PDA

View Full Version : P-51 Mustang did NOT win the war ...



Old_Canuck
01-01-2004, 11:35 AM
... it was the pilots.

Talking about the real planes here (P-51 Vs 109).

===========================================
Just happened to be re-reading Martin Caidin's "Me 109" this morning. Caidin quotes Wing Commander Asher Lee RAF:

"In a final review of fighter aircraft, he states that the Me-109 'proved itself the equivelant, if not the superior of any Allied fighter brought against it, including the Hurricane and the Spitfire ... If the Allies had a slight technical pull on the whole, it was certainly not till the last year of the Second World War. The big difference was of course in the quality of pilots ... By the last year of the war many of the German single-engined fighter pilots were hardly able to do more than take off and land the aircraft they flew. It was the German pilot deficiencies much more than the aircraft technical dificiencies which gave the Allies such complete air domination towards the end of the war.'

Caidin continues, "Perhaps the reader will question this unqualified selection of the Me 109 design as 'the greatest fighter airplane ever built.' Certainly there will be those who will point out that the Mustang was faster, more manoueverable, with far greater range, and better visibility. But two pilots of equal ability, one in the Mustang and one in the Me-109, would have found their machines extraordinarily well-matched."

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Old_Canuck
01-01-2004, 11:35 AM
... it was the pilots.

Talking about the real planes here (P-51 Vs 109).

===========================================
Just happened to be re-reading Martin Caidin's "Me 109" this morning. Caidin quotes Wing Commander Asher Lee RAF:

"In a final review of fighter aircraft, he states that the Me-109 'proved itself the equivelant, if not the superior of any Allied fighter brought against it, including the Hurricane and the Spitfire ... If the Allies had a slight technical pull on the whole, it was certainly not till the last year of the Second World War. The big difference was of course in the quality of pilots ... By the last year of the war many of the German single-engined fighter pilots were hardly able to do more than take off and land the aircraft they flew. It was the German pilot deficiencies much more than the aircraft technical dificiencies which gave the Allies such complete air domination towards the end of the war.'

Caidin continues, "Perhaps the reader will question this unqualified selection of the Me 109 design as 'the greatest fighter airplane ever built.' Certainly there will be those who will point out that the Mustang was faster, more manoueverable, with far greater range, and better visibility. But two pilots of equal ability, one in the Mustang and one in the Me-109, would have found their machines extraordinarily well-matched."

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

JaguarMEX
01-01-2004, 12:01 PM
my point exactly, the Allies won the air war in the ETO because of quantity of airplanes and a more complete training


p.s. hope I dont get flamed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Loco-S
01-01-2004, 12:17 PM
Altough I love the 109, there are several deficiencies in the later versions, mostly due to the added weight of armor, weapons, heavier engine, etc etc, the 109 was a "sprinter" a race horse type airplane with the smallest airframe possible for the engine and pilot, where the weapons were almost an aftertought, it was designed to be a close support interceptor, not as a strategic fighter airplane, sure, its performances grew up to the G series, and then they deteriorated into a go forward speed demon with a very limited turning capability, given the situation I believe the FW 190 is more matched to the P51 than the 109, the mustang had several qualities different than the 109, they had to be exploited adequately by the pilots to get the advantage.

for one the p51 is 50 kph faster than the 109 up to 22000 feet, after that they are matched up to 30,000 feet, and then the p 51 is faster again than the 109

the p51 acclerates better than the 109 in dives, taking the dive advantage away from the 109

the 109 turns better than the p51 ( no high speed stall syndrome due to the leading edge slats)

the p51 initially zoom climbs better than the 109 when started at same high speed but the 109 climbs steeper and retains better speed, on a long climb the 109 has clear advantage.

109 has fewer weapons but they are close together to the a/c centerline and has longer firing time in its magazines making it more accurate than the '51

p51 has more weapons but fewer firing time than the 109.

(in real life) the 109 can turn and keep turning down to 250 kph at full power ( slats out), while the P 51 will invariably stall with a spin tendency at 325 kph even with combat flaps in same turn.


as you see both have their own qualities, it depends on the pilot to use them

and yes you are right, by mid 1944 the pilot attrition in the LW was so severe that the average life span of a new pilot in the front line was 3 missions, experienced pilots were lost at high rates, and less training was given to a german pilot that their counterparts before being sent to the butchering front, average of 200 hours before going to combat versus the 500 plus hours that the typical American pilot had in training....

but that is histoy.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/Loco-S.gif
Armis Bela, non venenis geri

DONB3397
01-01-2004, 12:34 PM
OC, happy new year. I suspect this thread will last a while.

The 109 flew longer in more variants than any allied a/c in the war, and with reasonable success. Wm. Yenne, in his book "Aces" writes: "To say the that German aces in WWII outscored the aces of any other air arm is a huge understatement....With the exception of two Japanese aces with possible uncounted victories, no aces in any country other than Germany exceeded 100 aerial victories. In the LW, there were 105 aces who exceeded 100 confirmed victories and 15 who exceeded 200 confirmed. Two men exceeded 300 -- Erich Hartmann with 352, and Gerhard Barkhorn with 301."

Hartman scored all his victories in a 109 (most in a G-6 I believe), and Barkhorn scored the vast majority of his in this a/c. Most of these scores, of course, were against inexperienced and poorly equipped VVS pilots in the early years of Barbarosa.

By the time the P-51 was retrofitted for high altitude combat with a Merlin, many of the experienced aces seem to have been deployed in the east or were dead. Ironically, most of the LW aces who didn't survive the war were killed in accidents, not combat.

There are some very well informed and thoughtful ppl in this community who will have other views. I suspect we'll hear from a few.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCfT77_AYglnLZQo

DaBallz
01-01-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
... it was the pilots.

Talking about the real planes here (P-51 Vs 109).

===========================================
Just happened to be re-reading Martin Caidin's "Me 109" this morning. Caidin quotes Wing Commander Asher Lee RAF:

"In a final review of fighter aircraft, he states that the Me-109 'proved itself the equivelant, if not the superior of any Allied fighter brought against it, including the Hurricane and the Spitfire ... If the Allies had a slight technical pull on the whole, it was certainly not till the last year of the Second World War. The big difference was of course in the quality of pilots ... By the last year of the war many of the German single-engined fighter pilots were hardly able to do more than take off and land the aircraft they flew. It was the German pilot deficiencies much more than the aircraft technical dificiencies which gave the Allies such complete air domination towards the end of the war.'

Caidin continues, "Perhaps the reader will question this unqualified selection of the Me 109 design as 'the greatest fighter airplane ever built.' Certainly there will be those who will point out that the Mustang was faster, more manoueverable, with far greater range, and better visibility. But two pilots of equal ability, one in the Mustang and one in the Me-109, would have found their machines extraordinarily well-matched."

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing Earth shaking here but one should be cautioned NOT to use quotes from any Martin Caidin book. Caidin is well known for exaggeration and out right fabfications. ANY data in his books is at best suspect.

He also made no bones about the fact that he disliked the P-51.

I will add that speed and range were so important in air warfare that the P-51 had a huge advantage as a weapon. In a one on one dog fight it was a close match, and with equal pilots I will give the edge to the P-51 but by a gnats lash.

Db

JG69_Koenig
01-01-2004, 01:12 PM
Hartmann and the other JG52 jocks started really racking their kills by 1943, way after Barbarossa, and the Russians they were fighting flew good aircraft (modern yaks and la, and plenty of lend-lease a/c) and had training.
Besides, most of the aircraft destroyed in the opening days of Barbarossa were done so on the ground by bombers.

The fact is, the Germans had been fighting since 1939, and even earlier for those who participated in the Spanish civil war, they flew at least good enough aircraft all along, and flew alot in dangerous situations against superior odds (the german military didn't care much for the life of the individual soldier, at least not like the US army did).
Thus it's not surprising that some elite pilots stuck out, surviving through a sheer elimination process : the ones who did survive gathered more and more experience which enabled them in turn to be more apt to survive.

DaBallz
01-01-2004, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG69_Koenig:
Hartmann and the other JG52 jocks started really racking their kills by 1943, way after Barbarossa, and the Russians they were fighting flew good aircraft (modern yaks and la, and plenty of lend-lease a/c) and had training.
Besides, most of the aircraft destroyed in the opening days of Barbarossa were done so on the ground by bombers.

The fact is, the Germans had been fighting since 1939, and even earlier for those who participated in the Spanish civil war, they flew at least good enough aircraft all along, and flew alot in dangerous situations against superior odds (the german military didn't care much for the life of the individual soldier, at least not like the US army did).
Thus it's not surprising that some elite pilots stuck out, surviving through a sheer elimination process : the ones who did survive gathered more and more experience which enabled them in turn to be more apt to survive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-----------------------------------------------

Germany was fighting a defensive war by 1942, most of the
air combat was over German held territory. This
gave the German pilot an element of advantage
to be able to bail and survive to fight another day.
Tough way to learn don't you think?

Early on the Brits were able to do the same thing
over Britian during the BOB. Over the Pacific
it was bad for everyone. Drowning was a real possibility.

Most US surviving airmen shot down spent the war
in a prison camp.

Da

Bearcat99
01-01-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaguarMEX:
my point exactly, the Allies won the air war in the ETO because of quantity of airplanes and a more complete training
p.s. hope I dont get flamed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong...the Allies won the air war because Germany had leadership that was myopic and megalomaniacal. If the German military men had been running the show instead of that fool Adolph Hitler and his band of nincompoops the whole war would have gone diffently. Germany had the technology, they had the experienced pilots. The fact that the Me-262 was put on the back burner till it was too late..and even then it wasnt used to it's strength till it was too late, The fact that Germany was the only major combatant in WW2 with no long range bomber, The fact that Goering was an idiot...all these things lost the airwar for Germany. Sure we won it...... but the German leadership also lost it...big time. If those who were trying to kill Hitler...and the plots for this actually started pretty early in the war... had had thier way the whole outcome might have been different. Lastly.....you are right the P-51 did NOT win the war. The GIs, sailors, pilots and civillians who worked in the factories and did the support work on the home front won the war. The machines were just tools.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Copperhead310th
01-01-2004, 02:01 PM
"the Me-109 was obslete the day it rolled of the line."

Kit Carson WWII Ace

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg

VW-IceFire
01-01-2004, 02:15 PM
Here we go again. Anyone who undertakes a serious study of history of anything will know that it is more than one event or one element that truly changes the course of history - especially when it comes to conflict. Mustang is arguably one of those craft that had an impact and so was the Me 262 but that doesn't change a multitude of other factors.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/spit-sig.jpg

Rattles_UK
01-01-2004, 02:26 PM
I've a book "Eagle in Flames-The fall of the Luftwaffe" by E.R.Hooton which documents the LW from the BoB to 1945.On the inside dust cover at the end of the overview it says ....(the reader)will gain a new understanding of how the Luftwaffe snatched defeat from the jaws of victory".And he's right,it was an eye opener reading it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The ISBN is: ISBN 1 85409 343 6
Published by Arms & Armour Press
(and in the US) by Sterling Publishing Co.Inc

----------------------------
flying as No145_Gilly
The Tangmere Pilots
www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk (http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk)
----------------------------

DaBallz
01-01-2004, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rattles_UK:
I've a book "Eagle in Flames-The fall of the Luftwaffe" by E.R.Hooton which documents the LW from the BoB to 1945.On the inside dust cover at the end of the overview it says ....(the reader)will gain a new understanding of how the Luftwaffe snatched defeat from the jaws of victory".And he's right,it was an eye opener reading it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The ISBN is: ISBN 1 85409 343 6
Published by Arms & Armour Press
(and in the US) by Sterling Publishing Co.Inc

----------------------------
flying as No145_Gilly
The Tangmere Pilots
http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk
----------------------------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ready for an eye opener? The Luftwaffe could not have won.
Germany could never have won.
But both could have made it necessary to use the
atom bomb to shorten the war. The war could never have been won even without nukes.

To say the P-51 won the air war is incorrect for sure. Without it the Allies would surely have lost more men, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

To say that without air power the war was a lost cause may be more correct. Germany pulled off a minor miracle to have kept such a close balance in air power. But the weight of the world and the manufacturing collossus of the United States was against them. Hitler was an intelligent man, but insane and evil. Only a nut would have thought Germany could have beaten the whole world.

Da

Old_Canuck
01-01-2004, 03:12 PM
Daballz wrote: "Caidin is well known for exaggeration and out right fabfications. ANY data in his books is at best suspect."

Duly noted. I seem to remember him saying that the P-47 was also the world's best fighter.

Not trying to shake the earth, just trying to get in a cheap shot while you're all nursing your hangovers.

Happy New Year by the way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

SkyChimp
01-01-2004, 03:22 PM
It's all subjective. German air ace Walter Wolfrun said, "The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of these types obviously exceeded all Bf-109 variant in performance, including the 'K.'"


"Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War," (Volume one), Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov, Page 157

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Menthol_moose
01-01-2004, 03:41 PM
No, but it was a great airplane with all the range to escort to berlin thus making life alot easier for the allies.

From what ive read of Goering, he was only interested in his political ambitions and was a incompitant and arrogant leader. A prime example is promising the re-supply of stalingrad, knowing full well it could not be achieved.

A hopeless, spineless "yes man" to hitler ,and herion addict certainly didnt help the cause.

NerdConnected
01-01-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
... it was the pilots.

Talking about the real planes here (P-51 Vs 109).

===========================================
Just happened to be re-reading Martin Caidin's "Me 109" this morning. Caidin quotes Wing Commander Asher Lee RAF:

"In a final review of fighter aircraft, he states that the Me-109 'proved itself the equivelant, if not the superior of any Allied fighter brought against it, including the Hurricane and the Spitfire ... If the Allies had a slight technical pull on the whole, it was certainly not till the last year of the Second World War. The big difference was of course in the quality of pilots ... By the last year of the war many of the German single-engined fighter pilots were hardly able to do more than take off and land the aircraft they flew. It was the German pilot deficiencies much more than the aircraft technical dificiencies which gave the Allies such complete air domination towards the end of the war.'

Caidin continues, "Perhaps the reader will question this unqualified selection of the Me 109 design as 'the greatest fighter airplane ever built.' Certainly there will be those who will point out that the Mustang was faster, more manoueverable, with far greater range, and better visibility. But two pilots of equal ability, one in the Mustang and one in the Me-109, would have found their machines extraordinarily well-matched."

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say, but Mr. Adolf made the allies won the war. Invading Russia while not conquering Britain was the biggest mistake he could make.

If he did'nt make that mistake, I was problably speaking german right now instead of dutch ;-)

Mark

Old_Canuck
01-01-2004, 04:51 PM
Sorry to jump back in on my own thread again. Great comments here. I strongly believe the single most important factor winning the war was the work by British secret service (Intrepid) and the U.S./Canada connection hindering Nazi progress and helping Allied progress on the Atom bomb. This is a bit simplistic as many other factors come into play and many sacrifices were made by all branches of the Allies but the code breaking and underground activities were indispensible ... IMHO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

DaBallz
01-01-2004, 04:52 PM
Sorry to say, but Mr. Adolf made the allies won the war. Invading Russia while not conquering Britain was the biggest mistake he could make.

If he did'nt make that mistake, I was problably speaking german right now instead of dutch ;-)

Mark[/QUOTE]

Err, do you really think Mr Adolph hitler could have won?
All his incompetence really acomplished is to avoid getting nuked.

Da

rick_475
01-01-2004, 05:07 PM
In a crucial point of the Battle of Britain Hitler ordered to concentrate all the bombing on London and other cities, that was the first big mistake. He should have continue to bomb airfields, then take control of airspace and then think about a ground invasion plan. By bombing the cities he gave the RAF the necessary time to repair, reorganize etc. And I don't think Hitler would have turn all its attention to the east battles if he knew he could invade England.

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2004, 06:24 PM
didnt America spend what Nukes it had on Japan ??

wouldnt it have taken them some time to be able to build another ?

DaBallz
01-01-2004, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
didnt America spend what Nukes it had on Japan ??

wouldnt it have taken them some time to be able to build another ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me there were three built, one tested.

One Urainium bomb, To Hiroshima
Two Plutonium bombs, one tested, one to Nagasaki.
A third not assembled till after the war.
I am operating from memory, but I believe the third was a plutonium devise of roughly twice the power of the Nagasaki bomb.
I would guess the first target would be Germany if all of Europe was occupied.
Japan would have had to wait for the next batch of bombs.

Delivery would have been by B-29 in a one way flight or possibly in flight refueling (it was being developed).
The B-36 and B-35 were slowed down by the success of the British in the BOB and the failure of the Germans to invade. Both the B-35 wing and the B-36 could have made the round trip.

The Luftwhiners will now chime in that a lone B-36 could not have made it. But if it did a large German city would have been microwaved.

Da

BM357_Raven
01-01-2004, 07:37 PM
The collective Allied resources outmatched the collective German resources:

- Manpower
- Equipment
- Raw Materials
- Money
- International teamwork
- Heads of State (Hitler and Georing were fools)
- Over-all Planning and Strategy (Strat. bombing)
- Spy networks - deception, code breaking, double-agents

I think it was Ambrose who wrote that Germany was in effect, fighting a four front war.. Which I never thought of before, although I got the first three: Western Europe, Eastern Europe and North Africa. The final one was a war against its economy and production, ie. strategic bombing..

I would like to mention a sort of 'what if' scenerio that one could call a victory for Nazi German.

Although Germany might not have won against the whole world (in the sense of seizing England or the Soviet Union, it is conceivable that Hitler could have at least settled with the Russians were he able to repel the Allies at Normandy, and thereby obtain a victory of sorts..

He could have ended up with the brunt of continental western Europe and worked to consolidate whatever he had left--perhaps to (and I would guess) to fight another day. And from that, it could be considered a victory against the world. I say that in the context that any Fascism existing in the world is a loss...Kinda idealistic?

American politics are hard to guess, I think. Popular support can be swayed as much by propaganda as it can by fighting a war that might have, at that point, seemed unwinnable. If the Americans had been thrown back into the sea, it is hard to gauge whether they would have given up altogher to focus their energies on the Pacific and against an enemy that directly attacked their borders.

If Hitler had bartered for peace after defeating the Americans and positioning the remainder of his forces along his eastern front, would the Allies at that point have agreed to 'peace' (hard to mix hitler and peace in the same sentence)? I dont know.

The A-bomb is certainly an important piece to the final equation had the war lingered on with Germany for much longer.

Still, we will never know..

http://www.bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)
Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Videos (http://www.bm357.com/movies.htm)

BS87
01-01-2004, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Sorry to say, but Mr. Adolf made the allies won the war. Invading Russia while not conquering Britain was the biggest mistake he could make.

If he did'nt make that mistake, I was problably speaking german right now instead of dutch ;-)

Mark<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, do you really think Mr Adolph hitler could have won?
All his incompetence really acomplished is to avoid getting nuked.

Da[/QUOTE]


Where do you think America got some of it's Atomic research from? And where are they going to launch the bomber from? Certantly not England if Hitler has already conquered it.

DONB3397
01-01-2004, 11:59 PM
Ah...can we conclude then that the P-51D did NOT win the war? Darn.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCfT77_AYglnLZQo

mcarruthers
01-02-2004, 01:17 AM
I dont mean to sound offensive here but...

Who said the mustang won the war anyway? It wasn't the best WWII plane of all time its just the americans loved it. Doesnt mean everyone else will?


I know the title is the P51 did NOT win the war but someone must have come up with the title the p51 did win the war


Hope I dont get shouted at for that :S

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hj.carruthers/il2fb/mcarruthers2.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-02-2004, 03:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It's all subjective. German air ace Walter Wolfrun said, "The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of these types obviously exceeded all Bf-109 variant in performance, including the 'K.'"


"Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War," (Volume one), Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov, Page 157
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I shoud read this book to find out about german planes, right Skychimp? And who's this great german ace nobody heard about?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-02-2004, 03:09 AM
Between the two major german fighters there is a clear distiction: 109 scored much more than 190 against fighters, as 190 scored much more than 109 against bombers. 109 remained the best dogfighter throught the war, a fact proven by the enourmous number of victories and aces given by this plane, but also by the performance specs.

One word about the losses/victories in ETO '44: USAAF fighter claimed 5600 german aircraft destroyed (in air) and lost 2900 aicraft to german fighters. Problem is that first number is a claim the second represents sure losses. Since overclaiming was in general by a factor of 2 or 3, you'll see that both sides fighters destroyed about the same number of enemy aircraft. All this at a time when USAAF made about 10 to 20 times more sorties (total air supremacy) than LW, there was an acute shortage of pilots in LW, and there was very little fuel (but also little time) to properly train a new pilot (most of them had to learn combat tactics directly in combat).

All things considered LW pilots did rather well, OKL on the other hand did a miserable job. They left the ETO skies practically undefended, with only 2 JG there. They should have had at least 1000 more aicraft in France, before the landings (those aircrafts should have formed new JGs and KGs, not taken from Eastern Front - this was not a solution). They had all the signals/reasons for such a measure.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2004, 04:34 AM
the Mustang protected the bombers during the fight back

it has gained the reputation of being the key to the crushing of Germanys ability to wage war

this was done thru Bombing

the bombers were protected & made to be more effective by the introduction of the Mustang

its a statement created by historical opinion rather than kill ratios



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mcarruthers:
I dont mean to sound offensive here but...

Who said the mustang won the war anyway? It wasn't the best WWII plane of all time its just the americans loved it. Doesnt mean everyone else will?

I know the title is the P51 did NOT win the war but someone must have come up with the title the p51 did win the war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HamishUK
01-02-2004, 05:53 AM
'Give me Spitfires'

Galland during the BoB and in an interview in the 1960's he repeated his statement.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg

erscal
01-02-2004, 06:12 AM
First of all, Fascism and Nazism where two completely different things, even if they shared almost everything: the way they got the power in the respective countries, the insanity of many officials, the outcome of the war...only difference, Mussolini was a bit more sane than Hitler, and he even tryed to convince the Furher to settle back in some fronts (without luck, fortunately...), but was completely overpowered by its first line officials who NEVER had obeyed to his wills, and by Hitler himself who forced him to order what he won't order (racial laws, submission of Italian troops to not too shined German commanders, and so on).
I know, this isn't the topic argument, but as an Italian I want to correct this false view of Hitler as a "fascist", as Nazism was much more cruel as Fascism (it's the history to tell that, not me).

That said, too many factors here for the outcome of the war, but for sure one big mistake.
Said about the incoscience of German line of command, said about the ongoing lack of men and materials on the German side, said about the great error in not trying to invade England isles first, we can then speak about the GIGANTIC error in opening an eastern front (do you remember Napoleon and his Russian Campaign?) against a former ally...
Yes, if Germany and Russia had conducted the war as allies, we couldn't tell what its outcome would have been...perhaps now we could see an American-Chinese ally, and the official european language would have been German and Cyrillic instead of English...and Bin Laden would have attacked the Cremlin instead of the Twin Towers, while the whole Middle East could have been a gigantic battle camp with no Muslims involved, only America vs. Europe...

So, no "P51 or P38 has won the war", only errors after errors on German side, no way.
Instead, we can speak of the weight of the P51 in actually win the war, but it's a completely different side of view from this topic...

I'm hoping not to hurt anyone exspecially for my very first argument (Nazism vs. Fascism), I'm only telling what a ton of WW2 reading had learned me.


Happy new year all, folks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BaldieJr
01-02-2004, 06:19 AM
Hey look! They're looking for loopholes in the outcome of the war again! Great thread!!!!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

p1ngu666
01-02-2004, 07:30 AM
u got a definition or how fascism was in italy?
im curious http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
russia was a mistake, but the africa campaign was even more insane. the reason of that was to get to iran for the oil

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2004, 08:20 AM
im out of my depth here

why did Hitler push out on so many fronts ?

at the time Russia was non aggressive ... why attack ?

why bother pushing into africa so far ? to protect his back ?

why did he hold back from an all out assualt on England ? .... did he only want England to back off or did he want to take it for real ??

NegativeGee
01-02-2004, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
im out of my depth here

why did Hitler push out on so many fronts ?

at the time Russia was non aggressive ... why attack ?

why bother pushing into africa so far ? to protect his back ?

why did he hold back from an all out assualt on England ? .... did he only want England to back off or did he want to take it for real ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A quickie on the US Atom bombs, and their availablility towards the end of WW2:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html#nfaq8.1.5

As to the multi front nature of WW2.... well Germany did succeed in biting of more than it could chew.

What happened of course defies logic... why did Germany enter into war with so many states, including the two nations with the greatest military resources? You have to consider Hitler's plans for the war, and these were hardly based upon "logic" (or the sound advice of many of his more honest Staff Officers).

If there was one overall objective of WW2 in Hitlers mind it was to subjugate the Soviet Union, its lands and its peoples to Germany. This cannot be stressed enough.... the actions in the years 1938-1940 gave Germay the near total control of contiental Europe that could allow a war to be waged in the East.

War with Great Britain resulted from a miscalculation on the part of the Nazi's and a change of political leadership in the UK. Hitler had wanted to sue for peace with the UK afterthe fall of France. The BoB was an improvised attempt to quickly subdue mainland UK, but by this time resources were already being earmarked for the East and when things went sour, Hitler dismissed the risks of fighting on two fronts and continued with the build up for Barbarossa. Once at war with Great Britain, the war in Africa followed, and as such was not in the "core plan" off what Hitler wanted to achieve (if Rommel had been properly supplied after Barbarossa had begun things may have turned out very differently).

War in the Balkans in 1941 prior to Barbarossa was out of a need to secure the front after the disasterous Italian campaign earlier that year. Again, the reason for the new front was to secure borders prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union.

War with America resulted from a Strategic Alliance with Japan. Once Japan entered into war with the USA, Germany (and Italy) were bound to do so in lieu of the Axis agreement.

As to why a non-aggressive Soviet Union was attacked.... well, the USSR-Germany pact lead Stalin to believe he had at least a time before war with Germany could occur. He suspected that war was inevitable, but did not expect it before well into 1942. As such, the invasion in 1941 was a colossal shock to Stalin (indeed Stalin spent some time recovering from nervous exhaughstion after the invasion occured). It also reveals the depth of the deceit the Nazi Foreign Ministry lured the Soviet Leadership into regarding the relationship between the two countries. The Soviets had plenty of good intelligence showing an invasion was imminent, but Stalin & Co refused to interpret it as a prelude to invasion (an act that was entirely illegal under international law... Hitler had no legitimate pretext for launching Barbarossa).


Overall, its a very complex issue..... but understanding Hitler military aims is very insightful in appreciating why Germany ended up fighting on so many fronts, and the nature of the Nazis helps to understand why he was able to do this, and continue it for so long. I've missed out lots here, but hopefully you get the gist.

Oh, and finally, UKHamish, Gallands quote about the Spitfires was a rebuke to Goring after he asserted the Luftwaffe pilots lacked the courage abd will to win the BoB, and his preposterous assumption that the battle could be won merely by what new material could be supplied to execute the task in hand.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

DaBallz
01-02-2004, 03:46 PM
Well folks, is seems we will never agree.
Not a problem.
I will forever say Hitler could not have won
no matter what tactics were employed.

That nuclear devestaion awaited is not in doubt.

I also believe Britian would not have fallen
without US intervention. Even if Japan had not
bombed Pearl Harbor the US would have come to
the aid of Britian.

Want evidence? The US was sending fuel and
weapons in large quantities. Packard Motor Company
was contracted to build merlin engines
BEFORE Pearl Harbor. In fact work on the
project was started in 1940. Hardly the actions
of a neutral country don't you think?

As to the nukes, that great link previously
posted confirmed and added to what I said eariler.
Nuclear weapons were not to be in short supply.

Fortunately Stalin knew it.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Da

erscal
01-02-2004, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
u got a definition or how fascism was in italy?
im curious http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was almost a tiranny, simple http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I said "almost": Mussolini was the front symbol, but the real power was in the hands of military commanders, the ones in which Mussolini initially trusted, and by which was then betrayed (September 8 1943, when most of the former government ran to embarch on the ship carrying the King family to safest places, and then claiming they were the legitimate government...luckily the Italian Front Chief Commander had another idea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

After the war, it come out that the majority of Fascism adversaries were still alive, were took prisoners by Mussolini's guard but weren't killed, and the ones who died had been killed by natural causes (apart from Matteotti, but this is another entirely different story, Mussolini itself claimed his own political responsibility for the murder); we can't tell so about Nazism adversaries...

Oh well, waaaaay off topic now, sorry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It's all subjective. German air ace Walter Wolfrun said, "The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of these types obviously exceeded all Bf-109 variant in performance, including the 'K.'"


"Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War," (Volume one), Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov, Page 157
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I shoud read this book to find out about german planes, right Skychimp? And who's this great german ace nobody heard about?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

See how you get, Huck? A German pilot says the P-51 outclassed the Bf-109, he's a liar.

You said tha same thing about the Technical Officer of JG26 who stated the P-51 and P-47 outclassed the Fw-109D in a dive.

Gee whiz, Huck.

Nobody knows what they are talking about except you, huh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-02-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
See how you get, Huck? A German pilot says the P-51 outclassed the Bf-109, he's a liar.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, he wasn't a liar, he was outclassed as you saidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
So what, not all pilots were top notch.
But I'm always amused how you dig for such obscure pilots for a little trolling. Old habits die hardhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You said tha same thing about the Technical Officer of JG26 who stated the P-51 and P-47 outclassed the Fw-109D in a dive.

Gee whiz, Huck.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me the word of countless 109 experten who swore by their plane is more credible than the word of an anonimous pilot. I don't know about you though.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One word about the losses/victories in ETO '44: USAAF fighter claimed 5600 german aircraft destroyed (in air) and lost 2900 aicraft to german fighters. Problem is that first number is a claim the second represents sure losses. Since overclaiming was in general by a factor of 2 or 3, you'll see that both sides fighters destroyed about the same number of enemy aircraft. All this at a time when USAAF made about 10 to 20 times more sorties (total air supremacy) than LW, there was an acute shortage of pilots in LW, and there was very little fuel (but also little time) to properly train a new pilot (most of them had to learn combat tactics directly in combat).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Ummm, what?

You're comparing German aircraft shot down only by U.S. fighters

to

All American aircraft shot down by all German types.


Very interesting. If I didn't know better, I'd think your were doing that on purpose. But I know you would never be deceiving in the numbers you select. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

=============================

Better to do it this way:

In 1944 the USAAF lost 1,293 fighters in A2A combat. They lost 2,902 of all types in A2A combat.

In 1944 the USAAF shot down 8,050 German planes in A2A combat (5,602 by fighters, 50 by medium bombers, and 2,398 by heavy bombers).

So, in pure fighter-vs-fighter combat, the USAAF achieved a 4.33:1 kill ratio over the Luftwaffe.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 04:59 PM
Nah, he wasn't a liar, he was outclassed as you saidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nah, Huck, I didn't say, the German said it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



So what, not all pilots were top notch.
But I'm always amused how you dig for such obscure pilots for a little trolling. Old habits die hardhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You mean like the Technical Officer for JG26 who said that the Fw-190D was outclassed by both the P-51 and P-47 in a dive? If memory serves, you called him a liar, too. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



To me the word of countless 109 experten who swore by their plane is more credible than the word of an anonimous pilot. I don't know about you though.

Oh, a pilot who flew with JG26 all through 1944 until the end of the war and lived - no credibility there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Gibbage1
01-02-2004, 05:35 PM
We spent them on Japan well after Germany surrendered. We had two at the time, and detonated a few in the desert. I doubt it would take much time to get two more for Berlin. Or spend one on Japan and one on Berlin. I think someone said that the Nuke really would not work on Germany because of the mentality of its leadership. Hitler was a man like Stalin that demanded victory at all cost. The people ment nothing too Hitler. This is proven because he kept fighting a loosing war till the bitter end, waisting a lot of good lives. Japanese leaders cared a lot more for there population and saw the end was near before the nuke fell. They had no way of repelling an invasion of the homeland and the civilions would have suffered a lot more then from the two nukes the US dropped. I think the two nukes just sped up the surrender.

The Pacific and European war were differant is every aspect but one. The outcome. How the outcome was acheaved was also differant.

P.s. Hitler was so crazy, he killed himself, his children and his wife before giving up. At least Saddam had the sense to know when too surrender http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
didnt America spend what Nukes it had on Japan ??

wouldnt it have taken them some time to be able to build another ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

KIMURA
01-02-2004, 05:44 PM
Better to do it this way:

In 1944 the USAAF lost 1,293 fighters in A2A combat. They lost 2,902 of all types in A2A combat.

In 1944 the USAAF shot down 8,050 German planes in A2A combat (5,602 by fighters, 50 by medium bombers, and 2,398 by heavy bombers).

So, in pure fighter-vs-fighter combat, the USAAF achieved a 4.33:1 kill ratio over the Luftwaffe.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg [/QUOTE]


Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, those comparison of kills are always botchy and there a several reasons why.

1st the horrible overclaiming of either the USAAF fighter pilot who seems to be very optmistic and thefar way off claims of the heavy Buffs crews.

2nd fighter vs fighter kills. All that flew for the LW was a fighter in the eyes of USAAF pilots - and that simply wrong. You don't wanna seriously tell me, a 190A-8/R8 or a 109G-6/R6 is a fighter, or a Me210/410. Bomber destroyers are claimed as fighter vs. fighter kill was is simply wrong.

The total strenght of the German Reichverteidigung, including the forces @ Benelux and France and Austria was in June below 800a/c in absolute maximum. At the climax of the Battle over the Reich, in April 44, GO Stumpff claimed the loss of a total of 433 own LW a/c. So I wonder how the Allies wanted to shoot down 8000 a/c throughout the year, if the LW lost at the climax below the average of 1/12 of 8000 a/c.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 05:49 PM
The total strenght of the German Reichverteidigung, including the forces @ Benelux and France and Austria was in June below 800a/c in absolute maximum. At the climax of the Battle over the Reich, in April 44, GO Stumpff claimed the loss of a total of 433 own LW a/c. So I wonder how the Allies wanted to shoot down 8000 a/c throughout the year, if the LW lost at the climax below the average of 1/12 of 8000 a/c


Ever heard of production? Or did the German never replace a plane?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

DaBallz
01-02-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
_The total strenght of the German Reichverteidigung, including the forces @ Benelux and France and Austria was in June below 800a/c in absolute maximum. At the climax of the Battle over the Reich, in April 44, GO Stumpff claimed the loss of a total of 433 own LW a/c. So I wonder how the Allies wanted to shoot down 8000 a/c throughout the year, if the LW lost at the climax below the average of 1/12 of 8000 a/c_


Ever heard of production? Or did the German never replace a plane?

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Through February 1945 German aircraft production never suffered. Fuel and pilot shortages did in fact ground a lot of them, but production shortages was never a practical issue.

Da

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 06:02 PM
In September 1944 alone, 2,876 Bf-109s and Fw-190s were produced. Replacing lost planes was easy for the Luftwaffe.

But having a this-many-planes or that-many-planes available at any given times does nothing to counter the fact that units suffered virtual decimation regularly only to be immediately resupplied with fresh planes and fresh, green, pilots.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

faustnik
01-02-2004, 06:19 PM
I can't recall a first hand account of any P-51 or P-47 not being able to outdive any enemy a/c.

The figures for air-to-air kills are really difficult to prove. Analysis of claims vs. actual losses almost always shows a 2:1 to 10:1 overclaiming, especially over enemy territory. I wouldn't put much weight on the "8,000" air-to-air kills claim.

The Dora and P-51, by accounts of piolts on both sides, were very evenly matched, just like they are in FB. Another example of great work by 1C.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-02-2004, 06:32 PM
Re: P-51 Mustang did NOT win the war ...

Tell me something I didn't know http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-02-2004, 06:34 PM
Ow, and the last good 109 model was the Friedrich or, maybe the G2. After that, Messerschmidt began loosing the edge with upgrading the 109 to match its enemies.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

p1ngu666
01-02-2004, 06:37 PM
yes, rampant overclaiming there
ull need to look up the german losses, by germans
even that will be a lil wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-02-2004, 06:48 PM
thanks btw erscal
forgot to thank http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Suckerpunch11
01-02-2004, 06:52 PM
The premise of this entire thread is based on the opinion of one man, an RA Wing Commander. Maybe he was right, maybe not. There are other opinions.

SkyChimp
01-02-2004, 07:02 PM
Here is an interesting excerpt from the book "Six Months To Oblivion"." It's a transcript of a briefing given to Hilter on November 6, 1944 regarding the anti-bomber operation that took place on November 2, 1944. It demonstrates well the frustrations of the air-war:



Hitler: I've had another look at this business - I don't know if Reichsmarchall Goring is fully in the picture. I've taken another fresh look at the whole thing and my conclusion is that 80 machines have recently been shot down.

Ruchs: 82

Hitler: Of those 80, 50 were shot down by fighters and 30 by AA. We'll discount the 30 for a moment. The Luftwafe had 490 machines.

Buchs: 305!

Hitler: Right, 305 made contact, but you just said 490.

Buchs: No, 305. The whole fighter wing at Frankfurt failed to make contact, and of Jagdgeschwader 4...

Hitler: All right then, 305 - it comes to the same thing. And among those, he said, and assault Staffel with 43 machines was committed. This assault staffel shot down 30 machines on its own.

Buchs: Both assault Gruppen. There were two assault Gruppen.

Hitler: With altogether...?

Buchs: With altogether 63 aircraft. 61 of those made contact.

Hitler: Right, 61.

Buchs: They shot down 30 heavy bombers.

Hitler: That leaves 20. If you take away these 60 machines from 305, that leaves 240. So 240 machines made 20 kills in all, and themselves lost...30 in the assault Saffel?

Buchs: Yes, 30 in the assault Staffel.

Hitler: The rest lost 90. Then we have 240 sorties with 90 lost and 20 kills altogether.

Christian: One other thing. The assault Gruppe has another Gruppe with it which covers it.

Hitler: I don't give a damn about that! The covering squadron must shoot, too! It wasn't just bombers that were shot down...some fighters were too.

Buchs: Yes, that's clear.

Hitler: Then the result is throughly unsatisfactory.

Christian: The key point is still the thirty kills by the assualt Gruppen...

Hitler: Do you have someone with you to make a planned analysis of all these things? Anyway, the Reichsmarschall isn't in the picture. When he was here just now, he had no idea that our losses were so high - these damned "failed to return" reports confuse the whole issue.

Christian: This comes up every day.

Hitler: I want to see the whole thing properly worked out. This proves once and for all that either the pilots or their machines are no good. We can't argue that its the pilots, because it's they who get shot down. So it must be the machines. But I have quite the opposite view of the Luftwaffe - their aircraft are good! The whole thing is ridiculous. If I try to work it out, I can't make the answer add up.

Buchs: 65 machines were originally reported missing after this operation. Up to today, 38 of all these have been traced, and 27 are still missing. All 38 were complete write-offs; 32 people were killed, and 6 have come back wounded or unhurt.

Hitler: It takes a bit more time to sort all this out. The other day I was given the figures for one month. But someone should have said how many sorties were flown. For one month it looks crazy. But the numbers of sorties is what really...

Buchs: I put in the number of sorties, but the figures aren't available for the whole month.

Hitler: That's the whole point! It's minute.

Christian: But Fuhrer, those are percentages.

Buchs: Fuhrer, I'm now tracing through all these operations from the 1st onwards and looking specially at aircraft reported missing.

Hitler: There must be someone to go through all these things properly and set out the deductions and conclusions. It must be somehow possible to draw proper conclusions. We can't just say, "Well, that's the way it is."

Christian: Fuhrer, we're drawing up planning figures and forecasts all the time - Generaloberst Stumpff as Commander Air Forces Germany is responsible for this. Galland as Inspector can talk to the units. The Reichsmarchall always has at his side...

Hitler: Well, all I can say is no one has ever shown me figures of this kind.

Christian: Fuhrer, I've got all these tables all drawn up!

Hitler: But I've never really taken them apart. One's got to do that sort of thing oneself.

Christian: These figures are just preliminary ones. The assault Gruppe shot down 30 heavy bombers.

Hitler: 30. And AA shot down 30. That leaves 20. And that comes from 260 engagements. That's a rotten result. I put in 260 fighters and get 20 kills. So if I put in 2,000, I'd get 200 kills. That means I just can't count on those machines producing any...and they're pouring out of the factories at the devil's own pace. They're just eating up labor and materials.

Christian: The real reason, Fuhrer, is that the boys hadn't flown for 10 days.

Hitler: Reasons! Reasons! We're always hearing about reasons!

Christian: Well, that's the way things are! By contrast the Jagdgeschwader that took off in bad weather in the West landed back without loss, because it's flying every day, even in bad weather. You just can't get away from it.

Hitler: I don't want to say anything against the pilots. Let's stick to the kill figures for the moment; nothing can change those. It means that with 2,600 aircraft I can expect 200 kills. In other words any hope of achieving decimation by mass tactics is right out of court. So it's nonsensical to keep on making machines just for the Luftwaffe to play numbers-games with.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

Bearcat99
01-02-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I can't recall a first hand account of any P-51 or P-47 not being able to outdive any enemy a/c.

The figures for air-to-air kills are really difficult to prove. Analysis of claims vs. actual losses almost always shows a 2:1 to 10:1 overclaiming, especially over enemy territory. I wouldn't put much weight on the "8,000" air-to-air kills claim.

The Dora and P-51, by accounts of piolts on both sides, were very evenly matched, just like they are in FB. Another example of great work by 1C.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-47 pilots would not follow the German planes in a dive below a cretain hiegt because they didnt do well down low and refused to fight on the Luftwaffes terms in that respect..(when possible of course).

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

HellToupee
01-02-2004, 10:02 PM
can you really rely on kill claims for a picture of how AC should perform, ever try attacking a bomber with escorts online, dosnt matter how good ur plane is your pretty easy meat, i once downed 3 planes going for a single bomber online in an a8 me being the only guy around.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Loco-S
01-02-2004, 10:24 PM
Huckebein-FW
quote:
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It's all subjective. German air ace Walter Wolfrun said, "The best fighters I met in combat were the American P-51 Mustang and Russian Yak-9U. Both of these types obviously exceeded all Bf-109 variant in performance, including the 'K.'"
"Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War," (Volume one), Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov, Page 157


I guess I shoud read this book to find out about german planes, right Skychimp? And who's this great german ace nobody heard about?
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Walter Wolfrum

One of the outstanding young fighters, beginning his carrier in 1943, Walter Wolfrum joined the 5th/JG 52 operating on the East front in January 1943. Despite being enormously active in the battles he remained unsuccessful for longer period of time. However, at last, he achieved his first victory on the 25th of May when fighting with the 62nd squadron as well as on the 21st of July with the 132nd squadron.
His 20th successful mission came in on the 11th of July and since then he went on with successful downing of the enemy aircraft during 1944. In May when he downed 28 Soviet planes, Walter Wolfrum was appointed a commander of the 1st/JG 52 and subsequently on the 1st of June he celebrated his 100th shot down. Unfortunately he himself was downed after shooting 28 Soviet planes down and was seriously injured. He managed to return in February 1945. At the end of the War, he was fortunate to be released after being captured by the Red Army.

In total, he participated in 424 combat flights with 137 victories on the East front. Out of these, he downed 119 fighter aircrafts and 16 I1 ? 2-s. As 40 shot downs have no witnesses they couldn?t be included. He was injured four times altogether and force- landed with his aircraft shot through. After the war, he became one of the most extraordinary air-acrobat in former West Germany.


He downed a total of 137 aircrafts.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/Loco-S.gif
Armis Bela, non venenis geri

Fehler
01-02-2004, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
"the Me-109 was obslete the day it rolled of the line."

Kit Carson WWII Ace

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there were a lot of "Dear Sir/Ma'am, we are sad to inform you" letter that were written because of an obsolete aircraft.

Like anything else, you can believe or disbelieve propaganda. If the Luftwaffe were as bad as Kit Carson said they were, the allies could have merely wished them away and they would have been no more.

Everything I have read from or about the guy suggests to me that he was way too full of himself. He didnt even have enough originality to think of a better nickname. LOL

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/Fehlersig.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

KIMURA
01-03-2004, 05:20 AM
SkyChimp, you didn't catch my point.

The USAAF claimed the destruction of 8000 LW a/c during the year 1944. The LW lost at the high point in April 1944 433 own a/c as total losses. So do a simple math.

(Taken the climax losses): 12x433 is 5196 throughout a year. So "YOUR" 8000 are just non sense or over claims, or strafing kills taken as A2A kills.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cajun76
01-03-2004, 05:52 AM
As far as experten or any good pilots out there, they will generally swear by whatever plane they had the most success in, even if it was a Brewster. So just because a lot of German aces swear by the 109 means nothing. It was good, but by no means perfect. There was always a demand for 190s, and if Wiley could have developed something better without interupting the production output of airframes, I'm sure he would have. Look at the sheer number of variations of the 109 toward the end, trying to keep up with Allied advances in fighters. It never got totally outclassed, but as a war-winning design it wasn't cutting the mustard.

One thing about Allied claims of "bomber destroyers". The sole reson for fighter aircraft is too either protect bombers or destroy them. Air power is a way to influence events on the ground. If they put heavy weapons on a 109 and have it wallow towards some bombers, it's still a fighter. Same thing with 110s , 210s and 410s. Whether these a/c are well suited to the task of being a fighter is another debate.

According to your definition of "fighter", any Jug that was groundpouding and shot down was not reportable as downing a fighter, as would be a P-51 returning home on the deck, strafing. If it isn't a fighter anymore, what is it?

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

x__CRASH__x
01-03-2004, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
...So just because a lot of German aces swear by the 109 means nothing. It was good, but by no means perfect...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BLASPHEMER!!!!! BURN HIM!!!

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)

MiloMorai
01-03-2004, 10:29 AM
It would be interesting to see how the SBC over Germany would have turned out without the P-51 to escort the heavies.

horseback
01-03-2004, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
"the Me-109 was obslete the day it rolled of the line."

Kit Carson WWII Ace

http://imageshack.us/files/380th%20siggy.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there were a lot of "Dear Sir/Ma'am, we are sad to inform you" letter that were written because of an obsolete aircraft.

Like anything else, you can believe or disbelieve propaganda. If the Luftwaffe were as bad as Kit Carson said they were, the allies could have merely wished them away and they would have been no more.

Everything I have read from or about the guy suggests to me that he was way too full of himself. He didnt even have enough originality to think of a better nickname. LOL



Fehler,
It's possible that you don't understand the concept of a nickname. It is usually conferred by one's comrades without consulting the victim at all. A guy attempting to choose his own nickname is likely going to to have it corrupted in the most demeaning possible way. Carson probably earned the nickname simply by being named Carson; had he not been a good guy, his squadronmates probably would have called him "Kitty," or worse.

Carson was by all accounts a guy who said what he thought and backed up what he said. He was the leading ace in a Fighter Group that included Chuck Yeager and Bud Anderson, after all.

European subtlety never caught on in America due to several factors, but the biggest one was the fact that clarity was more important on the hostile frontier among Europeans of various origins who had limited command of the one common language than diplomacy. Being indirect may be diplomatic, but it doesn't always get the message across.

A little cultural understanding on your part would be a welcome change. Something that sounds rude, blunt, or silly in one language (or culture) may be clear, direct, and possibly poetic in another.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

SkyChimp
01-03-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
SkyChimp, you didn't catch my point.

The USAAF claimed the destruction of 8000 LW a/c during the year 1944. The LW lost at the high point in April 1944 433 own a/c as total losses. So do a simple math.

(Taken the climax losses): 12x433 is 5196 throughout a year. So "YOUR" 8000 are just non sense or over claims, or strafing kills taken as A2A kills.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kimura!

Come on, you know better than that!

433 lost in a single month (April 1944) was the high point in losses for the Luftwaffe?!!!???!!

There wasn't a single month in 1944 where the Luftwaffe lost just 433 aircraft! Where in the WORLD do you come up with that?

Hell, on November 2, 1944 alone, the Luftwaffe lost 98 aircraft in a single attack on a bomber raid.

You need to do a little more research if you really believe that the Luftwaffe suffered only 433 a/c losses in April 1944 - and that was their highest loss month.

A good site to start with would be:

http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

RedDeth
01-03-2004, 03:29 PM
p51 won the war

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

Loco-S
01-03-2004, 03:34 PM
NO


the American Economy won the war.

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/kurbalaganda/Loco-S.gif
Armis Bela, non venenis geri

SkyChimp
01-03-2004, 03:36 PM
BTW, Loco. Thanks for posting that bit on Walter Wolfrum.

I'm sure he'll immediately be discounted as an inexperienced noob and traitor who was drugged and tortured to say what he did.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

DaBallz
01-03-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
BTW, Loco. Thanks for posting that bit on Walter Wolfrum.

I'm sure he'll immediately be discounted as an inexperienced noob and traitor who was drugged and tortured to say what he did.

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh Skychimp, you are so wrong. The P-51 did not win the war.
Hitlers mistakes and his commanders incompitent
bumbeling lost the war.

After all, those German fighting men and Uber
weapons could not be defeated, even by the
might of the whole world.
That Germany lacked men and resources to fight
a protracted war against the whole world means nothing.
We americans are so arrogant to think we simply
beat the Germans senseless.
Not even nuclear weapons could have stopped
the Third Reich if Hitler had played his cards
correctly.
After reading some posts in this forum I get
the feeling that the Allies never won, Germany
never surrendered and it's all an American conspiresy.

Da

MiloMorai
01-03-2004, 06:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

A little cultural understanding on your part would be a welcome change. Something that sounds rude, blunt, or silly in one language (or culture) may be clear, direct, and possibly poetic in another.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Eupies whose mother tongue is not English should take a lesson. They get all hot and bothered under the collar, at nothing.

pinche_bolillo
01-03-2004, 07:39 PM
hum, im not sure, but I would think that the month of november 1944 was the month that the germans lost the most aircraft. fighting the english and americans that is. many books that I have on fighter units list an awful lot of kills during this month. its even in americas hundred thousand about the month of november 44, just grab it and pop it open to the mustang's section and read about its operational history

arcadeace
01-03-2004, 07:51 PM
Excuse me guys, does anyone know where I can get some of this...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073184373.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073065682.jpg

Cajun76
01-04-2004, 06:15 AM
Posted by KIMURA:
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, those comparison of kills are always botchy and there a several reasons why.

1st the horrible overclaiming of either the USAAF fighter pilot who seems to be very optmistic and thefar way off claims of the heavy Buffs crews.

2nd fighter vs fighter kills. All that flew for the LW was a fighter in the eyes of USAAF pilots - and that simply wrong. You don't wanna seriously tell me, a 190A-8/R8 or a 109G-6/R6 is a fighter, or a Me210/410. Bomber destroyers are claimed as fighter vs. fighter kill was is simply wrong.


Then Cajun76 (hey, that's me!) posted:
As far as experten or any good pilots out there, they will generally swear by whatever plane they had the most success in, even if it was a Brewster. So just because a lot of German aces swear by the 109 means nothing. It was good, but by no means perfect. There was always a demand for 190s, and if Wiley could have developed something better without interupting the production output of airframes, I'm sure he would have. Look at the sheer number of variations of the 109 toward the end, trying to keep up with Allied advances in fighters. It never got totally outclassed, but as a war-winning design it wasn't cutting the mustard.

One thing about Allied claims of "bomber destroyers". The sole reson for fighter aircraft is too either protect bombers or destroy them. Air power is a way to influence events on the ground. If they put heavy weapons on a 109 and have it wallow towards some bombers, it's still a fighter. Same thing with 110s , 210s and 410s. Whether these a/c are well suited to the task of being a fighter is another debate.

According to your definition of "fighter", any Jug that was groundpouding and shot down was not reportable as downing a fighter, as would be a P-51 returning home on the deck, strafing. If it isn't a fighter anymore, what is it?

Then Rhorta posted:
What about a Schlachtflieger?

At least with the SGs it was more a case of groundsupport than fighter-bomber. The pilots were often ex-StGs and not trained as fighter pilots.

Although this is only interesting in terms of post war analysis and hardly of consequence during the fighting itself.

That some SG pilots were able to rack up kills speaks for their individual skills, not for the branch in general. We are talking dedicated ground attack pilots flying a plane that is derived from a fighter.

So a US fighter-bomber remains a fighter, but the same does not go for a Luftwaffe Schlachtflieger. Its officially a ground attack aicraft.

Not trying to be funny or sardonic, but is this post considered apologist? Because if it is I must seriously consider quitting this forum...since I friggin' do not understand anymore.

Ruy Horta


KIMURA brought up fighter vs. fighter, or more specifically, heavily armed fighters outfitted to destroy bombers. To me, this is the definition of a fighter, to either bring down bombers or defend them. The Germans were desparate to stop the bombers, and took extreme measures to bring them down. The fact that outfitting of these a/c to destroy bombers renders them obsolete for fighter vs fighter combat dosen't mean a pilot downing them shouldn't claim them as a fighter. Otherwise, German claims of downing large numbers of obsolete a/c on the Eastern Front should be null and void, since these fighters were unsuited for fighting more modern a/c.

So you tell me, Rhorta. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif 9th USAAF pilots (I beleive) dedicated a large portion of their efforts to the ground attack role. They were trained for it, and it was the majority of their experience. They didn't have a fancy name, however. Should these a/c be taken off German fighter kill lists because they don't have a fancy name? I'll let you decide if your being apolegetic for German tactics. And don't hold it agianst Allied a/c that they were multi-role, it was one of their strengths, a force multiplier.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seedking1
01-04-2004, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaguarMEX:
my point exactly, the Allies won the air war in the ETO because of quantity of airplanes and a more complete training


p.s. hope I dont get flamed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn right - an endless supply of both -something the axis didn't have.

Farbe_und_Bunt
01-04-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Oh Skychimp, you are so wrong. The P-51 did not win the war.
Hitlers mistakes and his commanders incompitent
bumbeling lost the war.

After all, those German fighting men and Uber
weapons could not be defeated, even by the
might of the whole world.
That Germany lacked men and resources to fight
a protracted war against the whole world means nothing.
We americans are so arrogant to think we simply
beat the Germans senseless.
Not even nuclear weapons could have stopped
the Third Reich if Hitler had played his cards
correctly.
After reading some posts in this forum I get
the feeling that the Allies never won, Germany
never surrendered and it's all an American conspiresy.

Da<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oh DaBallz, you are so right. The P-51 did win the war. USAAF alone won the war.

After all, those German fighting men and their planes have been defeated by the USAAF alone.
USAAF pilots had to save fuel, but managed to fight outnumbered against those Germans alone. Many Americans are not arrogant, but thank god, not all.

Not even the support from Russia would have helped the Germans to fight the USAAF.

After reading some posts in this forum, I get the feeling, that german pilots never shot an enemy plane down. It is just a good-hearted tale from the victors to make their glory look a little bit more real.

KIMURA
01-04-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
SkyChimp, you didn't catch my point.

The USAAF claimed the destruction of 8000 LW a/c during the year 1944. The LW lost at the high point in April 1944 433 own a/c as total losses. So do a simple math.

(Taken the climax losses): 12x433 is 5196 throughout a year. So "YOUR" 8000 are just non sense or over claims, or strafing kills taken as A2A kills.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kimura!

Come on, you know better than that!

433 lost in a single month (April 1944) was the high point in losses for the Luftwaffe?!!!???!!

There wasn't a single month in 1944 where the Luftwaffe lost just 433 aircraft! Where in the WORLD do you come up with that?

Hell, on November 2, 1944 alone, the Luftwaffe lost 98 aircraft in a _single_ attack on a bomber raid.

You need to do a little more research if you really believe that the Luftwaffe suffered only 433 a/c losses in April 1944 - and that was their highest loss month.

A good site to start with would be:

http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SkyChimp

Please before stating me my numbers as wrong. These 433 were total written offs, there were additional a/c damaged, that's for sure. All you actually did, SkyChimp, was posting USAAF claims. Be honest SkyChimp - everyone knows how unserious or unadequate USAAF scoring system was. My numbers has German origin and I would suggest to read some serious German books about the whole stuff, maybe it bring up some light how the things really were. Also it seems it's absolutely unknown, to the most in here, how the German losses rating/handling was.

My posts has no political backrounds - I like the way the war came to it's end, but I don't like these "we are the best and had the 1:20A2S kill ratio thing" - because it wasn't.

DaBallz
01-04-2004, 10:08 AM
Statistics are only good if applied in the right manner.

Ruy Horta


Yep, in the case of you Germans you like your statistics presented with lots of spin.

da

Deathsledge
01-04-2004, 10:14 AM
quanity won the war http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KIMURA
01-04-2004, 10:15 AM
As for "SkyChimps" 2nd of November with it's over 90 shot down German a/c.-------&gt; the 352nd FG claimed the destruction of 38 LW a/c that day. So those claims were that serious that those 38 kils became a downgrade to 25 after war. Just a overclaim of ca.40%. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(US sources)

Speco
01-04-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_Anonym:

Oh DaBallz, you are so right. The P-51 did win the war. USAAF alone won the war.

After all, those German fighting men and their planes have been defeated by the USAAF alone.
USAAF pilots had to save fuel, but managed to fight outnumbered against those Germans alone. Many Americans are not arrogant, but thank god, not all.

Not even the support from Russia would have helped the Germans to fight the USAAF.

After reading some posts in this forum, I get the feeling, that german pilots never shot an enemy plane down. It is just a good-hearted tale from the victors to make their glory look a little bit more real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man you need to cool down. First of all the P-51 did not win the war becaouse no single machine was capeble of that. And the USAAF did not win the war they helped alot but in the end it takes ground forces to finish the job and only they can trully win the war.

And when it comes to ground forces there is only one way to go and that is The Soviet Union. They were the bigges single contributor both in terms of inflicting losses on the Whermacht and suffering the losses them selves.

The war was finised for Germany in '43 after the Battle of Kursk and arguably after the Battle for Stalingrad. The Kursk battle seald Germany's faith and bouth the mustang and the USAAF only speeded thing up.

Farbe_und_Bunt
01-04-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:

Man you need to cool down. First of all the P-51 did not win the war becaouse ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stopped reading there, because you can't mean that serious. Else you must be crazy.

Speco
01-04-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_Anonym:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:

Man you need to cool down. First of all the P-51 did not win the war becaouse ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stopped reading there, because you can't mean that serious. Else you must be crazy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice aruments and resoning. Very nice indeed. If you are realy this reasonble than I'm glad that you didnt actally respond.

NerdConnected
01-04-2004, 12:09 PM
Err, do you really think Mr Adolph hitler could have won?
All his incompetence really acomplished is to avoid getting nuked.

Da[/QUOTE]

Yep. Mr H. never really wanted war with GB (Actually the lunatic was a fan of the British Empire...) and more or less broke of the attack when succes was a real possibility. I believe if Germany really wanted to and pushed on, they could win the war with GB. In that case the Americans would not have had a base from which to attack Germany and it would be real hard to defeat Germany.

Luftwaffe losses mounted during BOB but so were the RAF's and they had no reserve. I think the Germans could win the war with GB but what Mr H. really wanted was to invade Russia.

When he broke off the attack on GB and decided to attack Russia, he showed his complete and utter incompetence as a militairy leader. Every German general was against the war with Russia. They were right....

My 1 cent ;-)

"The German Army had become so used to having to no air support that they had a simple saying, "If the plane is silver or blue, it's an Allied plane. If it's invisible, it's ours." (EAW manual, The Fall of the Third Reich).

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:
*******it Balz I am not a friggin' German and I am not trying to spin a F-ing thing.

That does it..

Fxxx this board, I am through with trying to simply discuss an issue in a normal way. If you guys just want to play "I am holier than thou" feel free.

Ruy Horta
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sign of madness...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073245050.jpg

Speco
01-04-2004, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:
*******it Balz I am not a friggin' German and I am not trying to spin a F-ing thing.

That does it..

Fxxx this board, I am through with trying to simply discuss an issue in a normal way. If you guys just want to play "I am holier than thou" feel free.

Ruy Horta
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sign of madness...

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073245050.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More like sign of frustration...

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 12:59 PM
another sign of frustration...

BAN newbie bigot Speco!

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
another sign of frustration...

BAN newbie bigot Speco!

Correction: BAN bigot Ruy Horta and alias Speco!

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

Speco
01-04-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
another sign of frustration...

BAN newbie bigot Speco!

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. When I said "sign of frustration" I didnt mean your post I was talking about Horta's post.
2. Even if I was a newbie and if I really ment what you think I did that doesnt give you the right to react that way.

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 01:12 PM
Make your posts more clear. I'll referrence my previous post to a recent post, I think your 2nd or 3rd, know what I mean?

Since you're not Ruy...my apologies for this one.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

Speco
01-04-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
Make your posts more clear. I'll referrence my previous post to a recent post, I think your 2nd or 3rd, know what I mean?

Since you're not Ruy...my apologies for this one.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I am NOT Ruy and I think my post was clear. And no I dont know which post you mean. I went over my posts and I cant find one that is nasty eunogh for me to be baned.

Perhaps you can quote it for me.

Speco
01-04-2004, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rhorta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Correction: BAN bigot Ruy Horta and alias Speco!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now I am even a bigot??

To quote Webster:
one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions

No wonder I am sick of this whole thing.
Call me frustrated, but I cannot continue to discuss aerial warfare with people who accuse me of bigotry, revionism, nazi sympathies etc etc etc

You can really feel proud about yourselves now.

I wonder if you people really understand what you write...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I owe you an apologie. I totally understand what you are saying there are ppl on this boards that label other ppl very quickly and offensivly once they run out of reasonoble arguments. And that is very frustrating ergo:"More like sign of frustration..."

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 01:50 PM
When anyone jumps into this forum with only 1 or 2 posts and goes head first into a very heated anti-American argument, in-your-face taking a one sided position, excuse me if I 'misunderstood' you. I can't bring up your posts because the damn thread was axed.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

Speco
01-04-2004, 02:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
When anyone jumps into this forum with only 1 or 2 posts and goes head first into a very heated anti-American argument, in-your-face taking a one sided position, excuse me if I 'misunderstood' you. I can't bring up your posts because the damn thread was axed.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. First of all I'm not a newbie with 1 or 2 posts I changed my profile after the forum migration took place. I'm no 500 posts master of the boards like some but I've been here for a long time and I've been reading mostly. As for the "anti-american" part I realy dont know what to say. I'm hopeing that you will quote me on that once the thread stops beeing "axed" and explain how anyting I said was anti-american.If you mean expresing opinions diffrent from your own than I'm an anti-american but so are everybody on this board.

Did you stop to think that this kinda behavior
only fuels anti-american sentiment?

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
When anyone jumps into this forum with only 1 or 2 posts and goes head first into a very heated anti-American argument, in-your-face taking a one sided position, excuse me if I 'misunderstood' you. I can't bring up your posts because the damn thread was axed.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. First of all I'm not a newbie with 1 or 2 posts I changed my profile after the forum migration took place. I'm no 500 posts master of the boards like some but I've been here for a long time and I've been reading mostly. As for the "anti-american" part I realy dont know what to say. I'm hopeing that you will quote me on that once the thread stops beeing "axed" and explain how anyting I said was anti-american.If you mean expresing opinions diffrent from your own than I'm an anti-american but so are everybody on this board.

Did you stop to think that this kinda behavior
only fuels anti-american sentiment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got a short memory as a newbie here Speco. The thread was not axed, the posts were. You figure it out, you have no problem figuring out other things here. Think hard before you become a persuaded bigot.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

Speco
01-04-2004, 02:55 PM
And here he goes with the evidace for his claims!! Oh wait a moment there is no evidence to back up his claims here jus the usual insults.

It's intresting the way you use the word newbie as an insult. Even if I was a newbie I dont see it as a bad thing or something worth insulting me for. You realy are the proof for what I'm saying a few posts up!

LeadSpitter_
01-04-2004, 03:07 PM
Wasn't the "plane name" won the war or lost the war threads not allowed on here? Thats why I bumped Vengeances thread and tully locked vens thread, just wondering.

The best aircraft of wwii still has the most airworthy flyable still flying in 2004 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the p-51

what makes a fighter outdated,

altitude performance
speed
range
payload

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
And here he goes with the evidace for his claims!! Oh wait a moment there is no evidence to back up his claims here jus the usual insults.

It's intresting the way you use the word newbie as an insult. Even if I was a newbie I dont see it as a bad thing or something worth insulting me for. You realy are the proof for what I'm saying a few posts up!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can blatantly lie and understand what you want. The thread is "American trainers used to train LW pilots." The Mod who deleted them is Australian, I assume his partiality is not the same as mine. Yet he's probably nuts just like I am.

Its obvious you understand one thing...you understand Ruy - complete self-denial.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

Speco
01-04-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by arcadeace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speco:
And here he goes with the evidace for his claims!! Oh wait a moment there is no evidence to back up his claims here jus the usual insults.

It's intresting the way you use the word newbie as an insult. Even if I was a newbie I dont see it as a bad thing or something worth insulting me for. You realy are the proof for what I'm saying a few posts up!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can blatantly lie and understand what you want. The thread is "American trainers used to train LW pilots." The Mod who deleted them is Australian, I assume his partiality is not the same as mine. Yet he's probably nuts just like I am.

Its obvious you understand one thing...you understand Ruy - complete self-denial.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

O.K lets cut it short you dont have to quote it just say it as you remember and I will try to clear things up for you. I honestly don't remember. All I remember flaming somebody for a good reason.

arcadeace
01-04-2004, 03:23 PM
If you want further chance to 'clear' this, PT me.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

SkyChimp
01-04-2004, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
SkyChimp

Please before stating me my numbers as wrong. These 433 were total written offs, there were additional a/c damaged, that's for sure. All you actually did, SkyChimp, was posting USAAF claims. Be honest SkyChimp - everyone knows how unserious or unadequate USAAF scoring system was. My numbers has German origin and I would suggest to read some serious German books about the whole stuff, maybe it bring up some light how the things really were. Also it seems it's absolutely unknown, to the most in here, how the German losses rating/handling was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kimura!

Please, come one now. You are really being silly. You really don't believe what you are saying do you?

Yes, the numbers I posted are from USAAF statisitics, but the site I directed you to shows losses according German admissions!.

Look at the numbers.


Kimura, you've simply got to get off this kick that American numbers are lies. Even German admissions far exceed what you forward as correct.



Again, from "Six Month To Oblivion", page 103,

"The losses were devestating. From the beginning of the month to the opening of the German Ardennes offensive on December 16, 136 fighter pilots failed to return. In the four days from December 19-22 the figure was 'only' 83. But in the week or so from December 23 to 31, the fighter units lost 316 pilots killed or missing, quite apart from the wounded. Over Christmas alone, Luftflotte Headquarters West and the units attached to it for the Ardennes offensive suffered 260 aircrew casualties. On these figures it would appear that German fighter force casualties for December 1944 amounted to 500 pilots killed or missing, 35 taken prisoner and 194 wounded."

Kimura, that's day fighter losses only. Just day fighters.

And if you doubt these numbers, then reflect on this: "Six Months" was written by Werner Girbig, a German, in German, from German records, and dedicated to the German fighter pilots that made up these horrible statisitics.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

DaBallz
01-04-2004, 07:33 PM
Ok guys, I think I can moderate here for a bit.
We all agree the P-51 did not win the war.
We all agree that ALL kill claims on all sides
were inflated.

Lets let it die and move on.

Da

Boandlgramer
01-05-2004, 02:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
SkyChimp

Please before stating me my numbers as wrong. These 433 were total written offs, there were additional a/c damaged, that's for sure. All you actually did, SkyChimp, was posting USAAF claims. Be honest SkyChimp - everyone knows how unserious or unadequate USAAF scoring system was. My numbers has German origin and I would suggest to read some serious German books about the whole stuff, maybe it bring up some light how the things really were. Also it seems it's absolutely unknown, to the most in here, how the German losses rating/handling was.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kimura!

Please, come one now. You are really being silly. You really don't believe what you are saying do you?

Yes, the numbers I posted are from USAAF statisitics, but the site I directed you to shows losses according _German admissions!_.

Look at the numbers.


Kimura, you've simply got to get off this kick that American numbers are lies. Even German admissions far exceed what you forward as correct.



Again, from "Six Month To Oblivion", page 103,

"The losses were devestating. From the beginning of the month to the opening of the German Ardennes offensive on December 16, 136 fighter pilots failed to return. In the four days from December 19-22 the figure was 'only' 83. But in the week or so from December 23 to 31, the fighter units lost 316 pilots killed or missing, quite apart from the wounded. Over Christmas alone, Luftflotte Headquarters West and the units attached to it for the Ardennes offensive suffered 260 aircrew casualties. On these figures it would appear that German fighter force casualties for December 1944 amounted to 500 pilots killed or missing, 35 taken prisoner and 194 wounded."

Kimura, that's day fighter losses only. Just day fighters.

And if you doubt these numbers, then reflect on this: "Six Months" was written by Werner Girbig, a German, in German, from German records, and dedicated to the German fighter pilots that made up these horrible statisitics.

_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and here american losses in the year 1944 only:
ETO 10,447
MTO 5,228

losses are WITHOUT the PTO
from american records, writen from americans in american-english.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Farbe_und_Bunt
01-05-2004, 06:34 AM
As we all love the playing with numbers, I try it here too.

The link to the Site you posted Skychimp is nice to compare east and west, but how much does it tell us? The losses there are "total losses" and "damaged", whatever we have to understand at this. There is not said, how and by whom the aircraft have been destroyed. The British, the American, the Canadian, free France or Polish pilots ... in A2A, on ground, at transport flights (perhaps, because of bad weather), technical issues, on transport from factory, perhaps blown up by crew or left, while retreating, ...


I refer to http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html

Table 159 shows 1293 A2A Fighter losses "on Combat Missions" for 44. 1611 AA losses and 861 other losses. (Btw. I dont know how to loose 23% of fighters on combat missions due to "other reasons". I guess they were mostly lost by the first reasons too, but it's not known by which.) This numbers don't include the damaged planes, because of combat missions, which maybe could have been counted as lost too, because of the kind of damage, but this is again just speculation. On this table, we see the bomber losses too and it seems, that they have not been too unimportant for the Luftwaffe.

Now you can compare the strength of the Luftwaffe and the Fighter Strength of the USAAF (beside them the Luftwaffe had to fight others too, not to forget.) and see the quantity relations. You can go on with taking a look at the fuel, ammo and bomb consumption. Very nice is the sortie list of fighters (table 128) in relation to the planes destroyed on ground and other numbers.

Take a look at table 167. The Fighters destroyed or more probably "claimed" 5602 AC as destroyed in A2As.
So for 1944 there stand 5602 "claimed" kills on the one and "at least" 1293 losses "on combat missions" at A2A at the other hand. This numbers as suggested above by me and others may vary due to many reasons. This numbers alone dont seem to be representiv at this way.

[This message was edited by EJGr.Ost_Anonym on Mon January 05 2004 at 05:43 AM.]

Huckebein_FW
01-05-2004, 08:13 AM
Skychimp,

1. That number 2900 USAAF planes lost in 1944 are indeed to all lost to all german planes. But how many are you expecting to be lost to bombers, considering that LW used it's bombers at night, and the defense against major Steinbock raids were the RAF's responsability. Sure USAAF met LW bombers in '44 but how many USAAF fighters are you expecting to have been downed by LW bombers? 100, 200 fighters? This does not change the proportion. Unfortunatelly USAAF statistics does not specify the exact number of planes lost to enemy fighters. Even the number of enemy bombers downed by USAAF would have been helpful, but this is not available too.

2. The numbers on the site you gave does not reflect the LW losses to enemy fighters. We already discussed this. Look at the bottom of the table that those losses are labeled "total losses + damaged". Actually I had the curiosity to add myself the losses for JG2 and JG26 for Sep-Dec '43. The number given in that table is 368, but the actual number of fighters lost was something like 160 (unfortunately I don't remember exactly the number). 368 came from the total losses - aircraft lost in accidents, and this number included the aicraft sent to repairs, sent to factory for upgrades, or serviceable aircrafts sent to other squadrons. So the numbers given there are not comparable with those from USAAF statistics. Also they are misleading if is not specified what they represent.

3. In the mean time I found something about Walter Wolfrum, including what he really said about Mustang. First of all he met Mustang during his service in Romania, therefore the encounters were few (most probably less than 10), too few to really asses the qualities and defects of the enemy plane. Most of those were at high altitude and high speed with Mustang B model (standard escort in Romania). He only states that Mustang was faster than it's Bf109 (which of course it was true, especially since his 109 was not modified for high altitude - neither AS engine or GM1) and that Mustang had longer range (which it was obvious since Mustang were comming from Italy). Of course '42 model G6 used by units in Romania were not the best for '44 high altitude fight. But didn't we knew that already?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Boandlgramer
01-05-2004, 09:03 AM
maybe i add some numbers.
according Generalquartiermeister der Deutschen Luftwaffe:
total losses of the Luftwaffe, all causes, all fronts , also lost on the ground ( bombed etc.) inclusive damaged AC with more than 10% damage )
in the year 1944 : 32280 planes

total losses of the USA , all causes, all fronts etc.
in the year 1944 : 20394 planes
source:
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm

btw:
who know the losses of the sovietunion , great britain& comm. and of course japan ?

i guess ,it give us a good view about the nasty airwar in ww2.

NOTE: i edit the numbers of the luftwaffe, forgot in my first post bomber and schlachtflieger

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

[This message was edited by Boandlgramer on Mon January 05 2004 at 09:48 AM.]

Bremspropeller
01-05-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>P.s. Hitler was so crazy, he killed himself, his children and his wife before giving up. At least Saddam had the sense to know when too surrender
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL...Hitler actually had no children...
That was his propaganda minister G√¬∂bbels http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
They were all a *bit* crazy that's right, but don't mix up history here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

DaBallz
01-05-2004, 04:56 PM
Ok, lets get back to the original question.
You guys are getting hung up on the same old
argument about kills and claims.

No the P-51 did not win the war (DUH!).

What defteated Germany?

#1, a determined foe(s).
#2, The US economy and manufacturing collossus.
#3, Soviet resolve, man power and resources including manufacturing on grand scale.
#4, Winston Churchill. Yup, he was a bull dog with attitude.
#5, The willingness of the US to give weapons to all AXIS opponents.

What shortened the war (un winnable for the AXIS) Hitlers many tactical and political mistakes.
America would have joined WWII soon enough, but Japan brought the US in in a real pissed off mood and with an extreme desire to kill. (I feel I know the feeling after Sept 11 2001).
Japan was nice enough to prevent ANY anti war sentament.
Italy might have further shortend the war because they were not ready to fight and required massive assistance.

What started the war?

Hitlers ravenous thirst for revenge for the treaty of Versailles.
Hitlers desire for a greater German homeland.
Chamberlins whimpy quest for apeasement ("peace in our time").
The non agression treaty with the Soviets.
Japan's thirst for expansion.

What helped to seal the defeat for Germany was
a multitude of bad moves, what helped
make a German victory impossible was the persacution
of Jews and intellectuals. I believe the US could
have developed a nuclear weapon without German
scientists, but they certianly accelerated the
program. Without Einsteins letter the Manhatten
project may never have been started.

And that was the stopper, the end for sure.
It is fortunate for Germany that Hitler
was incompitent.
It is unfortunate for germany Hitler was born.

Da

Huckebein_FW
01-05-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
What helped to seal the defeat for Germany was
a multitude of bad moves, what helped
make a German victory impossible was the persacution
of Jews and intellectuals. I believe the US could
have developed a nuclear weapon without German
scientists, but they certianly accelerated the
program. Without Einsteins letter the Manhatten
project may never have been started.

Da<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but the thesis that the Jews defeated Hitler sounds more like Nazi propaganda. And the Manhattan project played no role in the defeat of Germany.

Besides, the atomic bomb was useless in ETO. Even if available an year earlier the atomic bomb could not be used because of retaliation with chemical warheads V2 against Britain. If USA could field 2 such bombs at the beginning of atomic age, Germany could send thousands of chemical warheads V2, impossible to intercept. I don't even want to think at the result of such scenario.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MiloMorai
01-05-2004, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

I'm sorry but the thesis that the Jews defeated Hitler sounds more like Nazi propaganda. And the Manhattan project played no role in the defeat of Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am glad those Jews and intellectuals were not in the service of Nazi German.

Huckebein_FW
01-05-2004, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
I am glad those Jews and intellectuals were not in the service of Nazi German.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't know. Nazis proved to be much less eager to use weapons of mass destruction.
That does not make them less despicable.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

DaBallz
01-05-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

I'm sorry but the thesis that the Jews defeated Hitler sounds more like Nazi propaganda. And the Manhattan project played no role in the defeat of Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If the European war had lasted till August of 1945, your opinion would be different!
I did not say the A Bomb played a role in the defeat of Germany, I said it dictated certain defeat for Germany. It is fortunate Hitler shot himself in April 1945, it is unfortunate Japan lasted long enough to get nuked.

Da

MiloMorai
01-05-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Well, I don't know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, for sure we all have seen that before.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Huckebein_FW
01-05-2004, 06:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Well, I don't know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, for sure we all have seen that before.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, you're so cryptic today.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

MiloMorai
01-05-2004, 06:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Nazis proved to be much less eager to use weapons of mass destruction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nazis had no problem sending UNTOLD MILLIONS of INNOCENTS to their deaths using other means.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Huckebein_FW
01-05-2004, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Nazis proved to be much less eager to use weapons of mass destruction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nazis had no problem sending _UNTOLD MILLIONS of INNOCENTS_ to their deaths using other means.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, especially by starvation, diseases and summary executions. Precisely what the Soviets did, your dearest ally.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Bogun
01-05-2004, 06:45 PM
...starvation, diseases and summary executions...

You are writing this after what Nazi did to missions of people not just in Soviet Union but all over the Europe?

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

MiloMorai
01-05-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Yes, especially by starvation, diseases and summary executions. Precisely what the Soviets did, your dearest ally.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then Huckie, if you did not want the Soviets to be my dearest ally, your dearest National Socialist buddies should have stayed on their side of the border with the Soviet Union. No attack, no subsiquent ally.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaBallz
01-05-2004, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Nazis proved to be much less eager to use weapons of mass destruction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Nazis had no problem sending _UNTOLD MILLIONS of INNOCENTS_ to their deaths using other means.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, especially by starvation, diseases and summary executions. Precisely what the Soviets did, your dearest ally.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When trumped by reality, start comparing the misdeeds of your heros to the mis deads of others, typical of an apologist.
Stalin and the Soviet Union were NOT our dearest Ally!
Stalin was an ally of oppertunity.
Britian and the US were and quite obviously are each others dearest ally.

Mess with one, get bitten by the other.

Da

DaBallz
01-05-2004, 06:53 PM
Honestly guys, I think this thread has long out lived it's usefullness, Tully, please give us a lock?

Da

SkyChimp
01-05-2004, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:

and here american losses in the year 1944 only:
ETO 10,447
MTO 5,228

losses are WITHOUT the PTO
from american records, writen from americans in american-english.

RED_Boandl
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try, Broad. But wrong:

For 1944 in the ETO losses were 7,749 (that's 2,902 to enemy aircraft, 3,501 to AA, and 1,346 to all other causes).
Source:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t159.pdf


MTO numbers losses were 3,896 (1,161 to enemy aircraft, 1,589 to AA, and 1,119 to all other causes).
Source:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t160.pdf

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
01-05-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3. In the mean time I found something about Walter Wolfrum, including what he really said about Mustang. First of all he met Mustang during his service in Romania, therefore the encounters were few (most probably less than 10), too few to really asses the qualities and defects of the enemy plane. Most of those were at high altitude and high speed with Mustang B model (standard escort in Romania). He only states that Mustang was faster than it's Bf109 (which of course it was true, especially since his 109 was not modified for high altitude - neither AS engine or GM1) and that Mustang had longer range (which it was obvious since Mustang were comming from Italy). Of course '42 model G6 used by units in Romania were not the best for '44 high altitude fight. But didn't we knew that already?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, Huck, what did he really say about the Mustang? I notice that's your first assertion, yet you never quite get around to telling us. All you give is your opinion on th ematter, which carries little weight. What did he say, a quote, and what is your source?

I think it's amazing that a few pages back you had no idea who this pilot was and discounted him as an inexperienced, unknown hack. Now you have him all figured out and know exactly what he meant.

I think he meant what he said. That the Mustang, as well as the Yak-9, outclassed all variants of the Bf-109K. And he's correct.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

[This message was edited by SkyChimp on Mon January 05 2004 at 06:14 PM.]

SkyChimp
01-05-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
total losses of the USA , all causes, all fronts etc.
in the year 1944 : 20394 planes
source:
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, it's your position that when an aircraft crashed in a training accident inside the United States in 1944, some German pilot somewhere should get credit for a kill ?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

MiloMorai
01-05-2004, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Well, I don't know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SC, like he said, above.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DaBallz
01-05-2004, 07:10 PM
I caught a guy doing the high altitude B&Z
in a game tonight. I climbed to his altitude
then he started running for altitude, from 5400M
when the high blower kicked in to 8,000M I matched
him in speed and he was unable to climb away.
I aced him at 7800M. It was easy to run him down
and turn with him. He was dominating the game
till that point, he abruptly quit after I shot him. Some guys can't handle getting beat.
My P-51 stayed right with his K4 after 5400M.

Perhaps this game ain't so far off at high altitude.

Da

SkyChimp
01-05-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Besides, the atomic bomb was useless in ETO. Even if available an year earlier the atomic bomb could not be used because of retaliation with chemical warheads V2 against Britain. If USA could field 2 such bombs at the beginning of atomic age, Germany could send thousands of chemical warheads V2, impossible to intercept. I don't even want to think at the result of such scenario.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler didn't use chemical weapons because he knew that the Allies possessed more than he did. Germany had far more to loose than the any allied nation in this regard.

So London takes a V1 or V2 loaded with Mustard gas. Berlin, Frankfurt, ..and endless others... takes a million pounds each in an afternoon.

Who would have been more foolish?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

SkyChimp
01-05-2004, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
I am glad those Jews and intellectuals were not in the service of Nazi German.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't know. Nazis proved to be much less eager to use weapons of mass destruction.
That does not make them less despicable.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans didn't use weapons of mass destruction because they didn't have sufficient numbers. Again, anything Hitler could do in this regard could have been given back to German 100 fold. Probably one of the only smart things Hitler did (or didn't do).

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg

DONB3397
01-05-2004, 07:24 PM
I doubt this pointless and biased debate was what OC had in mind when he started this thread. The discussion wasn't about ideologies and "if only..." scenarios; it was about the relative roles of certain aircraft.

Trade email addresses and work this out in private.

Boandlgramer
01-06-2004, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
total losses of the USA , all causes, all fronts etc.
in the year 1944 : 20394 planes
source:
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, it's your position that when an aircraft crashed in a training accident inside the United States in 1944, some German pilot somewhere should get credit for a kill ?

_Regards,_
_SkyChimp_
http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/skychimp.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

skychimp , you are silly enough to read in my post what you want.
i posted the numbers of all losses ,
german and americans.
whats wrong with it ? why was it a " nice try " ?
look here :
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm
or here
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/veday.htm

can‚¬īt you read or do you have problems to understand ?
did i claim the german fighter shot them down ? no, i did not.


fact is, the USA lost in the fight against the axis forces in europe and africa : 27694 ,
of course all causes.

RED_Boandl
http://www.707tkbn.org/members/sites/schmidt05.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bogun:
...starvation, diseases and summary executions...

You are writing this after what Nazi did to missions of people not just in Soviet Union but all over the Europe?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really understand Bogun, are you trying to convince me that Soviet Union was a peace loving neighbour before the nazi invasion? Should I remind you that USSR took by ultimatum a historic province of Romania in 1940? and that after take-over 4000 romanians were deported towards Siberia each night for half a year (none returned)? Or the invasion of Baltic countries, Finland and Poland? Or the 50 years of communist opression in Eastern Europe enforced by Red Army's tanks? Do you know that in each of those countries hundreds of thousands died or dissapeard as a result of communist persecutions? Not only the wealthy were imprisoned but also intellectuals and students, practically destroying all those countries development efforts, transforming them in SU clients.
I cannot say "thank you" for this.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

Yes, especially by starvation, diseases and summary executions. Precisely what the Soviets did, your dearest ally.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then Huckie, if you did not want the Soviets to be my _dearest_ ally, your dearest National Socialist buddies should have stayed on their side of the border with the Soviet Union. No attack, no subsiquent ally.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I despise the nazis. I don't see much of this sentiment for soviets on your part.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

When trumped by reality, start comparing the misdeeds of your heros to the mis deads of others, typical of an apologist.
Stalin and the Soviet Union were NOT our dearest Ally!
Stalin was an ally of oppertunity.
Britian and the US were and quite obviously are each others dearest ally.

Mess with one, get bitten by the other.

Da<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin was a murderer. Helping a murderer makes you accessory to murder. Not that British and Americans did not do their own share of war crimes.

And please don't try to sell me the love story between America and Britain. After the war the relations between them were colder than anytime else. Not only that Britain was in debts up to it's neck but America helped insurgents in many provinces of the British Empire (and French colonies, to be fair), bringing the bankruptcy of the British Empire one step closer.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Zayets
01-06-2004, 06:57 AM
Nazis = evil
Soviets = evil

I don't see any difference.That's my oppinion.My relatives were killed by both Nazis and Soviets.The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.The only good Soviet is a dead Soviet. For me is that simple.I can't emphasize enough how much I hate those two kind of people.I hope all nazis and communists burn in hell.And this is a gentle punishment they deserve.
I have spoken.

Zayets out

Bremspropeller
01-06-2004, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That the Mustang, as well as the Yak-9, outclassed all variants of the Bf-109K. And he's correct.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL. The Mustang actually OUTCLASSED no plane at all. The best attribute for the Mustang may be average. The Brits had faster and higher climbing a/c and the Germans had. The only plus of "god's own aircraft" was it's range.

And for the Yak: I can't imagine that a plane that frequently fails to return because of bad work in it's construction plants outclasses the a 109K of average quality. It's true that a big part of german a/c were in low quality when they reached the front line squads, but apart from these planes there were hardly 5 planes of each squadrons that could get airbourne caused by technical problems. So those "low-quality" a/c surely didn't ever raise their gear; they rather were kinda source for spare parts.



http://www.brooksart.com/Longnose.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Old_Canuck
01-06-2004, 07:01 AM
I believe Churchill said he would join forces with the devil himself to defeat the Nazis.

Notwithstanding, my purpose for this thread was to point out that not one single device or piece of machinery can be attributed to winning the war. It was people. Some of them had pure motives, some had hidden agendas, some manipulated people from both camps but it was people not a plane -- however great it was -- that won the war.

My apologies if this thread has become a divisive influence among those I have come to respect over the last few weeks.

Let's let it die now before it gets ugly.

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
3. In the mean time I found something about Walter Wolfrum, including what he really said about Mustang. First of all he met Mustang during his service in Romania, therefore the encounters were few (most probably less than 10), too few to really asses the qualities and defects of the enemy plane. Most of those were at high altitude and high speed with Mustang B model (standard escort in Romania). He only states that Mustang was faster than it's Bf109 (which of course it was true, especially since his 109 was not modified for high altitude - neither AS engine or GM1) and that Mustang had longer range (which it was obvious since Mustang were comming from Italy). Of course '42 model G6 used by units in Romania were not the best for '44 high altitude fight. But didn't we knew that already?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, Huck, what did he really say about the Mustang? I notice that's your first assertion, yet you never quite get around to telling us. All you give is your opinion on th ematter, which carries little weight. What did he say, a quote, and what is your source?

I think it's amazing that a few pages back you had no idea who this pilot was and discounted him as an inexperienced, unknown hack. Now you have him all figured out and know exactly what he meant.

I think he meant what he said. That the Mustang, as well as the Yak-9, outclassed all variants of the Bf-109K. And he's correct.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found this extract from "Wo Wir Sind Ist Immer Oben" de Heinz Ewald, 1998 from a website in French:

http://membres.lycos.fr/asduciel/wolfrum.htm

"A partir de juillet, la JG52 affronte √©galement les B-17 et B-24 de la 15th US Air Force ainsi que leur escorte compos√©e de North American P-51 Mustang. Op√©rant depuis Pelonilzna, sous les ordres du Colonel Dieter Hrabak, un as aux 125 victoires, l'unit√© ne peut pas offrir qu'une bonne dose de courage et de d√©termination face √ cette force a√©rienne bien entraÓn√©e et √©quip√©e. L'√©tau commence √ se refermer ! "Le P-51 Mustang fut selon moi le plus redoutable adversaire que j'ai affront√© au cour de la guerre, il avait un potentiel √©norme en tant que chasseur √ long rayon d'action et disposait d'une vitesse sup√©rieure √ nos Me 109." d√©clare Walter."

So only from July his squad made sorties against american bombers, but this is the last month of the USAAF's campaign against Romania's oil fields. USAAF made sorties in Romania in August too, even with bombers, but those were incomparable in scale with the previous missions. So his chances to meet Mustang were only a few times.

If you don't understand French I can make you an aproximative translation of Wolfrum own words: "P-51 Mustang was IMO the most dangerous opponent I met during the war, it had an enormous potential as a long range escort fighter and it had a higher max speed than our Me-109."

Which I discussed in the previous post. Do you have another quote from W. Wolfrum?

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Tue January 06 2004 at 06:16 AM.]

arcadeace
01-06-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
I believe Churchill said he would join forces with the devil himself to defeat the Nazis.

Notwithstanding, my purpose for this thread was to point out that not one single device or piece of machinery can be attributed to winning the war. It was people. Some of them had pure motives, some had hidden agendas, some manipulated people from both camps but it was people not a plane -- however great it was -- that won the war.

My apologies if this thread has become a divisive influence among those I have come to respect over the last few weeks.

Let's let it die now before it gets ugly.

OC
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before it gets ugly?

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073229053.jpg

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 08:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:
Besides, the atomic bomb was useless in ETO. Even if available an year earlier the atomic bomb could not be used because of retaliation with chemical warheads V2 against Britain. If USA could field 2 such bombs at the beginning of atomic age, Germany could send thousands of chemical warheads V2, impossible to intercept. I don't even want to think at the result of such scenario.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler didn't use chemical weapons because he knew that the Allies possessed more than he did. Germany had far more to loose than the any allied nation in this regard.

So London takes a V1 or V2 loaded with Mustard gas. Berlin, Frankfurt, ..and endless others... takes a million pounds each in an afternoon.

Who would have been more foolish?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both would have been foolish, this is why it wasn't tried. Chemical weapons were a very strong deterent. Two things you have to consider though:

1) Sarin (german) requires 20 times a smaller quantity than mustard gas (allied) for a lethal dose. That means that for a "maximum effort" bombing mission, 1000 heavy and medium bombers, dropping an average of 2000 tones of chemical warhead bombs is the equivalent of 100 V2 fired. Problem is that the chances to intoxicate the crew are very serious under heavy fire, since always at least 1/3 of the bomber force was heavily damaged (or downed) on each mission. In 10 raids you won't have much crew to fly the missions. V2 lauches are not subject to similar restrictions.

2. a primitive 1 ton sarin warhead contaminates a 2-3 sq miles are from which 50 procent of the unprotected population will receive lethal doses. If it hits dense populated areas the number of casualties can be in tens of thousands. 10 such warheads have similar results against population with an 1940s atomic bomb. Secure methods for delivery ranged from the 10000 V2, 28000 V1 (less precise), hard to intercept high alt high speed intruder variants of Me-410 and Ju88/188/388 (S/T models).

The end result of chemical offensive in ETO would have been much more catastrophic than of an atomic war, because chemical weapons with lethality similar to atomic bombs abunded. I'm very happy it wasn't tried.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Bogun
01-06-2004, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Huckebein_FW:

I don't really understand Bogun, are you trying to convince me that Soviet Union was a peace loving neighbour before the nazi invasion? Should I remind you that USSR took by ultimatum a historic province of Romania in 1940? and that after take-over 4000 romanians were deported towards Siberia each night for half a year (none returned)? Or the invasion of Baltic countries, Finland and Poland? Or the 50 years of communist opression in Eastern Europe enforced by Red Army's tanks? Do you know that in each of those countries hundreds of thousands died or dissapeard as a result of communist persecutions? Not only the wealthy were imprisoned but also intellectuals and students, practically destroying all those countries development efforts, transforming them in SU clients.
I cannot say "thank you" for this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Huckebein_FW, you are having some kind of mental block problem there laying blame on all population of the Soviet Union for the crimes committed by its mad communist rulers. Communist regime there was murderous and criminal and their first victims were people of the country way before their (Communists) murderous rage spilled over the borders of the country. Millions of Russians, Ukrainians, others were starved, sent to jails or executed to put down the resistance to this murderous regime before the war started.
Five millions of Ukrainians were starved to death by Stalin to get a firm grip on the population of this nation in thirties. That was nothing less then genocide against own population, way before this regime tried to spill over the borders.

Does it make an excuse for Nazi and their sympathizers to invade this country to try to kill the rest of the population in Nazi‚'s quest for the Lebensraum? Did you forget this:

‚"‚...Without consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation‚...‚"Ě
--- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 1

Does that gave rights to Rumanians to try to grab half of the Ukraine, to assist Nazis in their genocide there? Ukraine lost ten million people during the war with Nazis. That‚'s one fifth of the population. Byelorussia lost one fourth of the population.

The fact is Ė for Nazi it did not meter who was in charge of the country Ė Communists or Tsar Ė they were bent on exterminating population of the country in order to grab their land. And I‚'m not so sure, that if Russia was a normal democratic country then, it would have been able to withstand the brut of the Nazi strike. All population of the country paid a terrible price again, this time for their survival as people, to stop terrible decease of humanity called Nazism. The other horrible decease called Communism had to wait another fifty years to be cured.

So what don't you understand?

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

MiloMorai
01-06-2004, 08:51 AM
Bogun, I wunder if Huckie should be reminded of that sadistic mental ******, Nicolae Ceausescu, and his cronies who ruled Romania. Now those were angelic Romanians.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Kill tally: An estimated 5,000 killed during the 1989 revolution that overthrows Ceausescu. Possibly thousands of deaths per year during the 1980s from deprivations caused by an unnecessary austerity program. Tens of thousands more lives ruined during Ceausescu's reign."

Seems Huckie's Social Democrates are also to blame for the Soviet's influence sphere.

"1939 - On 23 August Soviet leader Joseph Stalin signs a nonaggression pact with Germany's Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, carving up Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, with the USSR claiming Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, part of the Balkans, including Romania, and half of Poland."

maxim26
01-06-2004, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Bogun, I wunder if Huckie should be reminded of that sadistic mental ******, Nicolae Ceausescu, and his cronies who ruled Romania. Now those were angelic Romanians.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Kill tally: An estimated 5,000 killed during the 1989 revolution that overthrows Ceausescu. Possibly thousands of deaths per year during the 1980s from deprivations caused by an unnecessary austerity program. Tens of thousands more lives ruined during Ceausescu's reign."

Seems Huckie's Social Democrates are also to blame for the Soviet's influence sphere.

"1939 - On 23 August Soviet leader Joseph Stalin signs a nonaggression pact with Germany's Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, carving up Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, with the USSR claiming Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, part of the Balkans, including Romania, and half of Poland."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man, just dont tell me that Romanians were inecent. Ceausescu was romanian and events of 1980 and 1989 are results of the rule of Romanian government.

One more thing. I reccoment you to read not only Romanian history books, but more serious literature. You can try A.J.P. Taylor - Second Warld War. So you will find out from this book that terretories, which Soviet Union got from Poland and Romania were Western Ukraine and they didn't belong not to Poland not to Romania at the first place. And it wasn't good reason for Romanians to suypport Nazies just for promise that they will be given Ukrainian terretories back.

And yes, Stalin was not the dearest ally for America and English. Thet's why the second front was opent only after it was obvious thet Soviets will win the war. And Soviets did their job for Allies. They to major German strike, they were fighting with 3/4 of German forces. And it was done not by Stalin but by ordinary people and you have to respect them for that.

[This message was edited by maxim26 on Tue January 06 2004 at 08:38 AM.]

hop2002
01-06-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1) Sarin (german) requires 20 times a smaller quantity than mustard gas (allied) for a lethal dose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Production of Sarin never truly got underway. The plant to manufacture it in quantity was not finished by war's end. Estimates of how much was produced on an experimental basis range from 500kg to 10 tons.

Even 10 tons of sarin is a pinprick against allied bombing raids.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That means that for a "maximum effort" bombing mission, 1000 heavy and medium bombers, dropping an average of 2000 tones of chemical warhead bombs <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A typical Lancaster load to Germany was 4 tons plus. And why stop at 1000 bombers? The RAF and USAAF could easily put over 2000 heavy bombers over Germany in any 24 hour period, which in excess of 6000 tons of Mustard gas in 24 hours.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>is the equivalent of 100 V2 fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The V2 did not have a chemical warhead, and producing one would have been very difficult.

A chemical warhead on a balistic missile must be airburst. If the missile hits the ground, the chemicals will be destroyed in the fireball.

The only way to airburst a V2 is with a radar fuse,and the Germans had not developed a radar fuse, and were nowhere near doing so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Problem is that the chances to intoxicate the crew are very serious under heavy fire, since always at least 1/3 of the bomber force was heavily damaged (or downed) on each mission. In 10 raids you won't have much crew to fly the missions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gas bombs were not likely to leak, and even if they did, with the crew on oxygen, and the ammount of air passing through a bomber, the chance of affecting the crew is minimal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>V2 lauches are not subject to similar restrictions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they are subject to the fact that Germany could not fit an airburst fuse to the V2, thus couldn't use them for chemical attacks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2. a primitive 1 ton sarin warhead contaminates a 2-3 sq miles are from which 50 procent of the unprotected population will receive lethal doses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's talking about unprotected population? Everyone in Britain had a gas mask. For skin exposure, you need at least 1.5 g placed on the skin, as a liquid. Not on the clothes, either, but on bare skin.

If you do the maths, to get that concentration per cubic metre, 1 ton will contaminate about 120 x 120 metres. However, within that radius, casualties will be fairly small. Most people will be protected by clothing, buildings etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it hits dense populated areas the number of casualties can be in tens of thousands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As an example, the US government studied the effects of an attack on Washington using Sarin and Anthrax. The proposed delivery method was a light aircraft flying low over the city releasing an aerosol. Sarin would produce 300 - 8,000 casualties if 1 ton was deployed. Anthrax, which Britain and America produced during the war, would produce 130,000 - 3 million if 220kg was deployed.

Those Sarin figures are for an ideal deployment method. In fact, Germany didn't have enough Sarin to use, and so would have had to use Tabun, which is much less effective. The model above assumes no respirators, and casualties from inhalation. Inhaled Tabun is some 6 times less lethal than Sarin.


Tabun is approx 4 times as lethal as Mustard gas, botgh by inhalation and skin absorbtion.

Germany managed to hit Britain with approx 1,000 V2s. In the same period, the USAAF and RAF dropped approaching 1 million tons of bombs on Germany. Four times the effectiveness, vs 1000 times the amount. Germany would have been very, very stupid to have started chemical warfare.

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 10:30 AM
Bogun, I'm glad that you recognize the Communism as a disease of the human spirit, as bad as Nazism was. This is one of the major sources of confusion during our times: there was no trial of communism, to find and prosecute the crimes commited by communists, on the model of Nuremberg trials. What's maddening is that such a trial encountered stiff resistance from West not from Russia.

As for Ukranian territories under Romanian administration, all I can say is that Romanians did not claim any of those territories. It was just that Soviet authority fell and order had to be maintained, which is very difficult during war. Romanians unfortunately were not prepared for the task, I'm very sad for what happened.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

[This message was edited by Huckebein_FW on Tue January 06 2004 at 09:38 AM.]

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Bogun, I wunder if Huckie should be reminded of that sadistic mental ******, Nicolae Ceausescu, and his cronies who ruled Romania. Now those were angelic Romanians.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sadistic mental ****** found a lot of support in the West. From those and many other "angelic" figures:

http://academiaexchange.net/Kalman/Pictures_Kalman/Ceausescu-Nixon.gif

http://academiaexchange.net/Kalman/Pictures_Kalman/Ceausescu-Carter.gif

Zayets
01-06-2004, 11:01 AM
Yeah,
some nice ignorants here.FYI , numbers of casualties in 1989 is this
between 17 Dec 1989 si 1 Jan 1990, in Romania died 1.104 person si anothe 2.352 were wounded.
Dunno how you can know the truth since Romanians does not know it either.But maybe who know , some were involved those days http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I will stop here ,not saying anything about WW2 stuff in the East because for some people the truth hurts.Some are blinded by propaganda and don't want to see the truth.

As for original question that started the thread I agree with Zen.Was not one plane,device or commander.Was the effort of many who sacrificed their lives.On the front or behind it.My whole respect for them!

And if it was a plane that could win the war , then without any doubt, his name is DC-3/C-47.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zayets out

Huckebein_FW
01-06-2004, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxim26:
Man, just dont tell me that Romanians were inecent. Ceausescu was romanian and events of 1980 and 1989 are results of the rule of Romanian government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

5000 people killed in a square with more than 100,000 unarmed people is very easy. You don't need the whole govermental forces to do that. Just spread panic in the square, fool the dictator to run, film him and distribute the images, gather again people in the square, shoot as many as you can, blame the government still in power to make the comeback of Ceausescu impossible. It was a 50/50 cooperation between internal Securitate forces and external services.

Ceausescu should have been overthrown, but it should have been done with more peaceful means.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
One more thing. I reccoment you to read not only Romanian history books, but more serious literature. You can try A.J.P. Taylor - Second Warld War. So you will find out from this book that terretories, which Soviet Union got from Poland and Romania were Western Ukraine and they didn't belong not to Poland not to Romania at the first place. And it wasn't good reason for Romanians to suypport Nazies just for promise that they will be given Ukrainian terretories back.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you'll find more serious research about Romanian history some place else than Romania. Unfortunately very little is translated in English or other languages with larger circulation. There'll be more in the future, I'm sure.

And I don't know about the Poland, but Romania has and had not in the past Ukrainian territories. In the Middle Age the borders of Romanian territories were well delimited by natural borders, is not that hard to tell which are Romanian, which are Ukrainian. But to answer to you about ww2 situation, Ukraine got from Romania Northern Bucovina and Southern Bessarabia. Bessarabia (actual Republic of Moldova) was transformed in a Soviet Socialist Republic. In order to complicate the matters more from an ethnic perspective the soviets took a part of Ukraine, Transnistria, and gave it to SSR Moldova, also they deported a lot of Moldovians to Siberia and replaced them with Russians and Ukranians, to homogenize the ethnicity.

Today Romania has no claims for Northern Bucovina and Southern Bessarabia, even if they are historical Romanian provinces. A return to Romania of those provinces is impossible anyway, since Romanians are only a small minority there.

http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/me262_steinhoff.jpg

Old_Canuck
01-06-2004, 11:30 AM
Old_Canuck wrote:

"Let's let it die now before it gets ugly."

Arcaedace wrote:
"Before it gets ugly?"


LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

MiloMorai
01-06-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxim26:

Man, just dont tell me that Romanians were inecent. Ceausescu was romanian and events of 1980 and 1989 are results of the rule of Romanian government.

One more thing. I reccoment you to read not only Romanian history books, but more serious literature. You can try A.J.P. Taylor - Second Warld War. So you will find out from this book that terretories, which Soviet Union got from Poland and Romania were Western Ukraine and they didn't belong not to Poland not to Romania at the first place. And it wasn't good reason for Romanians to suypport Nazies just for promise that they will be given Ukrainian terretories back.

And yes, Stalin was not the dearest ally for America and English. Thet's why the second front was opent only after it was obvious thet Soviets will win the war. And Soviets did their job for Allies. They to major German strike, they were fighting with 3/4 of German forces. And it was done not by Stalin but by ordinary people and you have to respect them for that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max how far back in history do you want to go to figure out whose territory was whose?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LOL Max, 2cd Front??? You not hear of North Africa?http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Seems not. German troops were pulled from the EF to go to Africa. You ever hear of the Pacific front? Seems not. I give you a big towel to cry in.

Anyways should have stopped all the LL materials going to the SU. That material would have been better off going to the Western Allies so they could open the so-called 2cd front, which was already open,http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif that Stalin was crying so much about. I did not see Stalin and the SU helping the Western Allies in the fight against the Japanese until the Japanese were a spent force in the summer of 1945. What excuse will you have for this?

Where was the Soviet Navy to give support to the Artic LL convoys?

I did not see the SU attacking German industry or the Romanian oilfields.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif All that manpower kept in the Fatherland to repair the damage and man the defences instead of going to the EF. What would 500,000 extra men, with the extra equipement, have done to the Soviets? The Soviets had a hard time even with the outnumbered, ill-supplied and ill-equiped German soldiers.

Bogun
01-06-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Bogun, I'm glad that you recognize the Communism as a disease of the human spirit, as bad as Nazism was. This is one of the major sources of confusion during our times: there was no trial of communism, to find and prosecute the crimes commited by communists, on the model of Nuremberg trials. What's maddening is that such a trial encountered stiff resistance from West not from Russia.

As for Ukranian territories under Romanian administration, all I can say is that Romanians did not claim any of those territories. It was just that Soviet authority fell and order had to be maintained, which is very difficult during war. Romanians unfortunately were not prepared for the task, I'm very sad for what happened. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Does anyone of the normal people on this forum ever said that communism is good?
They were murderers everywhere they came to power, in every country with no exceptions‚... They would have done the same if they ever have chance to come to power in Italy, France, GB or US. They were committing their crimes in the name of the ‚"Better Future‚"Ě and of course they were only people entitled to guide their resisting countrymen to this future. They are still doing it in counties like North Korea, Vietnam and China.

But you are trying to equate communists with all Russians.
This is same as equate Nazi with all Germans.
Russians fought devastating Civil war, lived for decades under brutal regime and suffered loss of millions before being coerced into submission.

Nazi were appealing to a darkest side of the human nature, with a promise of Lebensraum and for Germans to become a Master Race at the expense of everyone else. Don‚'t you see the difference?

About ‚"Romanians did not claim any of those territories‚"Ě Ė this is simply not true.
Germans carved the territory of Romania, giving peaces to Soviet Union (Bessarabia and northern Bukovina), Hungary (north of Transylvania) and to Bulgaria (Southern Dobruja) in 1939 to punish for the attempt to stay neutral in the war. Romania lost one third of its territory then.
The only way to ‚"be compensate‚"Ě for the losses new Romanian dictator allied himselves with the Biggest Bully on a blok and dutifully supplied almost million troops, food oil to Hitler throuout the war. For that Ion Antonescu secured the return sovereignty over Bessarabia and northern Bukovina as well as allowance to annex Soviet lands immediately east of the Dniester River, including Odessa. Upon occupation Romanian dutifully started to clear those lands from Jews and Ukrainians. My grandma stayed in Odessa during Romanian occupation Ė you will not tell what was happening there then.

In a words of Ion Antonescu:
"Sugary and incorporeal humanism is inappropriate in this situation. I think that the Jews should be forced to leave Bessarabia and Bukovina. And Ukrainian people must leave the country also. ... I am not disturbed if the world should consider us barbarians. You can use machine-guns if it is necessary. And I tell you that the law does not exist. ... So, let us give up all the formalities and use this complete freedom. I assume all the responsibility and claim that the law does not exist."

About ‚"need for Romanians in Ukraine maintaining order‚"Ě‚...
Summary executions of civilians Ė that you call maintaining order?
Hundred civilians killed for a solder and two hundred civilians for the officer?
25000 Jews burned live in Odessa on 23 October 1942 alone in ‚"retaliation‚"Ě for partisan attack. By Rumanians this time, not Germans. Is this the way they were maintaining ‚"Order‚"Ě? Not prepared? How much prepared one need to be to do this?

Well, at list you are sad that this happened. I don‚'t hold this not against you not against Romanians. Those were a dark times‚...

This thread should die.

Regards,

AKA_Bogun
http://www.akawardogs.com/

http://img5.photobucket.com/albums/v22/Bogun/Sevastopol.jpg

DaBallz
01-06-2004, 04:30 PM
I am starting to get sick, there are real nazi's and apologists alive and well in the year 2004. I especially thought the comment that Americans have their share of war crimes. In context of the conversation you imply
Americans equal the racist, criminal murderous Nazi regime. Pure BS. Stalin was a villian, but you Nazi's and apologists imply that means you ain't so bad. Give it up, it means Stalin and the Nazi regime were murderers. Not just two bit criminals, but murderers on a grand scale. Nope, you apologists try as you might, there is no way you can dampen the sting of guilt for the cold blooded murder of many millions of people.

American "war crimes" and for that matter, British "war crimes" pale by comparison.

Shame on you children that choose to belittle the crimes of your ancestors, more shame on you who believe it never happend.

Da

Farbe_und_Bunt
01-07-2004, 04:23 AM
DaBallz,

you say, that there are people, that drag other nations down to make german crimes not look so bad.

I tell you that there are other people, which say, that the german crimes were the worst and so the others keep their "virginity".

I don't like both. The only problem is, that both views tend to reproach others for "sharing the other point of view", as they think.

The best would be a appreciation of facts.

Cajun76
01-07-2004, 04:37 AM
I agree totally. The Gooney Bird won the war.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif