed me down and curved inside my spiral-dive and shoot my engine to stop.
Assumption 1. The Me-109 G6 should outclimb a P-39 at that altitude.
Assumption 2. A G6 should outcurve the P-39.

Non of this seems to be true by the IL2 Compare

faustnik
11-15-2005, 12:37 PM
Jugent,

A couple observations on your encounters...

You don't know what the initial speed of the P-39 was. Dive seperation is not great for all planes. You need a lot of altitude to gain seperation. The P-39 was a somewhat heavy plane with low drag, it could dive well. To be honest, I have not found much that can stay with me in a dive when I fly the Dora.

The Bg109G6 should have no turn advantage over the late P-39, why do you think it should? The Bf109 might be superior in sustained climb but, the P-39 would have the advantage in zoom climb.

You can't judge the modeling of an a/c just because you got shot down a couple of times online.

Bremspropeller
11-15-2005, 12:41 PM
"Loosing one engine is always better than loosing THE engine" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

darkhorizon11
11-15-2005, 02:03 PM
Well the British America alliance is an exception. Remember our alliance with the Soviets was more of an alliance of convience than of friendship. Enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of deal.

Another example of this is between the British and the France, the French weren't to happy with the British when they refused to send the Spitfire across the channel during the invasion in 1940 for the same reason the US refused to use the BAR in WWI. Though the Germans got there grubby fingers on a couple Spits later on anyway.

The B-29 was never sent to the Soviets (although they managed to build a duplicate anyway) either.

jugent
11-16-2005, 08:17 AM
I have no idea about the initial speed of the P39 but I assume that no plane shall be able to make a 180dgr turn and race up to another plane flying at high speed.
The P-39 was good at low altitude, without manifold pressure it loose its power quick at high altitude.
Its an anomali that a plane shall be fast, turn good, climb fast, dive well and shall have high dive- maxspeed.
I have had the overall feeling that the P-39 is somewhat too good.
I think that its a remain of the old FB-DM when it wasnt so fine tuned.

MEGILE
11-16-2005, 08:24 AM
anyone else find the topic title ironic?

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 08:46 AM
spits where retained in england cos the battle of france was lost. it was lost on the ground. germans first met the spits around dunkirk, (in numbers anyways)

RAF aircraft avoided dunkirk due to the AA. sometimes they hid in the clouds of smoke rising there

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 08:47 AM
incidently, the russians used anything they could to remove the nazi invaders http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

19,000russians PER DAY died to defeat the nazis http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Daiichidoku
11-16-2005, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
incidently, the russians used anything they could to remove the nazi invaders http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

19,000russians PER DAY died to defeat the nazis http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

is that 19,000 a day dead by result of fighting germans directly, or does that include uncle joe's own special contribution? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif