PDA

View Full Version : Fighters or Bombers..which had the most effect???



MB_Avro_UK
10-29-2006, 04:24 PM
hi all,

I appreciate that most of us fly fighters. But was the bomber more effective in WW2 as regards strategic results i.e. war winning??

Compare and contrast <img src="http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/

VW-IceFire
10-29-2006, 05:45 PM
Well its been shown before that the strategic bomber didn't have a direct effect on war winning so I'll vote for the fighter (or the fighter-bomber) as it had a demoralizing effect on enemy troops thus allowing the Allied breakouts in Normandy, Ardennes, and the Rhine. Also, as the Soviets and Germans employed no strategic bombing campaigns on the eastern front it seems that the fighter or tactical fighter aircraft were the war winners.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

leitmotiv
10-29-2006, 06:08 PM
On the Eastern Front, as on the Western Front, or any front, when there was serious destructive work to be done, bombers did the job. He 177s were used in numbers in 1944 to destroy rail yards, heavens! Ju 88As were used to reduce the Sevastopol fortifications, German bombers blitzed Moscow all fall in 1941, German bombers flattened Stalingrad in the summer of 1942, Rudel's Ju 87A destroyed a battleship at Leningrad in 1941, need I go on? You did not see streams of Spitfires heading to Berlin in the evenings of the fall of 1943, nor did Mustangs knock out German oil production in 1944.

MucusG
10-29-2006, 06:16 PM
Fighters are only there to support "primary" aricraft, ie bombers and recon. If a fighter goes and drops boms on something then it is a bomber at that stage.

Fighter have no function at all without bombers/recon aircraft to defend/attack. Thus it is the bombers(and recon) that are the most important - without them there would be no need of any kind of airforce.

S`
WTE_MucusG

Esel1964
10-29-2006, 06:43 PM
Bombers can knock out fighter factories. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As long as they're not in the side of a mountain or otherwise underground.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Lyrics from Naked Raygun's "Rat Patrol".
"What we need to take control,we could use the Rat Patrol.What's that coming over the dune?...
Chasing the halftracks across the sandflats,got a nice pine box,for that desert fox,machine guns blaring,and Arabs staring wondering why,the Westerners are there.It's the same old story,and it'll happen again."

LStarosta
10-29-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by MucusG:
Fighters are only there to support "primary" aricraft, ie bombers and recon. If a fighter goes and drops boms on something then it is a bomber at that stage.

Fighter have no function at all without bombers/recon aircraft to defend/attack. Thus it is the bombers(and recon) that are the most important - without them there would be no need of any kind of airforce.

S`
WTE_MucusG

Agree 100%, except in the case of the Mustang.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________
http://badge.facebook.com/badge/2352799.521.115268350.png (http://msu.facebook.com/profile.php?id=2352799)

But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
-- Col. Carson, USAF


<A HREF="http://www.air-source.us/operations/logbooks/LOGFLIGHTS.asp?PILNO=450" TARGET=_blank>http://www.air-source.us/images/Ribbons/AAS.gif
</A>

Akronnick
10-29-2006, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MucusG:
Fighters are only there to support "primary" aricraft, ie bombers and recon. If a fighter goes and drops boms on something then it is a bomber at that stage.

Fighter have no function at all without bombers/recon aircraft to defend/attack. Thus it is the bombers(and recon) that are the most important - without them there would be no need of any kind of airforce.

S`
WTE_MucusG

Agree 100%, except in the case of the Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, the mere appearance of the Mustang causes such fear and terror in the enemy, that their will to fight is utterly destroyed.
There are documented cases of Tiger Tanks self-destructing when a Pony flew overhead<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Philipscdrw
10-30-2006, 01:11 AM
Exactly, the mere appearance of the Mustang causes such fear and terror in the enemy, that their will to fight is utterly destroyed.There are documented cases of Tiger Tanks self-destructing when a Pony flew overhead
That is, until they realised that a single pistol bullet could stop its engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

'Strategic' bombing, the systematic destruction of cities using hundreds of aircraft at a time, is a dead-end strategy - you're only going to end up paying part of the costs to rebuild whatever you're destroying after the war. And, to the suprise of the generals and planners of the 1930s, bombing civilians doesn't demoralise them, it infuriates and hardens them. Destroying the enemy's war machine, on the other hand, by bombing factories, airfields, dockyards, railway systems, ordnance stores etc, is a worthwhile way to end a war faster.

If Hitler had kept the Luftwaffe attacking RAF airfields instead of the fruitless bombing of cities, we could have lost the Battle of Britain.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

"I don't think some poltergeist took your cat and put it in the chimney flue." - Bearcat

"The fact is that a vocal minority will cry their poor little eyes out at the thought of some "what if" aeroplanes making it into the sim because they're above that sort of thing and it lowers the tone. Meanwhile, the rest of us will enjoy what promises to be a unique flightsim experience." - Viper

"Wings generate vortices, vortices generate antigravity and free energy according to Schauberger, therefore lift and fuel saving." - Raaaid

rnzoli
10-30-2006, 01:23 AM
totally wrong question, neither of them

its was the unarmed RECONAISSANCE aircraft that contributed the most to winning the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

without good recon, everyone is effectively blind and wastes resources to a great degree (men, machinery, ammunition, supplies, time etc.)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

A "world's first": fully automatic, dedicated COOP server controller. Features and available servers here (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html).
http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/the_full_difficulty_COOP_server_2.JPG (http://web.t-online.hu/rnzoli/IL2DSC/intro-coop.html)

Bewolf
10-30-2006, 01:57 AM
Most important aspect of warfare is tactical bombing. Strategic bombings may have effects over 3 corners, but tactical bombing and direct battlefield support and reconnesance is what wins battles, campaigns and ultimately the war itself.

And as MucusG said, no bombers = no need for fighters. Fighters are a direct consequence out of the existence of bombers. So the question what is more important is mood.

A fact, btw, that is seriously seriously overlooked when looking at the majority of online servers.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Bewolf

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