PDA

View Full Version : OT - C999 > A slomo FW flip tactic



KaleunFreddie
06-24-2006, 04:37 PM
I've been at the game for 3-4 years and have settled exclusively on the FW190.. a truely beautiful plane, when you get to know 'her'.

Anyway here's a slomo movie on how the superior roll-rate of a FW can turn the tables on the 'half-asleep'. This is against AI, but works just as well on-line.
FW-Flip (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/FW_Flip.avi)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-24-2006, 04:37 PM
I've been at the game for 3-4 years and have settled exclusively on the FW190.. a truely beautiful plane, when you get to know 'her'.

Anyway here's a slomo movie on how the superior roll-rate of a FW can turn the tables on the 'half-asleep'. This is against AI, but works just as well on-line.
FW-Flip (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Movies/FW_Flip.avi)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

turnip_tick
06-24-2006, 05:30 PM
After watching the clip I have two observations.

1 OT my Uboat dont fly

2 your lucky he was closing too fast and didnt shoot you down when at point blank range. As a flight simmer myself I can tell you that convergence range for the guns is X yards/meters and the russian plane should have stayed at that range where his weapons are the most effective and blasted the FW out of the sky. roll rate is nice but given the proper range and superior turn rate and most importantly tactics the FW should never win a fight. it is a boom and zoom plane, the lagg, mustang, IL, spit etc. all out dive the FW meaning that FW boy either pulls out or dies in a dive. in short if you cant turn in a dogfight you cant win. roll rate is nice but if i keep you 500 yards in front of me i can and will negate roll rate with superior turn rate. nice vid though.

KaleunFreddie
06-24-2006, 07:33 PM
I'm totally 'plastered' / wrecked / unsociable ... but I would interject to this ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
After watching the clip I have two observations.
1 OT my Uboat dont fly
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mine ..actually does..
kaleun Freddie is 'INCINCIBLE'

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2 your lucky he was closing too fast and didnt shoot you down when at point blank range. As a flight simmer myself I can tell you that convergence range for the guns is X yards/meters and the russian plane should have stayed at that range where his weapons are the most effective and blasted the FW out of the sky. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is an excellent point.....Where did you say you did your Applied Maths Degree..??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
.. roll rate is nice but given the proper range and superior turn rate and most importantly tactics the FW should never win a fight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
.. of course... which side are you actually supporting ??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
it is a boom and zoom plane, the lagg, mustang, IL, spit etc. all out dive the FW meaning that FW boy either pulls out or dies in a dive. in short if you cant turn in a dogfight you cant win. roll rate is nice but if i keep you 500 yards in front of me i can and will negate roll rate with superior turn rate. nice vid though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're a dreamer, englander/amerikaner... I can outturn you in a FW190 (any one) or a ME109... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

turnip_tick
06-24-2006, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KaleunFreddie:
I'm totally 'plastered' / wrecked / unsociable ... but I would interject to this ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
After watching the clip I have two observations.
1 OT my Uboat dont fly
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mine ..actually does..
kaleun Freddie is 'INCINCIBLE'

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2 your lucky he was closing too fast and didnt shoot you down when at point blank range. As a flight simmer myself I can tell you that convergence range for the guns is X yards/meters and the russian plane should have stayed at that range where his weapons are the most effective and blasted the FW out of the sky. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is an excellent point.....Where did you say you did your Applied Maths Degree..??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
.. roll rate is nice but given the proper range and superior turn rate and most importantly tactics the FW should never win a fight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
.. of course... which side are you actually supporting ??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
it is a boom and zoom plane, the lagg, mustang, IL, spit etc. all out dive the FW meaning that FW boy either pulls out or dies in a dive. in short if you cant turn in a dogfight you cant win. roll rate is nice but if i keep you 500 yards in front of me i can and will negate roll rate with superior turn rate. nice vid though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're a dreamer, englander/amerikaner... I can outturn you in a FW190 (any one) or a ME109... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you don't need any type of math degree to know that all guns/cannons are aimed at a given point ahead of the plane and that firing at an opponent from at that range gives you the best chance of a kill period. perhaps you feel you need some education to comprehend this.


which side am i actually supporting??? neither. I am an aviation buff, WWII is my favorite era but since you asked all i will say is that tactics and training are indeed very important in combat, either in U boats or in the air. ask your math proffesor he will tell you all about it.



and lastley, the boom and zoom tactics are about using high speed and superior climbing keep a fight in the vertical, the 190 was good at this, but as i said if you can't keep a sustained turn then you lose. again ask your math teacher about it.

but now for the fun part.

the P 51 had a higher top speed.
the P 51 had an advantage in turn rate
the P 51 had the better combat record VS the FW 190 in short the mustang owned the skies over germany in the last year of the war.
the 190 had a better roll rate and a better climb rate, but as i said this isn't enough.
we have actual war records to fall back on so feel free to call me what ever you wish, feel free to hold me as much contempt as you wish but in the end i am not dreaming about the real world war records of the two they are out there do some research. and as i said in the vid you posted the mistake the offensive pilot made was to get too close thus allowing the defensive pilot an escape. and as you yourself said the other guy needs to be half asleep. in the video it was a nice move that allowed him to escape but against a pilot that knows his A/C you would have died. the offensive pilot did not do a lag pursuit move allowing him to stay on his six.
son you got a lot to learn about aerial combat me thinks you are a bit of a dreamer

and BTW since you seem to think nationality is important here then make me an American. I don't care where your from because either way the introduction of the P 51 turned the tide of the air war in europe in 1944, and that aint no dream or math lesson. its history.

Celeon999
06-25-2006, 03:18 AM
Somehow i cant see the vid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif


My mediaplayer connects but does not recieve anything .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Fish40
06-25-2006, 06:17 AM
Same here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-25-2006, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Celeon999:
Somehow i cant see the vid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif


My mediaplayer connects but does not recieve anything .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there is a problem with that web-server. I've been unable to login for 2 days now. will let you know early next week
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-25-2006, 08:33 AM
Turnip... i was pulling your leg ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Remember it was the US/allies production ability that won the war, and to a lesser extent aircraft capabilities. Fielding forces en-mass just overloaded the Axis defence capabilities.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Bobario
06-25-2006, 11:19 AM
Kaleun, it was Hitlers obsession with conquering the whole of Europe which brought about the demise of Germany during the war. Once he attacked Russia the war was as good as over. take no notice of Turnip and his P-51 obsession, it was the Spitfire which won the war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

turnip_tick
06-25-2006, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KaleunFreddie:
Turnip... i was pulling your leg ?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Remember it was the US/allies production ability that won the war, and to a lesser extent aircraft capabilities. Fielding forces en-mass just overloaded the Axis defence capabilities.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oops sorry.

i stand down then

turnip_tick
06-25-2006, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TommyAtkins1966:
Kaleun, it was Hitlers obsession with conquering the whole of Europe which brought about the demise of Germany during the war. Once he attacked Russia the war was as good as over. take no notice of Turnip and his P-51 obsession, it was the Spitfire which won the war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

now now you know better.

the spit didn't escort the bombers into berlin. it was the mustang that enabled daylight bombing.
the brits were in fact losing the war until the americans brought their B17s to the sand bbox to play, and even they had tremendous losses until the P 51D showed up.
http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

so to get the record straight on this matter, i have no obsession with the P51 at all, as i said i am an aviation buff WWII specifically, and i have, as they say, no dog in the fight. i really don't care which plane was better at what, makes no difference to me at all. i just look at the sixty year old history. as for why i don't think the spit or hurricane deserve the title, its because of short range, light weapons .303 gun is a fine deer rifle but as anyone who knows can tell you the fw 190 were built like tanks a 30 cal. machine gun just didnt pack the punch required.

by now im sure that you think that i am pro american hardware and anti everyone elses. so in fairness the A6M5 was by far the best plane in the pacific, japan had some of the most diciplined troops in the world and germany led the world in technology, V1 V2 their planes were among the best in the world their battleships out classed the worlds, the Abomb came from german ideas and wa born from german minds. so you need to get off my back about it, i have no obbsession with the P51 and the spit didnt save the world ask your teacher next time your in school. the turning point of the battle of britain was the arrival of the 8th AF. if you cant see that then your own nationalism is clouding your vision.

Kaleun1961
06-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Turnip Tick, I have to disagree somewhat with your statement that the Brits were losing the war until the B-17's arrived. Do you mean the war in general or the air war? In either case, I have to disagree. After 1940, there was no way the Luftwaffe was going to have its way over Britain, with or without the USAAF. The air war went from Britain being on the ropes to holding her own against the Luftwaffe and taking it to the Germans via night bombing, although not as effectively as the USAAF would. After 1940, there was also no way the Germans were ever going to be able to land in Britain. In North Africa, the Brits were able eventually to bring Rommel to heel and then push him back. So, I have to disagree that the British were losing the war. They may not have been "winning" it, but now winning does not equate to losing, at least as far as I understand it.

The Spitfire is often acclaimed as the plane that won the Battle of Britain, but it was the humble Hurricane which bore the brunt until Spitfires could be produced and deployed in sufficient numbers. The Hurricane and the Spitfire helped stem the Axis tide and give the Germans their first setback. By the time Hitler rolled into Russia, the Luftwaffe was still licking its wounds from 1940 and had not replaced all of its losses.

The Brits laid the groundwork for the Allies by keeping itself in the war when everybody else [Joseph Kennedy, for one!] thought they were done for. I do recognize the American contribution toward eventual victory while they were yet neutral, via Lend Lease, for example. The Brits [and Canucks, Anzacs, etc.] held the line until the Americans could get into the action.

Once the Americans came into the war, if Hitler's fate was not yet sealed by the Reds, it certainly was doomed now that it was fighting two angry giants. The most important contribution the US made toward victory was ripping the guts out of the Luftwaffe. Superior numbers, aircraft and training enabled them to shred the Luftwaffe. Yet it was not until the introduction of the Mustang that they prevailed. Once they could escort bombers into the heart of Germany and back the Luftwaffe was doomed. Without the Luftwaffe, the Wehrmacht was also doomed.

The Germans put some good planes into the air. While those planes were flown by good men, they didn't do too badly. But superior numbers prevailed. Germany also began to suffer from fuel shortages and could no longer adequately train her new pilots. The Hurricane and Spitfire kept the Allies in the fight; the Mustang finished the fight. In the grand scheme of things, the Red Air Force really didn't fit into it. The Western Allies shredded the Luftwaffe; the Red Air Force took advantage of the German weakness and used their numbers to devestate the Wehrmacht with their Sturmoviks and other ground attack aircraft. Although they also put some good fighters into the air, they were not responsible in the main for wrecking the Luftwaffe.

Celeon999
06-25-2006, 12:38 PM
Well i would say that the air battle over britain was lost because of Hitler‚¬īs obsession with taking revenge for something...


The RAF was on its knees and one small step before total breakdown as a german bomber accidently dropped its bombs over London due to bad sight and an navigational error.

After the british revenge attack on Berlin a day later , Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to commence those idiotic revenge bombardments of London instead of keeping the attack focus on the RAF airfields.

Even G√¬∂ring was urging not to draw the focus away from the RAF.

In an memorandum he reminded Hitler that the RAF is nearly finished and that it is vital to keep the airfields under constant attack to destroy as much planes and kill as much pilots as possible....

It was upmost important to lure the RAF 24hrs a day into dogfights , not just to shoot them down but also to stress the british pilots to get them tired and to make them break under the pressure.

The attacks on London were the time to take breath again that the RAF needed to bring the airplane production back up again and train new pilots.


The pressure couldn‚¬īt be kept as the fighters were now needed to babysitt the bombers heading for London.


And dont forget that the Luftwaffe had the biggest amount of aces and kills in entire ww-2.

The Luftwaffe flying aces had an average of 200 confirmed kills per ace... now show me how much allied pilots you can find that can keep up with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


For example Erich "Bubi" Hartmann with 352 confirmed kills http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

cpt_Alex2006
06-25-2006, 12:51 PM
Celeon's on the mark here, Hitler took the pressure off the RAF and then the big wing formations came up. London raids also took escorts to their limit on range, all the RAF had to do was engage the Luftwaffe long enough to make them ditch in the channel on the way home.

Alex

Celeon999
06-25-2006, 01:01 PM
Major Erich "Bubi" Hartmann @ wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


or

Hermann_Graf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Graf)

or

Walter Nowotny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nowotny)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-25-2006, 01:06 PM
You're right there C999, but the german pilots, like their japanes counterparts, AFAIK, were not rotated like the allied pilots. There was not enough pilots in the latter years.
The luftwaffe had a sky full of targets and at first could choose their time and place. This left a gazillion allied pilots wondering where the Luftwaffe was. With the advent of the merlin engined mustang did the luftwaffe then have a problem.

We must remember that on the eastern front, it took the russians 3.5 years to recover the land that the germans covered in 6 months. On the western front it took 6 years to recover france plus germany, that the wehrmacht took in about 2 months.
This says a great deal on German military ability for that era.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Celeon999
06-25-2006, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but the german pilots, like their japanes counterparts, AFAIK, were not rotated like the allied pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


But remember.......the Luftwaffe is still watching you all from above ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/4845/imagepopup4ci.jpg
http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/2237/img278520eurofighter20typhoon8.jpg



And this time......we come with new allies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

They already carry our flag ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4659/bild066402cl.jpg

Bewolf
06-25-2006, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the P 51 had a higher top speed.
the P 51 had an advantage in turn rate
the P 51 had the better combat record VS the FW 190 in short the mustang owned the skies over germany in the last year of the war.
the 190 had a better roll rate and a better climb rate, but as i said this isn't enough.
we have actual war records to fall back on so feel free to call me what ever you wish, feel free to hold me as much contempt as you wish but in the end i am not dreaming about the real world war records of the two they are out there do some research. and as i said in the vid you posted the mistake the offensive pilot made was to get too close thus allowing the defensive pilot an escape. and as you yourself said the other guy needs to be half asleep. in the video it was a nice move that allowed him to escape but against a pilot that knows his A/C you would have died. the offensive pilot did not do a lag pursuit move allowing him to stay on his six.
son you got a lot to learn about aerial combat me thinks you are a bit of a dreamer

and BTW since you seem to think nationality is important here then make me an American. I don't care where your from because either way the introduction of the P 51 turned the tide of the air war in europe in 1944, and that aint no dream or math lesson. its history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uhm...dun want to start an argument, but some things have to be said here.

What version of the P51? What version of the 190 or the 109?

Let's take the latest variants deployed in numbers of each plane and you will notice, that both the 190D9 and the 109K4 had a high top speed then the P51D. Also, the 109 enjoyed a much better turn then the P51 under 400 kph.
FW190D9 and P51 were about equal in near every regard, with top speed and roll rate going to the Focke Wulf, turn rate barely going to the 51. Hugest advantage was its range and laminar wing profil which resultet in a very good energy saving despite the Mustang beeing quite underpowered compared to other planes. Hence the slow accelaration but high top speed and boom and zoom capabilities.

2. The Mustang did a lot but turn the tide of the war. When it came to the ETO in numbers in 1943, the war pretty much was decided already. Kursk was over, the Wehrmacht lost it in the east and was driven back with full force. When the bo,bers came back to germany in early 44 with their escorts, there was nothing to turn anymore. Also, at the height of the allied bombing campaign, the german industrial output was highest. the bombing strategy such is doubtful at best, but that is debateable.

3. You speak about fighter tactics, but it appears you got your ideas out of IL2. In reality, the 190 was famous for its much superior roll rate at hgh speeds (not adequatly modelled in this game), using it in sciccors and other rolls much to its advantage. Staying at 500 yards is one of the dumbest things one could do in a dogfight back in the days. You deny yourself a good shot at the target cuz that is way too far away while at the same time beeing a perfect target for others. not smart at all. If at all you should try to gain energy over the 190 and boom and zoom it yourself. There is a reason wigh turn and burn aircraft were on the loosing side of world war II.

Sorry if that came over as a bit too agressive or offending, but some of the things said here sound smore like the usual old hollywood and US
clichés.

Kaleun1961
06-25-2006, 06:43 PM
Yeah, the Luftwaffe had a lot of super aces. Not to denigrate their record, but most of those high career scores were earned on the Eastern Front. Nonetheless, there were a number of Luftwaffe aces who had high scores against the Western forces, such as Molders, Marseilles, Galland, etc. There just weren't enough of them to go around and their opponents didn't run out of planes and pilots, no matter how many they shot down.

As far as the US strategic bombing results, it was a mixed bag as far as results go. It took quite some time to get it right. And by right, I mean to figure out the right targets. First priority was to hamper the Luftwaffe's factories. At some point it was decided to hit the German oil production, which finally hit the jackpot. Soon the Luftwaffe didn't have enough fuel to properly train their pilots, and thanks to the P-51, there weren't safe skies in which to train them. The main goal of the strategic bombing campaign was to cripple German industry. Indirectly, as a result of pursuing their strategic bombing campaign, they did achieve the success of destroying most of the Luftwaffe.

True, German production achieved records in 1944. However, that production peaked around September, 1944 and dropped off precipitously. German transport was heavily hit and this hampered their ability to move troops and supplies about. Combine that with fuel shortages and the Wehrmacht was running on empty. Their Ardennes offensive was doomed to fail, relying as it did on capturing enemy fuel dumps and adhering to a strict time schedule, which was thrown off by the 101st at Bastogne.

On paper, the Luftwaffe remained potent with many available fighters. But it lacked the pilots and fuel to fly them.

Messervy
06-25-2006, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
i just look at the sixty year old history. as for why i don't think the spit or hurricane deserve the title, its because of short range, light weapons .303 gun is a fine deer rifle but as anyone who knows can tell you the fw 190 were built like tanks a 30 cal. machine gun just didnt pack the punch required. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you take another look at that same sixty year old history you will also find out that by the time the Mustang arrived in European battlefileds the Spitfire was armed with four .05 and two 20 mm cannons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

turnip_tick
06-25-2006, 08:40 PM
excellent, I have sparked intelegent discussion. which believe it or not was the real point.

so in reverse order i will try to answer some of the points.

@ messervy, yes the spit did adopt better guns but this was as a result of seeing the short comings and learning from the experiences of more heavily armed aircraft. as i said the .303 is a deer round the 190 is a tank. they realized they need harder hitting guns and so they got them. my original comments on the guns topic were mainly in regard to pre-USAAF.

@ bewolf yes you are correct 500 yards is too far i misspoke. i should have said 500 ft.that is nearly 200 yards. i mixed my metaphore here. when i said turnning the tide, i didnt mean of the whole war. i meant the battle of brittain. that statement could be debated i guess, but i certainly did not mean to say that P51s escorting B17s allowed the raids on polesti. there are a lot of reasons why germany lost the war on the larger scale, i am talking only of this one battle. when i speak of fighter tactics i am not speaking of IL2, while i do own a copy i dont "fly" it much. as i said the 190 does out roll almost everything at that time, this may or may not be modeled accuratly in IL2 i really dont know, that is a game and i wasnt talking about a game. i don't know if you saw the video that sparked this whole discussion, if you can download then please do and you will see why i said what i did. in the video the offensive plane closes to around 100 feet and does not fire a single shot then and only then does the defensive plane break low and left to escape. my comments were about fly close formation with him and not shooting him. a scissors manouver is a neutral move where neither plane has an advantage. AT THE START OF THE MANOUVER then plane with the superior roll will eventually win in a scissors move because of the roll reversals but again with regard to this video there was no rolling scissors. i would also dissagree that the more manouverable plane always looses then zero owned the skies against early us planes. it is tactics and fighting within your envelop that makes the difference. which leads me to my last point and your first, the 109 had a better turn than the 51 below about 320 MPH thats true, but a battleship could out turn a 51 that slow, the mustang and the 190 109 262 163 stuka etc etc etc all need to be flown at their respective max performance envelopes, if the mustang pilot gets sukered below 300 then he deserves to get shot down. we need to keep the discussion about max performance figures to be accurate. and no offense taken at all. it seems as though some are thinking that i am trying to say that the 51 could win every time without trying, i am not saying that at all. both the 190 and the 51 were very close in performance with the 190 taking some areas and the 51 taking others. but back to the video, i might add its game footage from IL2, that 190 should have died

@kaleun 1961 ok fair point not winning doesn't mean losing. but again its up for debate, if germany hadnt been subjected to 24 hour bombing then her industries would have held on much longer. the 262 might have even come on in greater numbers and maybe even turned the tide more solidly in favor of germany. in short i gues that the war as a whole would have gone on perhaps a couple of years longer. if england wasnt winning and they werent losing then its a stalemate. A stalemate could have had adverse effects on D-day, the staging area for the largest amphibious landing up to that time was southern england. if the luftwaffe were allowed to even sometimes fly over then Dday might not have happened the way it did. the problem with hypothetically removing the usaaf from england is that then we must eliminate all the successes they enjoyed we must hypothetically rebuild every factory that was destroyed and give back every plane and pilot lost, we must give to germany the intel that they may have been able to obtain. see the problem is that the 8 AF played an integral part in the outcome of the ETO by simply breaking the stalemate. i dont want to over estimate the US's role but how would things have played out if the german/brit game of cat and mouse had continued. oh sure the eventual out come would have been the same (maybe) but would it have ended in 45 or would it have pushed on to 47 or 48

Baldricks_Mate
06-25-2006, 09:49 PM
The arguments seem to flip between tactical issues of equipment and strategic issues of the war's direction, that equipment alone would somehow would make the decisive difference.

Bottom line is you can't (as an aggressor) fight wars on multiple fronts and expect to win.

What were the major German/Allied fronts in WW2?

Atlantic (sea), Eastern Front (land), Africa/ Mediterranian (land), Europe (air), Europe (land).

Strategically, the position of the protagonists had a major influence. By these multiple fronts Germany was at the centre of a circle, surrounded by the Allies. So attacks, strategic and tactical converge on Germany, whereas the Nazi's (limited) military resources had to be deployed in an ever widening circle in multiple form of combats. I am not just talking supply lines either.

They were never going to win.

The A bomb in 1945, though deployed against Japan, brought in a new age of warfare where 1 bomber, not a fleet of aircraft with all the supporting fighter escorts, could end a war. The advances in air technology finally were issued with a comensurate bomb; both combined to change the paradigm of conventional warfare which was characterised by ever increasing sophistication of conventional weapons, even the so called "wonder weapons" were just tactical advances, not strategic changes. Mass bombing raids as a strategic aim were made obsolete in a moment.

Do not think for a minute that if the tide had turned strategically against the Allies in '44 (starting with D Day) through to '45 or later, that this terrible weapon would not have been used in Europe.

Such is the nature of Total War.

The_Silent_O
06-27-2006, 02:09 PM
Actually "The Silent O" did a decision theory paper in his Masters of Science Degree program on this exact topic.

The best fighter in the ETO in 1944.

It included these criteria and sub criteria (I have to find it somewhere)

- firepower (rate of fire and size of weapon)
- speed
- max effective altitude
- Surviability (I noticed that nobody above mentioned this... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif got to bring the trained pilots home http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif)

...just to name a few

I gave a surviabilty bonus to radial engined aircraft over liquid cooled...


here are the top three with some analysis:
1) P-51D (+speed, +firepower, -surviability)
2) P-47D (+firepower, +speed, big + for surviability, I know not a sim favorite, but safe!)
3) FW-190A-8 (+firepower, + surviability)

I assure you that the analysis portion was highly quantitative with many matrix multiplications involved to minimize objectivity.

Bottom line, want a nimble dogfighter, take the mustang, want to survive, take the "Bolt" want to have a little of both with some awesome firepower take the FW-190...

...Now as far as aesthetics...FW-190 had the most beautiful lines, (and I think of that every time I look at my BMW auto) followed by the Spitfire, but aesthetics were not taken into consideration for my paper.

Look for a longer post from me in the near future on something very important I did this week to officially honor some brave aviators...

KaleunFreddie
06-27-2006, 02:37 PM
TSO, this is interesting... any chance of publishing your thesis to us..?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The_Silent_O
06-27-2006, 02:55 PM
*** shuffle Shuffle ***

KF (formerly....errr)

As stated, I have to find it. It wasn't my thesis topic but a written analysis paper for a Decision Theory Class.

My Thesis WAS on Submarines of course ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kaleun1961
06-27-2006, 03:19 PM
Turnip Tick, we are always up for an intelligent discussion here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I am of the opinion that the USAAF, although flattening Germany, was the saviour of Europe. By gutting the Luftwaffe, it made possible the advance of the Western Allies. Had the US not entered the war in Europe, I think what would have developed would be a stalemate between Germany and the Commonwealth with the Reds sweeping in and taking Germany and much of the Continent.

The British and the Commonwealth were capable on their own of fighting Germany to a standstill on the Western front: Germany could not invade the UK nor would Britain on its own have been strong enough to land in France. On the Eastern Front, the Red Army would eventually have ground down the Wehrmacht. Stalin would then have marched into Germany and probably would have kept on going right into France and establish friendly Communist regimes on the Continent.

The USAAF prepared the ground for the Western land armies to advance through France, and in co-operation with the RAF, through Italy, to meet the Reds in Germany. Thus, at least the Western half of Europe was saved from Communist enslavement. I have no doubt that in this sense, the USAAF won the war for the Western Allies and ensured liberty for many millions of Europeans.

KaleunFreddie
06-27-2006, 04:56 PM
Hmm K61.. I beg to differ here a bit...
Winston as well as Teddy had realised by this time that Stalin was a looney, and that they would have to reach Berlin Asap.
Had the USA not entered the war this probably would have led to the following scenarios..

- the Uboats would have curtailed the influx of weaponery to the UK for a few more years.
- The Uk's bomber offensive would have fizzled, or take a lot longer to get to full strength.
- this being the case, a lot of German manpower would have been devoted to the eastern front.

I'm sure the possibilities here are endless, but it certainly would have taken longer, if not wiped out the Russian offensive, had Japan not commited Pearl Harbour.

Having read the 'Barbarossa' book by David Glantz, the USSR was in no state to defend a full onslaught. By this I mean, Pearl Harbour looked to have made Hitler hold back major forces destined for Russia, thinking that the Russian forces were decimated after their initial onslaught.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

turnip_tick
06-27-2006, 04:59 PM
...But in the spirit of 'if the US wasn't there' then D-day would not have happened, or at least it would have been post poned for some time, and thus allowed the german military complex to focus on the eastern front more. If the troops and equipment weren't needed in France they could have been utilized on the Russian front. It would have been interesting none the less. And it makes for an interesting discusion, along the lines of what if Japan had launched the third wave, and destroyed dry docks and oil/fuel capabilities in Pearl. the pacific fleet would have been pushed back to San Diego and the ships Raised and repaired in the months after the attack might have never been salvaged. How might the B36 have changed the course if it was put in service during the war. it was on the drawing board after all. I love the What if games I find them to be good mental excercises, what if the F15 were in service in vietnam, first flight was in 1972, years left before the end of the war.

KaleunFreddie
06-27-2006, 05:02 PM
Another point is that the Germans at the time regarded the 'West' as friendly and the USSR as the sworn enemy. This was the time of communism. Hitler was also trying to get the UK and USA to help him fight the USSR, but as you know ..

..Politics has a way of stabbing you in the back... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-27-2006, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
...But in the spirit of 'if the US wasn't there' then D-day would not have happened, or at least it would have been post poned for some time, and thus allowed the german military complex to focus on the eastern front more. If the troops and equipment weren't needed in France they could have been utilized on the Russian front. It would have been interesting none the less. And it makes for an interesting discusion, along the lines of what if Japan had launched the third wave, and destroyed dry docks and oil/fuel capabilities in Pearl. the pacific fleet would have been pushed back to San Diego and the ships Raised and repaired in the months after the attack might have never been salvaged. How might the B36 have changed the course if it was put in service during the war. it was on the drawing board after all. I love the What if games I find them to be good mental excercises, what if the F15 were in service in vietnam, first flight was in 1972, years left before the end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Double sided coin... Europe would be speaking Russian or German, Indonesia would be speaking japanese. Not to forget the Middle East would also be speaking Russian or German.... Oil prices would be very low http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

turnip_tick
06-27-2006, 05:12 PM
and I would be driving a mercedes...but alas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kaleun1961
06-27-2006, 05:18 PM
Oh yes, Roosevelt and Churchill were both on the same page. As you said, both of them knew that Hitler was the main threat, and after him, Stalin. Neither of them wanted Adolf or Josef to inherit Europe.

What would have made things tricky for Roosevelt was if Hitler had not lost his cool and declared war on the US. Even in late '41, the American people were very isolationist and wanting not to get involved in "foreign entanglements." Roosevelt and Churchill both agreed that if the Japanese and Germans got together, they would make finishing off Germany the main priority. Hitler was under no obligation to back Japan, as Japan was the aggressor. There was no provision in their pact that compelled Germany to ally with Japan if Japan attacked the US. The American public were baying for Japanese blood after Pearl Harbor. They would have been very upset if Roosevelt had tried to drag them into a war with Germany. As it was, they made the war against the Germans the first priority, but the public were not really aware of this, so Roosevelt was able to get away with it.

Hitler was overconfident that he would win in Russia. He was so confident, in fact, that even though he was intent on Russia after finishing off France, he was going to demobilize some divisions prior to the attack on Russia. His officers convinced him against that. Nonetheless, I have never read anything about what you said about Hitler holding back forces because of Pearl Harbor. Perhaps you could clarify for me?

Really, there was no way the Germans could have taken and held Russia, in spite of the initial shock of Barbarossa. The German military was geared for blitzkrieg warfare against European foes with intensive road and rail networks. Russia was vastly different than France, both in scale and structure. The Germans simply could not move their mobile forces on a convenient road and rail system like they did in France. They had neither the quantity of transport nor the sustained logistics capability to conquer Russia. It wasn't just a matter of having enough men. They did not have the ability to sustain mobile operations on the scale necessary to conquer the Russians. The Russians traded land and space for time, and it worked.

Considering the handicaps the Germans faced going into Russia, it is remarkable that they did so well as they did. They did apparently come close, but even if they did take Moscow the Russians still had enough strategic depth to absorb such a blow. Had the Japanese attacked Russia at the same time, I think the Russians still could have dealt with them. The Japanese did not underestimate the Russians, having been soundly defeated by them in 1936. The disparity between the Russians and Japanese had increased further by 1941. The Red Army would not have been the same pushover in Manchuria as the Western armies were in the jungle fighting of 1941 to 1942.

Anyhow, this is all in the realm of might have been. Fortunately, for us, the good guys won.

turnip_tick
06-27-2006, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:

Hitler was overconfident that he would win in Russia. He was so confident, in fact, that even though he was intent on Russia after finishing off France, he was going to demobilize some divisions prior to the attack on Russia. His officers convinced him against that. Nonetheless, I have never read anything about what you said about Hitler holding back forces because of Pearl Harbor. Perhaps you could clarify for me?

Really, there was no way the Germans could have taken and held Russia, in spite of the initial shock of Barbarossa. The German military was geared for blitzkrieg warfare against European foes with intensive road and rail networks. Russia was vastly different than France, both in scale and structure. The Germans simply could not move their mobile forces on a convenient road and rail system like they did in France. They had neither the quantity of transport nor the sustained logistics capability to conquer Russia. It wasn't just a matter of having enough men. They did not have the ability to sustain mobile operations on the scale necessary to conquer the Russians. The Russians traded land and space for time, and it worked.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok i don't mean there was a direct corralation between Pearl and the russian front in an A+B=C kind of way. but Pearl harbor did drag the US in to the war, and as you said the US put the primary focus on europe. that means germany in lay terms. and because or closest ally to germany without fighting our way in was england. Russia was of course closer to the fighting but Japan might have objected. So this meant that now germany had a new enemy coming at them from the west and eventually the south. seeing that the US brit coalition as being more of a threat than Russia, I believe they held a sizable force back to fight on the western front, much more than might have been held back if the US involvement hadn't materialized. because as you say, the US was happy sending planes and ships.
Now prior to the 1944 landings at Normandy, how many troops, planes, tanks and artillery pieces were in western europe that could have perhaps made a difference on the russian front, you said they came close, and they truly did. Would another 300 000 troops have given that extra push in to Moscow?? and if so what would the Psychological impact have been on the Russian people and their will to fight. Nobody really knows that but it is a factor in the equation.

KaleunFreddie
06-27-2006, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Anyhow, this is all in the realm of might have been. Fortunately, for us, the good guys won. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Good Guys then, no doubt.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

turnip_tick
06-27-2006, 06:08 PM
Well perhaps then saying that the NAZIs and the SS didn't win, and that has thus far proven to be satisfactory. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-27-2006, 06:23 PM
...and a bit of a Time Warp....
....60 years later on....
....and it's a step to the left... whoops ..
....And a step to the right...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe a lot of people here are tooo young to understand

Sgt_Hatcher
06-27-2006, 08:06 PM
Wow, so so many views and opinions...where to start?

- Very cool video!

- In my opinion, the Russion pilot was not asleep. He appears to run out of ammo after the 30 second mark. He is scoring hits at this point and continues to hound the 109 for another 60 seconds with many opportunities to load the 109 with lead, especially in the time right before the "Infamous 109 Flip." I don't mean to piss anyone off, but I've played a lot of flight sims over the past 20 years and that is the way I see it.

- Where is the rest of the video? The German 109 did manage to pull a very sweet move. A very sweet move indeed. I'm not sure whether he lived that long because the Russian was asleep or because he was out of ammo. Either way, after perfoming the "109 flip". the German was set up to roll back into the Russian's tail and smoke him...I would have loved to see that. Nothing against the Russians, it would have just been a really good finish to a really good move.

- All of the planes in WWII had their strengths and weaknesses. What I see when I read the posts on this topic is a lot of national pride. It's hard to guess from a screen name where someone is from, but I think I can guess who is German, British, or American from the responses. Each country produced superb airplanes during WWII and each country produced superb airmen. We should all be proud of our heritage and those that preceded us.

- These are just games and the time that they portray is history. Stop fighting about it. We are all Allies now. Today is tommorrow's history. I am an American. I will stand up for my Allies. I hope for my Allies to stand up for me.

- Enough said

Kaleun1961
06-27-2006, 08:19 PM
I'm afraid that modern computer sims give the wrong impression about history. We might play a WW2 flight sim and think we'd be good at it in real life, but that is wrong thinking. In real life, there was no practice like we know it. We "fly" their planes in complete safety, knowing that we won't get hurt.

There was more to it than just the quality of the hardware. We might take a simulated piece of equipment and do well with it. In real life there was the human factor. The Red Army had some good equipment but it was operated my men from peasant backgrounds. Most Russian tank drivers had no civilian experience with vehicles. This showed in how clumsily the Red Army handled their armour. In computer infantry simulation, everybody is intelligent and quick reflexed. You just can't simulate the real life limitations and humanity of the historical combatants. Throughout much of 1941 and a bit later, the Red Army soldiers often fled in panic before the Germans. It was Stalingrad that made them believe they could be winners. Hard to simulate that sort of thing in a computer game.

The_Silent_O
06-28-2006, 06:57 AM
Gee, felt I just walked into a college history department discussion on WWII strategy and politics...I think we all missed our calling and went for the money making jobs instead some 10-20-30 years ago...

@KF ... you'd fit right in at Berkeley, California. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Glad to see you have found COL (Ret) Glanz, talk about a well reseached writer on the east front.

@K61 ... you sure you just used drive trucks for a living??? You could write dissertations in your head. You are the conservative Princeton man!

BM, turnip tick...all you guys are on top of this subject...who says computer games are mindless.

I've been gone for a few days performing some official duties...if you want to read about what I was doing make sure you read my OT thread on the B-24D Bomber.

Stingray-65
06-28-2006, 02:29 PM
Kaleun1961 has a great grasp of things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
There is no one group of people or introduction of one piece of machinery that won the war. It is far too complex to be reduced to that!

I don't intend to fan any flames here, but there were some statements made earlier that I can't even believe anyone (especially today) could make!

1. The statements that:
- a FW190 is incapable of winning a historical engagement
- that American aircraft (particularly the P51) were superior in every aspect of performance to LW planes & those of all other nationalities
- that TNB tactics are superior to BNZ tactics (or vice-versa... its how you use them in conjunction to one another... you wouldn't swing a sword the same way every time would you?)

& thus all that insured Allied victory is beyond sheer ignorance & is pure Hollywood fantasy!

In the right hands a FW190 or Bf109 could win any engagement providing the pilot's luck didn't run out. Same is true of any Allied plane. It's not just the machine but the man flying it!

Superior tactics & personal skill are the decisive factors. Examples of such pilots: Erich Hartmann, Gerhard Barkhorn, Gunther Rall, Eduard "Paul" Rossmann, Hermann Graf, Alfred Grislawski, Walter Krupinski... the list goes on & on. Do some research people! Find out what made these men so good at what they did.

This will also encompass the statements made about gun convergence. True, guns will inflict the most damage at the point of convergence. But this isn't everything. While Erich Hartmann preferred to destroy enemy AC at point-blank range, Paul Rossmann got most of his kills by "sniping" enemy pilots in their cockpits from long range... further than what was generally thought possible. Gunther Rall was hailed as being one of the best "angles fighters" around. In short, gun range isn't the decisive factor if you know how to shoot!

2. One contributing factor that hurt the LW during the BoB was the lack of drop tanks. They weren't able to stay over Britain long enough to be effective. Plus the Brits played smart: they didn't throw every pilot into the air. They held them in reserve to minimize losses & to insure that they had rested pilots on hand, day or night.

3. To say that the biggest part of the war in Europe was not fought on the Russian Front is again pure ignorance. The Germans found themselves outnumbered 30-1 in both the ground & air there. The rapid success of the Germans there can be attributed to their machinery, tactics & discipline. (Notice I didn't just say machinery!) As K61 pointed out, the Russians traded land for time. And what they lacked (at that time) in discipline, they more than made up for in numbers.

4. Germany didn't have the resources to combat 2 "Giants". Either materially or in manpower. By late war, Allied strategic bombing crippled what resources they did have.

5. As far as the "American machines won the war simply because they were better" or "American pilots were far superior" mentality.... I know who I would've bet money on had the top scoring American aces butted heads with the top scoring German aces! By the time American "aces" were racking up their scores towards the end of the war, they were shooting down 13 year old boys who barely knew how to take off & land an airplane, much less how to fight in one. So please!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

@ FWIW, I'm a proud but not "overly-full of national pride" American. Maybe I think outside of the box (nation) more than others.

*EDIT*
P.S.
@Turnip
The .303 rounds that the RAF used in its AC was not your typical .303 "deer round" as you call it. You would be EXTREMELY foolish to put these in your "deer rifle" & shoot them! They had a much higher grain content (yielding a greater muzzle velocity) & some of them were armor piercing (as well as incendiary & tracer rounds alternately mixed into the gun belt). Your rifle's receiver could possibly explode in your face if you tried that. I shouldn't need to explain what that would do to you if that were to happen. And if it didn't... well, let's just say that it might kick you into next week.

Sgt_Hatcher
06-28-2006, 03:50 PM
Stingray-65...Thanks for a thoughtful post. I am glad that I'm not the only one that can look past pride and see the reality of that war and, in fact, the reality of any war. I will add that, in my humble opinion, you are right on all five counts that you listed:

1- true

2-True, although I will add that the British use of radar (they invented it) was another factor that helped them make the most of the pilots and aircraft that were available during the Battle of Britain.

3- True, I also think that the German attack against the Russians was a major mistake that diverted resources and created another Allied enemy for them. They should have paid attention to what happened to Napoleon when he tried the same thing.

4- True

5- Ahhh...True (mental struggle with national pride). Your argument that the Allied pilots faced inexperienced Axis pilots towards the end of the war and subsequently had a high kill ratio is true. However, keep in mind that the fact that they were facing inexperienced pilots was (obviously) because they had already defeated Germany's experienced pilots. This implies that Allied pilots who were not yet 'Top Aces' shot down Germany's Aces and the other experienced pilots. I am not to saying that this is because the Allied pilots were, therefore, universally better than the Axis pilots. That is just the way it worked out. More planes, more pilots, better training due to better resources, better tactics and deployment, luck...all of these added up to give the result that history recorded.

XX - Before anyone gets upset about the 'better tactics' remark, please understand that I am referring the the fact that the German military was micromanaged from the top. The average German soldier, sailor, or airman performed brilliantly. But, history records that their efforts were often wasted due to poor strategic and tactical planning from the 'High Commmand'.

Kaleun1961
06-28-2006, 04:09 PM
Excellent points made in those last few posts. I had thought of dropping Hartmann's name into the ring as an example of what a capable pilot could do. He spent almost all of his career in 109's, flying combat from 1943 to the end of the war. Although he checked out the 190 and the ME-262, he returned to his beloved 109.

On one mission defending Ploesti, he was by himself when he was jumped by 8 P-51's. I guess they were counting on a quick kill and each wanted to bag this lone German. Very quickly they realized they were up against a pro and split into two four-plane elements. Even then they were not able to bag Hartmann, who was maneuvering ever closer to his base in hopes that its AA guns would be a deterrent to the Mustang pilots. Before he could get back within range of his base's flak guns, he ran low on fuel and had to hit the silk. Luckily for him, they didn't shoot him while he was descending.

This account demonstrates that there is more to the raw equation of combat than numbers and superior equipment. The human factor is the unknown variant and can upset any carefully crafted plan. Remember the 300 at Thermopylae?

Stingray-65
06-28-2006, 05:15 PM
@Sgt_Hatcher
On my point #2, I almost editted my post again to include radar. Yes, the Brits waited to the right moment to put their planes in the air. No point in wasting precious fuel flying around in anticipation.

Regarding my point #5, you are absolutely correct. So many factors attributed to their decline. I don't argue that one instant. Simply put, the law of averages caught up to many German aces if nothing else. In air combat, you make 1 mistake & it might be "game over". Really more than anything, that's what it all came down to, to whether a German ace ultimately survived or not... whether his luck held out with his skills. Without skills, he would be doomed anyway when facing such overwhelming odds.

Concerning your last statement, very true! Overall, the German armed forces were exceptionally trained & equipped, if not the best in the world at that time. But yes, many of their defeats were caused by blundering idiots at the top of the chain of command. (Look to history & you'll find many of the world's great armies suffering from military blunders caused in similar fashion.)

@Kaleun1961
Quote:
"This account demonstrates that there is more to the raw equation of combat than numbers and superior equipment. The human factor is the unknown variant and can upset any carefully crafted plan. Remember the 300 at Thermopylae?"

Bingo!! Thank You!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Kaleun1961
06-28-2006, 05:39 PM
Thanks for the kind compliments, SR65. I do enjoy these sorts of discussions with my forum comrades.

As you said, the law of averages did work against the Luftwaffe aces over time. Sooner or later, even in activities with a low per incident risk percentage, if you play often enough that low risk can get you. And it wasn't always combat that got you killed. Werner Molders had over 100 kills against Western pilots but died as a passenger in a Heinkel bomber as he went to attend Ernst Udet's funeral.

The Luftwaffe aces enjoyed long careers with plenty of opportunity for action, hence their awesome scores. If you took the top Western Allied aces and extrapolated their careers to match their Luftwaffe counterparts, they too would have had very high career scores. The Allies were in the position of having many more men than the Germans and could afford to retire pilots or send them to training schools after a tour of 40 or 50 missions. Luftwaffe pilots were in it for the duration. Still, a fighter pilot lived or died mainly on his own luck and skill. Those chaps in the bombers weren't so able to affect their own outcome so directly. Ten men on a B-17 lived or died on the skills or luck of a few others: the pilot, the other gunners and the luck and skill of the enemy flak gunnery and fighters. It took a brave hand to fly straight and slow in a bomber box.

That's all I am going to write for now. I'm going to watch Hart's War; recorded it the other night on my DVR.

Stingray-65
06-28-2006, 06:15 PM
@K61
Great movie! I particularly love the part where the American POWs are all "rooting" for the Mustang pilot. That was priceless! (I hate discrimination.)

BTW, I think you & Sgt_Hatcher are "dead on" & I'm glad you 2 chimed in & helped clarify & support my points. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just think that sometimes people focus too closely on one thing/event & forget to look at the big picture.

blue_76
06-28-2006, 06:47 PM
amateurs.. i'll beat you in my P11!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

turnip_tick
06-28-2006, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stingray-65:
Kaleun1961 has a great grasp of things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
There is no one group of people or introduction of one piece of machinery that won the war. It is far too complex to be reduced to that!

I don't intend to fan any flames here, but there were some statements made earlier that I can't even believe anyone (especially today) could make!

1. The statements that:
- a FW190 is incapable of winning a historical engagement
- that American aircraft (particularly the P51) were superior in every aspect of performance to LW planes & those of all other nationalities
- that TNB tactics are superior to BNZ tactics (or vice-versa... its how you use them in conjunction to one another... you wouldn't swing a sword the same way every time would you?)

& thus all that insured Allied victory is beyond sheer ignorance & is pure Hollywood fantasy!

In the right hands a FW190 or Bf109 could win any engagement providing the pilot's luck didn't run out. Same is true of any Allied plane. It's not just the machine but the man flying it!

Superior tactics & personal skill are the decisive factors. Examples of such pilots: Erich Hartmann, Gerhard Barkhorn, Gunther Rall, Eduard "Paul" Rossmann, Hermann Graf, Alfred Grislawski, Walter Krupinski... the list goes on & on. Do some research people! Find out what made these men so good at what they did.

This will also encompass the statements made about gun convergence. True, guns will inflict the most damage at the point of convergence. But this isn't everything. While Erich Hartmann preferred to destroy enemy AC at point-blank range, Paul Rossmann got most of his kills by "sniping" enemy pilots in their cockpits from long range... further than what was generally thought possible. Gunther Rall was hailed as being one of the best "angles fighters" around. In short, gun range isn't the decisive factor if you know how to shoot!

2. One contributing factor that hurt the LW during the BoB was the lack of drop tanks. They weren't able to stay over Britain long enough to be effective. Plus the Brits played smart: they didn't throw every pilot into the air. They held them in reserve to minimize losses & to insure that they had rested pilots on hand, day or night.

3. To say that the biggest part of the war in Europe was not fought on the Russian Front is again pure ignorance. The Germans found themselves outnumbered 30-1 in both the ground & air there. The rapid success of the Germans there can be attributed to their machinery, tactics & discipline. (Notice I didn't just say machinery!) As K61 pointed out, the Russians traded land for time. And what they lacked (at that time) in discipline, they more than made up for in numbers.

4. Germany didn't have the resources to combat 2 "Giants". Either materially or in manpower. By late war, Allied strategic bombing crippled what resources they did have.

5. As far as the "American machines won the war simply because they were better" or "American pilots were far superior" mentality.... I know who I would've bet money on had the top scoring American aces butted heads with the top scoring German aces! By the time American "aces" were racking up their scores towards the end of the war, they were shooting down 13 year old boys who barely knew how to take off & land an airplane, much less how to fight in one. So please!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

@ FWIW, I'm a proud but not "overly-full of national pride" American. Maybe I think outside of the box (nation) more than others.

*EDIT*
P.S.
@Turnip
The .303 rounds that the RAF used in its AC was not your typical .303 "deer round" as you call it. You would be EXTREMELY foolish to put these in your "deer rifle" & shoot them! They had a much higher grain content (yielding a greater muzzle velocity) & some of them were armor piercing (as well as incendiary & tracer rounds alternately mixed into the gun belt). Your rifle's receiver could possibly explode in your face if you tried that. I shouldn't need to explain what that would do to you if that were to happen. And if it didn't... well, let's just say that it might kick you into next week. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i will answer all of these because i feel that they are all aimed at me personally. that said i dont feel it was at all a flame, and neither is this post, just want to clear up MY position. If some of your points were not directed at me then please disregard where appropriate.

I never said any single piece of equipment won the WAR i said a battle. some battles were instrumental in winning the war.

1) I NEVER said the 190 or any other A/C was incapable of winning a historical engagement. clearly it was or the luftwaffe would not have flown it and some of germanys, and indeed the worlds highest scoring aces would not have flown them.
-i also never said the 51 was superior in ALL aspects of performance. in fact i said that the 190 and 109 were superior in SOME regards and the 51 was superior in SOME regards.
if this point is indeed directed at me then i would ask you to please go back and reread everything i posted on this subject, but first clear your mind of the 'he thinks america is superior, just watch.' mentality and instead hear what i say and accept it as what i meant to say.
I also never said BNZ or TNB tacics were better than the other, that is silly. the better pilot is the one that can exploit his opponents weaknesses with out falling victim to his own. in short forcing the enemy to fight on your terms and not his. but one last statement on manouverability, in WWI turning is what won the battles, in vietnam the USN learned that dog fighting was still important. in between was WWII i suggest that it was important then too. a loop is only a turn in the vert. plane and so turn radius dictates a huge amount of a planes manouverability and thus allows for some advantage. couple that with force the fight on your terms and and now we see an advantage froming. I thought i also indicated that training and tactics were extremely important, and again in this very post. so yes in the hands of a competant pilot a 190 could win any single engagment.

2) the fact that the LW didn't have drop tanks is saying that the 190, 109 didn't have sufficient range to be highly effective in the BoB. so whats the problem thats all i have been saying. i left it very basic and generic and youcite a specific problem, but we seem to agree here. it may have been a fine A/C, and it definatly was but without the required range...

3) no one said the biggest part of the war wasn't fought in the east. what was said was that with the very real threat from the west VIA england and the US germany had to hold some back to counter that threat. that equipment and those men may have made a huge difference in russia. you point out that russia traded land for time. true but you seem to ignore the fact that if germany had another 300,000 troops then russia might not have had enough of either. those 300K were in the west defending against the UK and US. i dint see why this is inaccurate or why any one has a problem with it. it is what i have said are my words being twisted??

4) see three above

5) again no one said that american machines won the WAR. get this straight if nothing else please, the war was from 1939 to 1945. for the three yrs before dec 7 1941 american hardware made little impact. for the first year or so after that the US military was outnumbered and out gunned, it took some time for the american war machine to gear up. so please again if this point wasnt directed at me then please disregard this. but i dont have an america is better mentality, frankly im tired of the 'america builds good equipment, and we are sorry about that' attitude so many people seem to have. the mustang was a great plane, i never said hands down winner i said a great plane. i also said the 190 and the 109 and the HE111 and the ME262 were all great planes. as was the hurricane and spit. the B29 was perhaps the most advanced bomber of the war, and no im not sorry about that. the B17 was extremely tough, the B24 was something of a flying coffin. please dont presume to tell me what my mentality is. the MIG 21 is the most succesful A/C of all time. why can't you just accept that i am not blind to other nationalities.
you mentioned that american pilots were shooting down little kids. dont forget that most of the early victories these men had were against il-equipet and il-trained pilots from places like poland etc. you said you place money on who would win a fight an american top ace VS german top ace. this is unfair because while americans were shooting down kids, the germans were shooting down aircraft from the 1930. their oppenants were outclassed in every way. and how many times did some of germany's top aces get shot down?? Erich Rudorffer with 222 victories was shot down 16 times himself. was he skilled or lucky to be alive.

and about the .303, i was being somewhat tongue in cheek here. but was talking primarily about the caliber. it is a 30 caliber, only slightly larger than a 30-06. yes the casing is much different, no it wont fit in a 30-06, yes it would knock you into next week if the gun didn't explode. now that said can we return to the point and context of that statement. i was talking about the armement of the planes, and why they had trouble with the german planes flying over. and again its because the 303 is a light, small round. the germans were using 20 and 30 MM the americans were using .50 cal. both the 20MM and the .50 cal were amrour piercing and high explosive too, both of them had tracer rounds and incinderaries, i dont get this at all. when i say the mustang was a better all around aircraft in the BoB i am a blind hollywood type. when i say the germans had better firepower you tell me to get real.

Kaleun1961
06-28-2006, 07:55 PM
TT, I hope that you don't think any of my points are aimed at you, for they certainly are not.

If, and that's a big if, the Germans were able to put their western garrison into Russia, using your figure of 300,000, would that have been enough to conquer Russia? It is up for debate, but I still doubt that would have been enough. Of that number stationed in the West, not all of it could of course have been sent to Russia. There was still the need for a garrison in France, even if England was not a viable threat.

Having more troops in Russia in Barbarossa could have lead to greater successes in 1941. Would it have been enough? Hard to tell. I think what was more important than the number of men was the amount and type of equipment that had to be kept in the West. Specifically, I mean the aircraft and heavy flak guns [88's] that had to be kept in France and Germany to fend off the RAF and then the USAAF. Those could definitely have made a difference in Russia.

I think Germany had the potential to defeat Russia, but not while they had to defend in the West as well. Germany would have had to mobilize all of its resources exclusively against the East. If Hitler had been able to do that without any interference from the West, he may have done it. But what European combatant has ever had the luxury of being able to put every soldier under arms against one foe exclusively? Germany hoped that Japan would attack Russia and split their defences, but that didn't happen. Had Japan marched only against Russia, at some point the US would have come into the European war for the sake of preserving Europe from being totally conquered by the Nazis.

turnip_tick
06-28-2006, 08:57 PM
yes i agree completly. my figure of 300 000 is really just a number i pulled out of the air. call it laziness for not looking up the number of german forces in the west. but i do think that number would be tough to nail down anyway. I did mean the number to indicate all of their proper equipment. not just grunts. if a large percentage of the german tanks were sent to russia (another area where germany ruled the roost IMO) also the 88s, more aircraft, a few more divisions to reenforce the units that really almost pulled it off as it was. like you said we will never really know, its all up for debate but the russian conscript army would have had its hands full with the well trained proffesional german army. which brings me full circle to why they were held back, to answer the american and brittish threat. and at the extreme risk of being a hollywood american, i have to say that england wasn't on the offensive untill the US military made its arrival, they were busy in a defensive role with the RAF and preparing to be invaded. i believe the brits were in a defensive posture untill help arrived.

Stingray-65
06-29-2006, 01:34 AM
@turnip_tick
1st let me say that I'm not trying to pick you apart to make you look or sound bad. But since you addressed me directly & asked me to look again to see what you did or didn't say, I did. Note that I'm not trying to twist your words around as you claim, but directly quoting you... in some cases line for line... in an attempt to help you understand why I took those things that were said the way I did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
1) I NEVER said the 190 or any other A/C was incapable of winning a historical engagement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you NEVER said?:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
roll rate is nice but given the proper range and superior turn rate and most importantly tactics the FW should never win a fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be extremely careful how you use that word "never".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
-i also never said the 51 was superior in ALL aspects of performance. in fact i said that the 190 and 109 were superior in SOME regards and the 51 was superior in SOME regards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let see...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the P 51 had a higher top speed.
the P 51 had an advantage in turn rate
the P 51 had the better combat record VS the FW 190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Cough, speed, cough* Bf109K4 & Fw190D9. Look them up. Granted, true, you didn't say EVERY aspect. Gotta give you credit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
in short the mustang owned the skies over germany in the last year of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds dangerously close to proclaiming or short of implying that it was responsible for winning the war.

This is where I got the impression you had a "America won the war" mentality from:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
I don't care where your from because either way the introduction of the P 51 turned the tide of the air war in europe in 1944, and that aint no dream or math lesson. its history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, no way that could be taken the wrong way, huh? But granted, you later recanted to Bewolf. And yes, in that same post to Bewolf you clarified that you meant "battle" & not the war as a whole. So I apologize for my misunderstanding there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the 190 had a better roll rate and a better climb rate, but as i said this isn't enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So by your reasoning, had Americans been flying FWs & the Germans P-51s we'd all be goose-stepping? You're placing too much emphasis on plane capabilities and not enough on the capabilities of those flying the planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
we have actual war records to fall back on so feel free to call me what ever you wish </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

America wasn't the only country to keep war records from WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
son you got a lot to learn about aerial combat me thinks you are a bit of a dreamer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful. Arrogance of this kind is appalling & won't win you many friends.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the lagg, mustang, IL, spit etc. all out dive the FW meaning that FW boy either pulls out or dies in a dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounded to me like you were saying that the FW is blatantly inferior to all other AC, especially where dives are concerned. In reality, the FW outperformed it's Bf109 counterpart at low altitude, especially in terms of speed. In addition, FWs were more heavily armored & armed. But the 109s outperformed the FWs & many other Allied AC @ high altitude. This was just one of the many reasons the 109 was never phased out of production. Gunther Rall likened the 2 planes in such a way; the 190 being a meat cleaver & the 109 being a rapier sword... both calling for different approaches in use but equally effective if used properly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
I also never said BNZ or TNB tacics were better than the other, that is silly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you did, eventhough you may not realize it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
in short if you cant turn in a dogfight you cant win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
and lastley, the boom and zoom tactics are about using high speed and superior climbing keep a fight in the vertical, the 190 was good at this, but as i said if you can't keep a sustained turn then you lose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erich Hartmann is the perfect dispute to those 2 statements. He never got suckered into a turn fight & won 352 confirmed times.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
2) the fact that the LW didn't have drop tanks is saying that the 190, 109 didn't have sufficient range to be highly effective in the BoB. so whats the problem thats all i have been saying. i left it very basic and generic and youcite a specific problem, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true. I just stated that it was (and note the keywords) one of the contributing factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
no one said the biggest part of the war wasn't fought in the east. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. My apologies for creating any confusion there. My point was that Germany's demise was fighting a massive 2 front war which it couldn't (at that point) win. Germany's demise wasn't solely sealed by the arrival of Americans in England. And my point #4 was in support of #3. Again, my apologies for any confusion that caused.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
again no one said that american machines won the WAR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll have to take into account my confusion by your earlier lack of clarification between "battle" and "the war in '44" in your comment about the Mustang & my not catching your later clarification. Again, my apologies are in order.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
you mentioned that american pilots were shooting down little kids. dont forget that most of the early victories these men had were against il-equipet and il-trained pilots from places like poland etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I know by "these men" you meant the German aces. And your point has been taken. Indeed, that is fair enough. The only distinction I shall make is that many of the early "victims" of the Luftwaffe were prior-existing military personnel (men) who were supposedly thoroughly trained by their militaries. The kids shot down by Americans barely had any training at all... it would be laughable in comparison were it not so terribly sad.

*EDIT*
I must also say that I don't blame the American pilots for shooting those kids down. It's not as if they could pull along-side them first & ask for their ID for age verification before shooting them down. There was no way they could've known. I blame the people responsible for putting those kids in the planes in the first place!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
you said you place money on who would win a fight an american top ace VS german top ace. this is unfair because while americans were shooting down kids, the germans were shooting down aircraft from the 1930. their oppenants were outclassed in every way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean in comparison of total kills. I meant "mano de mano" as in put Erich Hartmann in his Bf109 against George Preddy in his Mustang & let the best man win. It would be a hell of a fight definitely, but I'd have to gamble on the man with the most experience (who completed the most sorties, had the most kills & who never lost a single wingman).

*EDIT*
And don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way trying to belittle the role that the Mustang (or any Allied plane) or any Allied pilot played in winning WWII. But I must bitterly oppose the day-dreamer's concept that any one person or machine was solely instrumental in ending WWII. Like has been said so many times before, it was far too massive & complex to be boiled down to something so simple as that.

In context about the .303 rounds, you are correct in your assessment of why they later fitted Spits with heavier guns. It doesn't take a genius to see that .50 cals & especially the German 20MM & 30MM cannons with their explosive shells cause much more severe damage. But my misunderstanding arose from your twice referring to the RAF .303 as a "deer round". That would be like me referring to an industrial or surgical laser as a "laser pointer". Big differance there.

Overall turnip... after studying all of this. I don't think you mean any harm, but you're not clearly making your points when you should sometimes... speaking in too general of terms & sometimes taking the wrong tone of voice with people when you shouldn't. Basically, a break down of communication & hell, I don't always express myself clearly either, so I shouldn't "cry wolf". Peace, mate?

Celeon999
06-29-2006, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ...and a bit of a Time Warp....
....60 years later on....
....and it's a step to the left... whoops ..
....And a step to the right...


Maybe a lot of people here are tooo young to understand </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Celeon is also a youngster but knows the Rocky Horror picture show http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

turnip_tick
06-29-2006, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stingray-65:
@turnip_tick
1st let me say that I'm not trying to pick you apart to make you look or sound bad. But since you addressed me directly & asked me to look again to see what you did or didn't say, I did. Note that I'm not trying to twist your words around as you claim, but directly quoting you... in some cases line for line... in an attempt to help you understand why I took those things that were said the way I did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
1) I NEVER said the 190 or any other A/C was incapable of winning a historical engagement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you NEVER said?:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
roll rate is nice but given the proper range and superior turn rate and most importantly tactics the FW should never win a fight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be extremely careful how you use that word "never".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
-i also never said the 51 was superior in ALL aspects of performance. in fact i said that the 190 and 109 were superior in SOME regards and the 51 was superior in SOME regards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let see...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the P 51 had a higher top speed.
the P 51 had an advantage in turn rate
the P 51 had the better combat record VS the FW 190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Cough, speed, cough* Bf109K4 & Fw190D9. Look them up. Granted, true, you didn't say EVERY aspect. Gotta give you credit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
in short the mustang owned the skies over germany in the last year of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds dangerously close to proclaiming or short of implying that it was responsible for winning the war.

This is where I got the impression you had a "America won the war" mentality from:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
I don't care where your from because either way the introduction of the P 51 turned the tide of the air war in europe in 1944, and that aint no dream or math lesson. its history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, no way that could be taken the wrong way, huh? But granted, you later recanted to Bewolf. And yes, in that same post to Bewolf you clarified that you meant "battle" & not the war as a whole. So I apologize for my misunderstanding there.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the 190 had a better roll rate and a better climb rate, but as i said this isn't enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So by your reasoning, had Americans been flying FWs & the Germans P-51s we'd all be goose-stepping? You're placing too much emphasis on plane capabilities and not enough on the capabilities of those flying the planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
we have actual war records to fall back on so feel free to call me what ever you wish </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

America wasn't the only country to keep war records from WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
son you got a lot to learn about aerial combat me thinks you are a bit of a dreamer </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful. Arrogance of this kind is appalling & won't win you many friends.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
the lagg, mustang, IL, spit etc. all out dive the FW meaning that FW boy either pulls out or dies in a dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounded to me like you were saying that the FW is blatantly inferior to all other AC, especially where dives are concerned. In reality, the FW outperformed it's Bf109 counterpart at low altitude, especially in terms of speed. In addition, FWs were more heavily armored & armed. But the 109s outperformed the FWs & many other Allied AC @ high altitude. This was just one of the many reasons the 109 was never phased out of production. Gunther Rall likened the 2 planes in such a way; the 190 being a meat cleaver & the 109 being a rapier sword... both calling for different approaches in use but equally effective if used properly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
I also never said BNZ or TNB tacics were better than the other, that is silly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you did, eventhough you may not realize it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
in short if you cant turn in a dogfight you cant win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
and lastley, the boom and zoom tactics are about using high speed and superior climbing keep a fight in the vertical, the 190 was good at this, but as i said if you can't keep a sustained turn then you lose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erich Hartmann is the perfect dispute to those 2 statements. He never got suckered into a turn fight & won 352 confirmed times.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
2) the fact that the LW didn't have drop tanks is saying that the 190, 109 didn't have sufficient range to be highly effective in the BoB. so whats the problem thats all i have been saying. i left it very basic and generic and youcite a specific problem, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true. I just stated that it was (and note the keywords) one of the contributing factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
no one said the biggest part of the war wasn't fought in the east. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. My apologies for creating any confusion there. My point was that Germany's demise was fighting a massive 2 front war which it couldn't (at that point) win. Germany's demise wasn't solely sealed by the arrival of Americans in England. And my point #4 was in support of #3. Again, my apologies for any confusion that caused.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
again no one said that american machines won the WAR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll have to take into account my confusion by your earlier lack of clarification between "battle" and "the war in '44" in your comment about the Mustang & my not catching your later clarification. Again, my apologies are in order.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
you mentioned that american pilots were shooting down little kids. dont forget that most of the early victories these men had were against il-equipet and il-trained pilots from places like poland etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I know by "these men" you meant the German aces. And your point has been taken. Indeed, that is fair enough. The only distinction I shall make is that many of the early "victims" of the Luftwaffe were prior-existing military personnel (men) who were supposedly thoroughly trained by their militaries. The kids shot down by Americans barely had any training at all... it would be laughable in comparison were it not so terribly sad.

*EDIT*
I must also say that I don't blame the American pilots for shooting those kids down. It's not as if they could pull along-side them first & ask for their ID for age verification before shooting them down. There was no way they could've known. I blame the people responsible for putting those kids in the planes in the first place!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by turnip_tick:
you said you place money on who would win a fight an american top ace VS german top ace. this is unfair because while americans were shooting down kids, the germans were shooting down aircraft from the 1930. their oppenants were outclassed in every way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean in comparison of total kills. I meant "mano de mano" as in put Erich Hartmann in his Bf109 against George Preddy in his Mustang & let the best man win. It would be a hell of a fight definitely, but I'd have to gamble on the man with the most experience (who completed the most sorties, had the most kills & who never lost a single wingman).

*EDIT*
And don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way trying to belittle the role that the Mustang (or any Allied plane) or any Allied pilot played in winning WWII. But I must bitterly oppose the day-dreamer's concept that any one person or machine was solely instrumental in ending WWII. Like has been said so many times before, it was far too massive & complex to be boiled down to something so simple as that.

In context about the .303 rounds, you are correct in your assessment of why they later fitted Spits with heavier guns. It doesn't take a genius to see that .50 cals & especially the German 20MM & 30MM cannons with their explosive shells cause much more severe damage. But my misunderstanding arose from your twice referring to the RAF .303 as a "deer round". That would be like me referring to an industrial or surgical laser as a "laser pointer". Big differance there.

Overall turnip... after studying all of this. I don't think you mean any harm, but you're not clearly making your points when you should sometimes... speaking in too general of terms & sometimes taking the wrong tone of voice with people when you shouldn't. Basically, a break down of communication & hell, I don't always express myself clearly either, so I shouldn't "cry wolf". Peace, mate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok first allow me to apologise for quoting the whole post, but i never had any luck in quoting single lines.

your first quote of mine i stand behind the fact that i never said it was incapable of winning, in the line you use i said it shouldn't win. but this comes to tactics and training. i even cited tactics in that very line. and my statement is one of opinion any way, but i beleive that. i believe that two equally trained and skilled pilots meeting head to head the mustang pilot would win.

the second topic about performance you did give me credit for and i appreciate that

saying that the mustang owned the skies over germany at the end is not or should not be taken as saying that IT won the war. IT did not. it was a combonation of air sea and ground power from all of the allied countries, but it was the preeminant allied fighter in europe in 44 45. this is why i say it owned the skies, it doesn't mean that it won them single handedly. nor did i say that.

the quote; I don't care where your from because either way the introduction of the P 51 turned the tide of the air war in europe in 1944, and that aint no dream or math lesson. its history., was a pointed response to a single statment made to me, and should not be taken out of context. it came across some what hostile but i took the preceeding comment that way to and thus you get my answer. but again i said it turned the tide of the AIR WAR IN EUROPE not WWII. and i say that because it allowed escorts to follow the bombers all the way to their targets. with out the long range and capable aircraft the tide may not have turned for some time.

us goose stepping if the germans had the 51, no i didnt say that again i think you are reading more in to it than is there. germany lost the war for a variety of reasons that have been laid out here already and again i never said the mustang won the war. it helped turn the tide of a battle. and again i dont know how many times to say it skill and luck play in to the question a great deal. i never said it didnt, hell i did say that some of germany's aces were shot down many times. to be shot down and not killed is luck.

arrogance that is appalling. again a direct answer to a direct attack on me in a previous post ( i don't remember who) where in I was called names dreamer i believe and so using the same reference was not in my opinion arrogance but rather a way of saying 'disagree if want, but be carefull with name calling' a 'glass houses' type of thing.


the reason i contend that the 51, sinse that is the discussion at hand, out dives is because it out turns, pulling out of a dive is a turn in the verticle. all of these planes often reached trans-sonic speeds so the question is about elevator effectivness at these speeds unless im mistaken the FW's elevator became ineffective sooner than the 51's and therefore it either had to dive slower or pull out sooner or hit the ground

BNZ TNB. either tactic can be negated by proper training. but basically all dogfights involve turning. i have never heard of a straight line dog fight where no one turns. dogfighting is about angles and making angle problems for the adversary. and turning is how you do that, either turning horozontaly or vertically, doesn't really matter. if a pilot's best attack is to continue to dive down on his victim (BNZ) then a good defense would be to keep turning towards the attacker creating angle problems and continuing to force an overshoot. if you cant outclimb and you cant out turn then you got nothing, if you can do one or the other then you got something to work with. any RL fighter pilot will tell you that in a dog fight turn rate is critical. BNZ is a tactic used for the merge, it works great for getting that all important first shot, most pilots that were shot down never knew what hit them. BNZ is awsome at that. but AFTER the merge things turn in to a furball and now turn rate gets real important real fast. neither is better than the other, they are two tools that are used for different jobs. if one plane does one exceptioanly well and cant do the other then the pilot must do what he can do, and never fight out side of his performance envelope. this is my long winded way of saying that if you cant turn you can't win, BUT if you can turn it doesn't mean you WILL win. again tactics training skill and luck. at the end you cite my inability to make my thoughts clear. i do know that is true, it is a problem i have and fear that i am still not making this point clear so i let it rest.

certainly one of the contributing factors was a lack of drop tanks (range) but that was a problem with the 190 in the role it was playing. granted not a problem with the airframe or fighting ability but rather one of logistics, their bases were too far away for them to be 100 per cent effective. not the planes fault per se, but a problem none the less IMO

i must agree that kids flying combat missions was tragic. but as you said they couldn't just fly up and say pull over, and these same kids would havefired on the americans if given the chance, to me the real travesty is that the luftwaffe sent these kids up to die in a war that it had already lost. my point about the air battles of 39 etc. is that while these men may have been trained military officers (for the most part officers) they were completly out classed and out gunned. like your high school varsity football team playing the pitt steelers. oh sure they're trained and they play every day, but who did you think would win in a full contact game. now im not trying to take away the legitimacy of the kills in any way, but after 6 yrs of war a lot against opponants that frankly didn't have a chance from the start well of course the numbers would be large.

and lastly i did understand the money comparison, and i meant it the same way. top US aces didn't often meet the top german aces if at all in the air and so it is unfair we don't know how they would have fared agaisnt each other. on whole the top germans were much more experienced than the top americans. the americans were in the war for four years, while the average pilot was not in combat that long, either killed or rotated out. the top german aces were in combat for years longer. so to try to compare skill even by the experience factor is tough to do. you place value on experience and i place value on tactics and training, so who wins i don't know.

the 303 comments stem from my nearly supernatural way of understating things, and no i dont mean any harm in my comments or opinions. and again i dont mean to say the 51 or any other piece of harware won the war, incl. the A-bomb, but it was instrumental in allowing the daylight bombing that the brits abandoned due to losses. the effects of the daylight bombing as they pertain to the overall war effort, who knows another debate i guess. but that is where my opinions come from, the escorting of the bombers and the effects THEY had.

so i offer an olive branch, after all i dont see us as being on different sides, just not the best communication i guess.

BTW lest some one think that the P51 is my favorite plane of the war, it is actually the F4U corsair.

Kaleun1961
06-29-2006, 08:27 AM
TT, as I read your post something clarified, which may be the point you are trying to make. I don't know, but I'll take a shot at it.

As you said, the 109 was hampered in the fight against the Spitfires in the Battle of Britain. It was forced, by circumstance, to fight at the periphery of its range, and in those circumstances it was at a disadvantage. That is the downside of being on the offensive: you have to spend a certain amount of your fuel in the coming and going to and from the battle zone. The defender, especially if he has radar, as the British did, has the advantage of fighting over his own land and thus does not have expend large amounts of fuel in transit. After the climbout, he is already in the arena of operations; the enemy is coming toward him.

When the British took the fight to the Germans, they suffered from the same handicap, not being able to escort their bombers in daylight hours. They lacked the range to do so, and since the bomber casualty rate from unescorted daylight bombing was horrendously high, they were forced into night bombing operations. Along come the Americans who try to do the same thing. As long as they flew with fighter escorts the bomber losses were kept within acceptable rates. Unfortunately, the then escort fighter, the P-47, was incapable of longer range operations. When the bombers flew beyond fighter escort range they were shredded and loss rates were unacceptably high.

With the introduction of the P-51, the bombers could be escorted all the way to and from the target area. All of Germany was now within escorted bomber range. It was this factor which spelled doom for German industry, for now the bombers were certain to get through. There was no way the Luftwaffe was going to be able to inflict unacceptable losses on the bombers.

Had the P-47 the range, it may have been the fighter that earned the glory. However, the P-51 was the fighter that did have the range and thus it became credited by some as the plane that "won" the air war. When we get wrapped up in debate over the particular fighter, we lose sight of the fact that the deciding factor was not the plane itself, but the fact of the bombers being able to always get through to the target and return home with an acceptable loss rate.

turnip_tick
06-29-2006, 08:40 AM
yes thats it exactly. thats is what i was trying to say. but somewhere in all that i had point out that im not from hollywood etc. which side tracked me from the point. now as far as the point it self goes, i may be wrong but that is the way i see it. so if the germans had the mustang, or a plane with similar range and effectivness over enemy territory then operation sea lion might have been the name given to the amphibious landing across the english channel instead of operation overlord. and then, in my opinion it would have been much harder to expell germany. however due to their insistance that they be overextended, they still would have lost. it would have just taken a little longer. and BTW this does not include the possibility of the A bomb, just straight conventional warfare as it was in 1945.

Stingray-65
06-29-2006, 09:59 AM
@turnip

OK, about the 1st statement I quoted you on, I accept your use of "shouldn't" and distinguish it from "can't". Scientifically, a bumble bee "shouldn't" fly, but it does, so you cannot say that it "can't". But by your analogy, a P-47 should never win a fight against a CR.42 (or P.11 for blue_76) which had a far superior turn rate.

About the "where you're from" comment, we got that cleared up & I understand your tone of voice in that now that you explained that you were previously attacked. I guess I didn't catch that, but I certainly caught your response so that is where I misunderstood.

Ditto on the "son you got a lot to learn" comment.

About your logic that a dive is just a turn in the vertical & thus "you can't win if you can't turn" because "dogfighting is completely about turning" because planes don't fly in perfectly straight paths. OK, I agree in that similarly you can't win a race with the world's fastest funny car if you can't turn the wheels to get it onto the race track. My point is that it also lumps every aspect of performance into "can't win if it can't turn".

You said: "you place value on experience and i place value on tactics and training". How do you suppose a combat pilot gets experience? By using his tactics & training. How do you think tactics evolve? By utilizing what is learned (experience) so you can live & fight another day. This isn't the question of "How do you get a job without experience? How do you get experience without a job?" We're "sortof" on the same page here, just not quite in the same "paragraph".

KaleunFreddie
06-29-2006, 10:13 AM
So the logic here is ..
Post slomo movie = fast forum topic.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I'm going to do this again... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Stingray-65
06-29-2006, 10:19 AM
@KF
"Let's do the time warp again...!"

Kaleun1961
06-29-2006, 10:51 AM
Let's go down to the lab and see what's on the slab.

The_Silent_O
06-29-2006, 11:18 AM
"So long, and thanks for all the fish!"

(from a recent favorite of mine)

KaleunFreddie
06-29-2006, 11:25 AM
"..In just 7 days, I'll make you a ....."

Better not say that here, I'll be called sexist..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kaleun1961
06-29-2006, 02:39 PM
Damn it, Janet, I love you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

KaleunFreddie
06-29-2006, 03:40 PM
"OOoooo Brad.... You buxom boy !!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

YYyyeeeeeuuuuGGGGGGhhhhhhhh Speweyyy!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Sgt_Hatcher
06-29-2006, 06:09 PM
Lol, I have to admit that I first saw 'Rocky Horror' 30 years ago....

'It's a gas'

Kaleun1961
06-29-2006, 06:59 PM
I was 17 when I first saw it with my "girlfriend." She was an older girl, in her 20's [I always had a thing for older girls.] I borrowed my Dad's car and went with her to pick up few of her friends. Next thing I know these two wild chicks are in the back seat, kissing each other and so forth. That was a sign of the night to come. We went to see Rocky Horror. I'll never forget that night. Later, a few years after I was no longer going out with that girl, I found out that she had a thing for girls. I gotta tell ya, guys, when your girlfriend goes the other way, you'll never forget it.

Messervy
06-29-2006, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">when your girlfriend goes the other way, you'll never forget it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know all about it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VikingGrandad
06-30-2006, 04:02 AM
Dip me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

The_Silent_O
06-30-2006, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
I was 17 when I first saw it with my "girlfriend." She was an older girl, in her 20's [I always had a thing for older girls.] I borrowed my Dad's car and went with her to pick up few of her friends. Next thing I know these two wild chicks are in the back seat, kissing each other and so forth. That was a sign of the night to come. We went to see Rocky Horror. I'll never forget that night. Later, a few years after I was no longer going out with that girl, I found out that she had a thing for girls. I gotta tell ya, guys, when your girlfriend goes the other way, you'll never forget it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...arrrhg...K61, we're twins separated at birth, except mine was one of those polyamorous "indecisive" (Plays for both teams, switch hitter, ambidextrious...okay thoroughly bi-sexual) ones! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif some women are just like that?

Stingray-65
06-30-2006, 01:57 PM
My wife bought a CD of the RHPS Broadway musical. Needless to say, I was disappointed as I expected to hear the songs just like they were in the movie. Oh well...

My favorite song is "Sweet Transvestite" (where Dr.Frank-N-Furter comes out). It rocks SOOO hard! I love the lines: "You got caught with a flat. Well how about that" & "shiver with antici......................... Pation!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Gonna start an OT thread for this, we're hi-jacking now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Baldricks_Mate
06-30-2006, 02:31 PM
s@x is highly overated anyway...as well as being the cause of enough heartache to fill a Battleship.

I think everyone is given a lifetime fixed amount of usage of stuff; ciggies, beer, etc, whatever, and when you've used up your quota...well thats it, the http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif is gone.

Gotta go and sink some more Allied ships now.