PDA

View Full Version : P 51 & History channel



CURTISLOQW
01-04-2005, 11:57 AM
History channel voted P 51 mustang best overall fighter of all time because it changed the tide of the war with 19-1 kill ratio with almost 6000 kills in just under 3 yrs in the war.
Why is it such a stallin out POS in the game?
Spitfire supermarine coming in 2nd, no russian plane even made the list ,lots of german fighters did though.

CURTISLOQW
01-04-2005, 11:57 AM
History channel voted P 51 mustang best overall fighter of all time because it changed the tide of the war with 19-1 kill ratio with almost 6000 kills in just under 3 yrs in the war.
Why is it such a stallin out POS in the game?
Spitfire supermarine coming in 2nd, no russian plane even made the list ,lots of german fighters did though.

FatBoyHK
01-04-2005, 12:18 PM
First of all, I won't discuss the POV of this show, it is meaningless doing so.

Mustang is very good in game, one of the best IMO, but you need to use your brain more if you want to be successful on it.

Fighting on a Mustang is not about brute force and reflex action....Instead it is about patient, planning, situation awareness, energy management, tactics, and teamwork. If you have them, Mustang and FW-190D will be your best rides.

I am still learning on Mustang, but so far the result is already very encourging, I keep scoring kill on WarClouds, although there will not be any spectular action, I really enjoy myself.... and although I won't possibly get 5 kills per sorties, Every one of them are very rewarding.

Sometimes when flying a Mustang I think I am more like playing a chess game than a sim. It is true, just like playing chess, the first thing you need to do is to keep your cool. If I loss my head, I screw up on a Mustang.

gates123
01-04-2005, 12:19 PM
Don't believe the hype. Even Yeager said the FW-190 D-9 was the best handling prop fighter he ever flew. I bet the history channel didn't even talk about that one. Regardless if flown right the Pony (with a light fuel load) can be competitive at any altitude.

Blackdog5555
01-04-2005, 12:23 PM
Im an American and love the P51. The History Channel, my favorite next to Comedy Channel, rated the P51 based on its influence of the war not its bare performance specs. The P51 was designed as a long range, high altitude escort. It was perfect in that role. The P51 was probably the best US fighter under 25,000ft. It was a Boom and Zoomer. It was not diesigned for low level turn and burn. It was not flown low level T@B by the Smart flyers (live ones). The Yak3 and La7 were designed as pure dogfighters and for low level turn and burn. They were the best at that. Also, by the time the P51 entered the war, the average time of flying LW pilots was about 3 months as the experienced pilots were shot down. Im an american. i rate the P51 number one too. I hope all understand why. LOL. (but i wont take it low in a dogfight with a La7) Cheers mate.

Dammerung
01-04-2005, 12:23 PM
P-51(Especially D) is not a turn fighter at low Altitudes by Any means.

Second of all, it's an American Station, there aren't going to be too many things that even relate to the Former USSR on air.

As far as late war fighters go, the P-47 was probably the best Western fighter, followed by the Later Model P-38s, then P-51s. The -38 and -47 could do bomber escort just fine.

As Far as German fighters go, the Bf109 and Fw190 I would consider to be the best, but I don't know much about the others they flew very much.

Eastern fighters, the La-5/7/9, Yak-3/9, and P-39(Yes, I realize it was american, but the Americans for the most part did not like it, to the Russians, in the low level air war on the Eastern Front, it was an Ace Maker.)

The P-51 did not turn the tide of the war. The Russians, IIRC, got to Berlin before us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just like the Pacific, it wasn't a case of If Germany would lose, it was a case of when the USSR would win. They had(Have) a nearly inexaustable supply of manpower and reasources.

It's a bit unfair to just not include Eastern fighters, I doubt the Western Allies could have won without the USSR. They could've won without us, just with lots, lots, lots higher casualties.

As far as the P-51D goes, it's **** good in IL-2. It's not a turnfighter like the Spitfire, and it doesn't have the firepower of a P-47 or P-38. Like ALL American fighters(Yes, even today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) she likes to be flown FAST. Try not to let your speed get under 300 Mph TAS.

MEGILE
01-04-2005, 12:49 PM
P-51 won the war.

By 1945, the Spitfire MK 21, Tempest MK V, and FW-190D13 were all redundant. Be sure.

BSS_Goat
01-04-2005, 12:52 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Megile:
P-51 won the war.[QUOTE]

I'm glad ya'll YURPEONS finally realize that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

geetarman
01-04-2005, 01:03 PM
I'm a Yank as well and could care less what the History Channel says! LOL!

That said, the more I fly the Mustang, the more I like it and can see why USAAF pilots, for the most part, loved it.

1. Fast, fast, fast! Much easier to get out of a jam on WC-WF in a Mustang than any other plane.

2. Manueverable at higher speeds. Other than a 190, the others can't match this.

3. Good ammo load. .50's are fine and we have lots of ammo.


4. Great cockpit view! Not many better.

5. Pretty good climb. I can manage about 2800' per minute at 210mph!

6. Pretty good dive.

7. A no-miss-em site. Once you figure out how to use this, it's a killah!

8. A ton of fuel (if you need it).

9. Docile flying and landing characteristics.

10. One of the best higher alt. performers in the game.

When you start to add all this up ... maybe they're right! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LStarosta
01-04-2005, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dammerung:
The P-51 did not turn the tide of the war. The Russians, IIRC, got to Berlin before us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So that's exactly why Stalin was begging Churchill and FDR to "open a second front". Stalin would have had his a$$ handed to him if it weren't for the opening of a Western front.

CURTISLOQW
01-04-2005, 02:29 PM
They did state the bf 109s and p-47s ,the kill ratio for p 51 was 19-1 thats why it won, and russia wouldnt have got there at all with out US air power fact, they got there with the tank

Copperhead310th
01-04-2005, 02:58 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">IBTLWSI</span>
(In Before the Luft-Whiners See It! lol)

Lukki
01-04-2005, 03:08 PM
The 109 can take greater speeds than the P51. The P51 loses it's wing most of the time. So it's sort of a POS since you can do very limited dives only. Good perfomer, but weak.

What is a no-miss-em site? :&gt;

LilHorse
01-04-2005, 03:09 PM
Beware the History Channel. While it's a great thing there is mucho slanty mis-information put accross on it. Reading (and lots of it) will do you much better when it comes to learning about these birds. Although the Mustang certainly was one of the most important fighters of the war.

That said, the P-51 is not a POS in the game. IMHO, it's one of the best (even though I don't fly it much). It ain't gonna turn at low speed and alt with a Zero. Do this and you die. But as others have mentioned it is best flown fast, fast, fast. That is where its handling is best.

JG7_Rall
01-04-2005, 03:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-51 did not turn the tide of the war. The Russians, IIRC, got to Berlin before us <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was decided at Yalta, not because they "beat us there"

Luftwaffe_109
01-04-2005, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dammerung:
The P-51 did not turn the tide of the war. The Russians, IIRC, got to Berlin before us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So that's exactly why Stalin was begging Churchill and FDR to "open a second front". Stalin would have had his a$$ handed to him if it weren't for the opening of a Western front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true. By the time Operation Overlord was launched, WWII was already decided, and the result was clearly a Soviet victory.

Actually, one can argue that this was the case even around Kursk 1943, where it can be seen that the Soviet Union had almost already attained the supremacy in numbers that it would have by the end of the war.

The fact is that the Normandy invasions did little to affect the outcome of the war, it was already lost by this stage. After the disaster at Kursk any German victory was inconceivable. Furthermore, I would contend that Operation Bagration, June 22 1944, was far more significant that Overlord, as it completely annialated Heeresgruppe Mitte, and thus gutted the Ostheer, making completely inevitable beyond any doubt a Russian victory regardless of what happened in the West or elswhere for that matter. Losses in this battle, I might add, completely dwarf the losses suffered by the Wehrmact in any battles in the West, as do, I should remind you, many of Germany's battles on the Ostfront.

KIA/MIA for Germany (all branches)
Eastern Front, 06/1941 to 12/1944: 2,742,910
Eastern Front, 01/1945 to 05/1945: 1,074,519
Subtotal Eastern Front: 3,817,429
Western Front, 05/1940 to 12/1944: 339,957
Western Front, 01/1945 to 05/1945: 155,527
Subtotal Western Front: 495,484
Other Theaters: 546.145
Total: 4,859,058


As you can see, losses inflicted by the Allies in the west, (even from the start of the war!) seem rather modest compared to the bulk of the work done by the Red Army, would you agree?

Basically, your assertion is completely wrong, the Russian war machine was moving full steam ahead at the time, by 1943 the Russians had outstriped the Germans in production nearly tenfold, the Germans were in full retreat by 1944, and nothing could have stopped a Soviet victory.


And just in case you are thinking that a transfer of units from the west to the east would have made a difference to the outcome of the war, that is impossible. There simply weren't anywhere near enough forces in the west to make any real difference in the long run by this stage.

JG7_Rall,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That was decided at Yalta, not because they "beat us there" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that the partioning of Germany had already been decided before the end of the war does not neccessarily mean that: a) the Western allies were capable of reaching Berlin first or b) the Western Allies could not have attempted to take Berlin if they had wanted to.

In fact, Eisenhower had deep reservations about a drive on Berlin for the following reasons:

1. He didn't care about prestige and simply wanted to finish the war as rapidly as possible without the horrendous casualties that would have occured if the US had tried to take Berlin, and which only the Soviet Union was willing to incur.
2. He argued it didn't matter whether or not the Soviets divided the city up as he beleived that since the city lay in Soviet territory the western allies occupation would only be temporary and that the entire city would eventually go to the Soviets anyway.
3. Eisenhower didn't beleive Berlin was important militarily. He became convinced that that remnants of the Wehrmact and the Waffen-SS were secretly building a redoubt in the mountains to the south from which to continue the conflict for a last stand.

Regards

LStarosta
01-04-2005, 07:52 PM
Do not tell me that the Soviet Union could have won the war by itself. That is absurd, and you know it. Without the U.S. and British strategic strikes on German, Romanian, Hungarian, Occupied French, Polish, and other "soils", the Soviet Union would face a much better equipped and therefore determined German Army, which could have lead to a stalemate, and a greater war of attrition than had already took place. For the U.S. and British involvement began FAR BEFORE Overlord. While the front was not open on the ground, it was being constantly violated in the air. That is all my point was, as I believe the "Front" was opened as soon as the Germans were defeated in the Battle of Britain and the RAF regrouped into an offensive Air Force, and not just a defensive one. Stalin knew that he stood on the brink of defeat many times, and he didn't want to take chances. He needed involvement in the West; first air strikes, then ultimately a ground invasion. Perhaps we do not agree on what constitutes a war time front, and that is why we disagree.

Your statistics are interesting, but the manner in which you present them is in some ways inappropriate. You discuss losses attained by the Wehrmacht, and the statistics reflect losses attained by all branches of the German armed forces. Furthermore, this does not specify how these losses occured. Many, indeed, by the bullets of Russian soldiers, but may I also state that mother nature and all its fury on man and machine was as effective at harassing both sides on the Eastern front as bullets were. I'm sure you'll agree with me that a summertime invasion of Normandy did not see as many men killed due to climate as did many battles on the Eastern Front. In the same way, USAAF and RAF forces didn't have to deal with such extremities as on the Eastern Front during their operations before Overlord.

In conclusion, I agree with you, but the scale of war was MUCH grander on the Eastern Front, therefore higher loss figures for both sides, as opposed to the Western front. While Russia did deal Germany the "ugly side of the stick", it would not have done so as easily and so quickly were it not for the involvement of America, Britain and the other Western allies. Who knows what the war could have brought had it dragged on past 1945?

All I'm glad about was that it was over.

What I'm not glad about is Yalta and more specifically the Molotov-Ribbentrop line.

I will not go into detail about Churchill's and FDR's betrayal and total disregard for the Atlantic Charter and what effect it had on MY Fatherland. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


And I find it funny how you say the war was already decided as "lost" at Kursk. Sympathiser! Hehe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S!

VW-IceFire
01-04-2005, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CURTISLOQW:
History channel voted P 51 mustang best overall fighter of all time because it changed the tide of the war with 19-1 kill ratio with almost 6000 kills in just under 3 yrs in the war.
Why is it such a stallin out POS in the game?
Spitfire supermarine coming in 2nd, no russian plane even made the list ,lots of german fighters did though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with their assessment but not for the reasons stated here. The statistics in terms of kills and ratios is a combination of a variety of factors...many of which exist outside of the planes own capabilities (or rest on a single ability - such a range to the exclusion of all else). The leaving out of Russian planes is typical and consequently is one of the reasons I lacked knowledge of Russian planes almost altogether until the last few years.

In the game the Mustang is an excellent fighter, one of the best if not the best, with very few vices. It still requires some thought and if you are stalling the Mustang (which is otherwise a very smooth ride) then you are doing something wrong with it. Take some time, learn it in depth and detail (take it up in QMB and fight in advantage and disadvantage - even fly it for fun) and you'll be having a blast.

MOH_GUMBY
01-04-2005, 09:06 PM
Gents....

On some other show, perhaps it was Discovery Wings it stated how many kills the P51 had in aerial combat versus ground kills. I forget the percentages but the 51 by far had more of it's kills by ground straffing.

Gumby

berg417448
01-04-2005, 09:11 PM
P-51 kills CLAIMED:


Air: 4,950

Ground: 4,131

dannyworkman
01-04-2005, 09:26 PM
the normandy invasions did little to affect the war?
You cloud the issue with facts.
If not for the US help when the thaw came the germans would have given the russians their respective heads.Untill he second front was made the REDS were on the defensive

Luftwaffe_109
01-04-2005, 10:56 PM
Hello LStarosta,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Do not tell me that the Soviet Union could have won the war by itself. That is absurd, and you know it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was never a contention of mine, merely I was refuting your statement, "Stalin would have had his a$$ handed to him if it weren't for the opening of a Western front. "

The Western Front I refered to was the one opened after the invasion of Normandy, at least this is what historians refer to when they use the term (it is also used for the invasions of France, Belgium, the Low Countries, etc, but rest assured these are included in my statistics as you can tell from the dates, despited the fact that the US was not involved in these).

The "Western Front" you refer to is not the Western Front at all but what is known as the strategic bombing campaign over Europe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Without the U.S. and British strategic strikes on German, Romanian, Hungarian, Occupied French, Polish, and other "soils", the Soviet Union would face a much better equipped and therefore determined German Army, which could have lead to a stalemate, and a greater war of attrition than had already took place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
German production actually peaked in 1944 despite the massive allied bombing campaign. Also the bombing campaign did not become significant until well after the Soviet Union was out of danger, which was after 6th Army was destroyed in Stalingrad. After this Germany, was on the defensive, and later that year when it was desicivly defeated around the Kursk salient and Soviet force levels increased dramatically, its destruction was assured.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For the U.S. and British involvement began FAR BEFORE Overlord. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once again, I stress that the US and British involvement before Overlord (eg. Lend/Lease, Strategic bombing, other fronts) was not significant as by the time it became significant the Soviet Union had passed from mortal danger. For it, by far the most dangerous years had been 41, 42, where US involvment and even British was not great (in comparison to the fighting on the Ostfront). After 42, the Soviet Union could no longer be decisivly defeated. After Kursk... it is highly debatable whether anything at all could have saved Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You discuss losses attained by the Wehrmacht, and the statistics reflect losses attained by all branches of the German armed forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But the Wehrmactdoes constitute all branches of the armed forces (Kriegsmarine, Heer and Luftwaffe) and the statistics I posted also include those of Volkstrum and Waffen-SS. I could post you the breakdown if you would like, but I fail to see what difference it makes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many, indeed, by the bullets of Russian soldiers, but may I also state that mother nature and all its fury on man and machine was as effective at harassing both sides on the Eastern front as bullets were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, I'd even go so far as to venture the suggestion that the Winter affected the Wehrmact more significantly than the Russians, firstly because they could ill afford the loses while the Russians could (simply, if the Russians had had to contend with the same replacement levels for loses as the Germans did, it would have certainly failed, regardless of what year of the conflict we are talking about. That is how massive Soviet Casualties were, almost 4:1 compared with German casualties and still at least 2:1 in the dying days of the war), secondly because it dealyed them at critical moments of their advance and thirdly because they lacked winter equipment and clothing (unlike for example, the T-34 with its wide tracks or the Siberian Divisions around Moscow with their well trained ski-troops, respectivly).

However, you digress, this is all irrelevant. The fact is that it was on the Ostfront where this occured, the manner of how it occured I would say is largely irrelevant. Just as I can point to the allied victory in the Ardeens '44 and say weather played a great role in the Wehrmact's demise (specifically, it the role it played in allowing the airforce to Operate at a critical moment, etc). But regardless, it was a loss for Germany. Just like, regardless, the Battle before Moscow was a failure for Germany. The only difference is, in my opinion, one dramatically affected the course of the war while, by the time the other happened, the outcome was already assured. Also I suppose another difference is the shere grangantuan scale of one compared with the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In the same way, USAAF and RAF forces didn't have to deal with such extremities as on the Eastern Front during their operations before Overlord. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true but I fail to see your point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> While Russia did deal Germany the "ugly side of the stick", it would not have done so as easily and so quickly were it not for the involvement of America, Britain and the other Western allies. Who knows what the war could have brought had it dragged on past 1945?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely with what you have said here. But I am not a "crystal-ball gazer" (does that expression make sense in English? It is not my first language) and I can't analyse something that didn't happen. That doesn't mean we can't talk about it but it does mean it is irrelevant when discussing what primary factors contributed to the way the war did go.

Merely I can analyse what did happen. And my analysis is this, that the war was descivly won, not in North Africa or the Atlantic or Western Europe or even over Germany, but on the Ostfront.

Now, if we can agree here than we can talk about the contributions that numerous other groups made to this very fascinating war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And I find it funny how you say the war was already decided as "lost" at Kursk. Sympathiser! Hehe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Haha.. well in my defence I was analysing the outcome of the war from Germany's perspecitive, because after all it was against Germany that the might of the Soviet Union, United States and Great Britain was arrayed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What I'm not glad about is Yalta and more specifically the Molotov-Ribbentrop line.

I will not go into detail about Churchill's and FDR's betrayal and total disregard for the Atlantic Charter and what effect it had on MY Fatherland. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
By the sound of this I can hazard a guess that you are Polish, is that the case?

In my nation there is quite some admiration for the way the soldiers of your nation fought the war, in many ways not that disimilar from my nation. In any case both our wars (Fall Weiss and Operation Maritia) both ended in desicive defeat for our two nations.


Best Regards

To dannyworkman,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the normandy invasions did little to affect the war?
You cloud the issue with facts.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have no idea how much this made me laugh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. "How dare you bring facts into this!"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If not for the US help when the thaw came the germans would have given the russians their respective heads.Untill he second front was made the REDS were on the defensive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is utterly ridiculous and shows a profound misunderstanding for the war on the east. The Soviet Union could be described as being in retreat in 41 and 42 (in the south mainly, though) and on the defensive in 43 (at least, during the summer campaign for the Kursk salient that is) but saying that the Soviets were generally on the defensive after this is absurd.

The Soviets were on the offensive during the General Winter Offensive 41-42 (where the Germans were pushed back from the gates of Moscow), during Operation Mars and Uranus late 42 (the former a failure around Army Group Center, the later a successful offensive which broke through two Romanian armies and cut of Sixth Army in Stalingrad) during Operation Little Saturn in the follow up of Uranus, which pushed the Germans back out of reach of Stalingrad and almost caugh large German elements in the Caucases, then in the Winter Offensives of 42-43, then in the aftermath of Kursk (I'm neglecting other fronts here, but anyway), then almost without stop until Berlin (disregarding several small German offensives which achieved little, eg. Operation Spring Awakening), although there were numerous pauses in the advance for different reasons which I need not go in here.

But back to my point, you are completely wrong. No one in his right mind would describe the RKKA of 44 as being "on the defensive" by ANY stretch of the imagination. Remember, we are talking about a formation here, which numbered vastly over eight million, fighting an exausted army which, at its peak in June 22 (the day of the invasion), had only numbered some 3 million men.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother...

Best Regards

JR_Greenhorn
01-04-2005, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry for this interuption to make an on-topic post here, but I would like to add something.



One of the major reasons the P-51 is so lauded is the fact that it was cheap and easy to manufacture, realative to its contemproaries.
The P-38 and P-47 both had turbocharged engines, were much larger planes, and had complex packaging dictated by their layouts. Posters-of-facts can likely find the costs of these planes in the mid-1940s, but I do know that the P-51 was significantly less expensive than the others.

The P-51 was a simple matter of throwing the latest, license-built version of a proven engine into the nose, and rolling it down the line. Plumbing a turbocharger system requires many airframe-specific parts, while the P-51s design minimized unique parts.

Blackdog5555
01-05-2005, 12:11 AM
You make some interesting points, What i know is that the "H" man had said to one of his Henchman was that he would not have invaded Russia if he had know it could produce 34,000 T34 tanks. I wished someone would have told him. (Why didnt Russia lend Lease the US the T34 so we wouldn't have to drive the "Tommie Cooker."? (And yes i know, the T34 was designed by/with the help of an American tank engineer) And it is ironic that the war started to save Poland from Fascism to make it safe for Communuism. This is Western Sarcasm. Very very sad indeed. BTW the taking of Berlin was not stategic..it was politcal. The Russian army lost about 20,000 soldiers in taking Berlin. The US command didnt think the "prestige" of taking a European city was worth all that blood. Its very dangerous to minimize the contibution of any nation in this multinational emporium. Cheers mate...

MO_JOJO
01-05-2005, 12:39 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MOH_GUMBY:

On some other show, perhaps it was Discovery Wings it stated how many kills the P51 had in aerial combat versus ground kills. I forget the percentages but the 51 by far had more of it's kills by ground straffing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's because by late 1944 the LW was kaput, and one of the primary missions of the jug and the stang, then, was to destroy trains and anything else moving on the ground. Not to mention that the plane was sort of late on the scene to have had most of it's kills in the air.

I am not a history prof, but in my research that's the way I've understood it. I would appreciate any corrections if there are any profs out there. Thanks.

Whether or not the P-51 was the best, well, we know personal preference says alot around here. But US channel or not...can anyone dispute the effect the P-51 had as an escort fighter and all-round bad azz plane? And to the defense of the Hist Chan...they have done many shows on the weapons and tactics of both friends and foes, so I don't think it's strictly an American thing.

To the credit of Oleg and associates, I think we're all learning that you don't need cable TV to learn about how awesome were some of the planes from other nations. I am personally impressed with the Russian and Japanese planes and am surprised at how many different ones they had and how good some of them were. Not that they shouldn't be, but that I've never heard of most of them until now.

CURTISLOQW
01-05-2005, 06:37 AM
Well they didnt leave all russian airplanes out just of that time period.
The su 27 and mig 29 made the list for there time period, I know there both bad *** I fly them in lock on.

FatBoyHK
01-05-2005, 08:05 AM
btw, CURTISLOQW, why would you think Mustang is weak in this game? By knowing this we may understand what you have done wrongly, and hence provide some suggestions for you.

LilHorse
01-05-2005, 11:20 AM
@ Luftwaffe_109.

Excellent post. A very unvarnished, unslanted summary of events as per the war in the ETO. My father fought for the U.S. in the Western front and I know that while the fighting was brutal in that part of the theater (Italy, the Ardennes) it pales by comparison to the Ostfront.

As for the P-51. Yes, it was one of the best fighters of the war. While it wasn't the best in any single flight performance regime, it was excellent in all of them. That and the fact that it was cheap and had tremendous range contributed to its status.

BSS_Goat
01-05-2005, 01:30 PM
RAF test pilot Captain Eric Brown said of the IL2 "It was not a particularly good aeroplane. The Russians were tactically naive - it was no wonder the German aces were able to run up such huge scores when there were big gaggles of 50+ Il-2s to attack. I asked Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann (352 kills) once if he had ever fought in the west - he said he had, he hadn't scored once, had been scared the whole time and thought himself lucky to have lasted a month - it was a whole different ball game."


Now ya'll go at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

adadaead
01-05-2005, 02:14 PM
Comon people read the little paragraphs that is in the game and read the planes advantages and disadvantages. P-51 was very easy to kill. La-7 was the best piston engine plane during WW2 it was superior to German and American and British planes. And also the best biplane was the good ol I-15. Sorry but soviets didn't put their engineers in jails(to make better vehicle tanks planes Katushas) for nothing.

Luftwaffe_109 to you i say thank you what an excelent post. I'm sad that there is not so many people like you that are in here because i disagree what History Chanel said. But mainly why people agree is because they are American patriots so for russian-americans like me its hurtfull to hear.

P.S. Pe-2 was the best plane IN ITS CLASS.

To respect the views of everybody i'll say that P-51 was ONE OF THE BEST planes in the WW2. I enjoy flying it in the game sometimes too.

joeap
01-05-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
RAF test pilot Captain Eric Brown said of the IL2 "It was not a particularly good aeroplane. The Russians were tactically naive - it was no wonder the German aces were able to run up such huge scores when there were big gaggles of 50+ Il-2s to attack. I asked Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann (352 kills) once if he had ever fought in the west - he said he had, he hadn't scored once, had been scared the whole time and thought himself lucky to have lasted a month - it was a whole different ball game."


Now ya'll go at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Humm Goat, I recall that, Brown said the Il2 wasn't a good plane but proceeded to talk about tactics, nothing to do with the plane at all.

Lufwaffe_109 a good link for you all and a question. This is more or less, with reservations my POV. (We talked about this before)
Allies and Soviets (http://onwar.com/articles/f9807.htm)
How many German planes were shot down at the Ostfront compared to others? I can't find these stats. Also how much pulled out? Last points, the military effort esp. by the West was a smuch for political effect as anything else. The results would have been very different if the Brits or Soviets had been alone with no help from anyone else. Stalin might have accepted a cease fire, the Brits (at least if Churchill had not been PM) and the US would not have gone in alone in 1941. All about perception. Think about Dieppe.

On topic again, the P-51 as a symbol of US airpower is what is really important here...to Americans and everyone else. Just like the Spit for the Brits, the 109 or Stuka for the Germans, Il2 for the Sovierts, Zero for the Japanese. It was good, so were other planes, that's all.

Oh and forget the History Channel, books are better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The internet is not too shabby either just got to be careful.

CURTISLOQW
01-05-2005, 06:28 PM
I just stall the p-51 out read bad when i try to follow other planes through rolls and climbs ,needs too much speed .
To tell u the truth I think U.S. planes are the best in real life, but I dont use them in the game because I cant keep enemy planes lined up long enough to shoot them down with 50. cal I need cannons.
The only U.S. plane i use is the F4u because of rockets and tiny tims, I usally do ground attacks because im a noob and can only get shot down in doggy : )

CURTISLOQW
01-05-2005, 06:33 PM
O yeah by the way from a noobs point of veiw the best planes to fly in the sim are the La 7 and the K 84 im just target practice in anything I really want to fly lol.

Luftwaffe_109
01-05-2005, 06:57 PM
Hello all,

Firstly, to adadaead and LilHorse, thankyou, you are too kind. LilHorse, regarding your father who fought in the war he has my respect, as do all men who fought in all wars and on all sides (for they all suffer in war).


Now to joep, it seems we meet again,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Also how much pulled out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfourtunately, aircraft numbers are my weak point, but I will try to adress this.

In 1942 the Germans had perhaps 2750 aircraft across the main front, while the Russians on the other hand had perhaps 4500 (2150 of which were at STAVKA reserve). Thus, in 1942 the Russians were only able to achive less than double the number of aircraft across the entire front.


In mid 1943 the Germans had 3000 aircraft and the Russians had vastly increased theirs to 7194 (this time only 662 of which were at STAVKA reserve). This gave them a 2.3 advantage across the entire front in mid 1943, an advantage that rose to 3:1 at Kursk.

My conclusion: we can see that the striking difference between the two years is not how many aircraft Germany could field in the East, but instead the massive increase in aircraft that Russia could field. Losses, I dont have, but it is obvious from these figures that they could be made up by Germany (the effect on pilots, however, is less clear).

The point I am trying to make is that, in the face of such overwhelming increase in numbers, the luftwaffe became streatched, and consequently the Soviet Union was able to begin gaining air superiority (as indeed it did in several key instances at Kursk, which was a Russian victory).

The war, had swung decisivly against the Germans.

But bear in mind also this:

Firstly, German air losses in the West through the war were much heavier than those in the East.

Secondly, the units in France in 1944 were to be rebuilt or finish their forming. Naturally they were intended for action against the expected allied landings. None of them were transeferred to the East in 1944, or to Italy.

This does show a considerable drain from the vital Ostfront. In part it also explains how Russia was able to field such a larger airforce.

As I have shown, both Russian and German aircraft levels increased, however for Germany the vast increase was in the west, not east.

However, if you will bare with me, this merely shows the importance of the Ostfront to victory. It is in the drain from this front that the strategic air war had its greatest effect. Thus it shows how vital the front was. On its own, the air war was indesicive (eg. production continued to increase, etc). On the east however, it was vital (eg. In 1944 the Germans had 10,000 88mm guns and more than nine out of ten were scatered across europe pointed up at the sky, not at the oncoming Soviet tanks).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How many German planes were shot down at the Ostfront compared to others? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't have these figures handy, but they were large. Take the airbridge to Stalingrad, for example, where 500 aircraft were lost. They were certainly larger, however, in the west.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Stalin might have accepted a cease fire, the Brits (at least if Churchill had not been PM) and the US would not have gone in alone in 1941. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I recal, the Soviet Union had sent out peace feelers to Germany even up to the end of 42, but they were rejected. I seriously doubt that the US and UK would have attempted an invasion of France if not for Germany being at war with Russia, as the prospects of such an invasion being would have been extremly slim.

Now to the article:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Allies were also engaged against Japan while the Soviet Union only entered that conflict after the war with Germany was concluded in 1945. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't get me wrong, I believe the US was the principle architect of Japan's demise, just as I do that the Soviet Union was the main cause for Germany's defeat. But, just as numerous nations contributed to the defeat of Germany so too did other nations contribute to the defeat of Japan, and there seems to be a playing-down of the role (as well as Russias war with Japan 45, which we need not go into now), however minor it may have been, that the USSR played in Japan's defeat.

Let us not forget that, in order to safeguard their borders from the Soviets, the Japanese deployed 40 infantry divisions, 7 cavalry divisions, 23 infantry brigades, two cavalry brigades and two armoured brigades throughout Manchuria, Korea, South Sakhalin and the Kuriles (most of which were in the Kwantung Army of Manchuria, with just over a million men, 1155 tanks, 5360 guns, 1800 aircraft and 25 gunboats, although it declined by late-war to slightly more than a quater of a milion men as men and equipment were striped from it and sent to fight the Americans).

Anyway, my point is that, just as the divisions tied up in the expected invasion of France (not to mention the men and resources that went to other fronts, eg. Med, defence of Norway from allied invasion, etc) could have been better used on the Ostfront, so too could those in Manchuria have been better used in a defence of Japan's seized possessions. Yes, certain nations did the lions share of work in both Europe and the Pacific (USSR and US respectivly), but numerous other nations all played a vital role in how the war unfolded also.

Once again, I am not saying that Russia was a major part in the war in the Pacific, and I'd certainly put other nations (after the US, of course) but well before Russia when creating a list comparing contributions to this theater (eg. the UK, Australia, etc). My point is that they were a factor nonetheless, and shouldn't be ignored (just as I wouldn't ignore any of the nations that fought in Europe).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> However, would the Soviets have stood a chance without the western Allies? Probably not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with this, with conditions. In my study of the war I have developed the opinion that Germany might have won in the east, despite all that had happened, had it made the correct strategic decisions at the right times (we need not go into this whole other topic right now). Therefore, I think this would be even more the case had it not been for the western allies. But only slightly more likely. Why?

Western allied aid (eg. lend/lease, strategic battles over Europe and in the Atlantic, other fronts) did not become (for the most part) significant until after the period where the Soviet Union was out of its greatest danger (41 and 42). These were the years where Germany had the best chance of beating the Soviet Union. Afterwards, with the industrial centres safely behind the Urals pumping out steadily increasing numbers of tanks, guns, and aircraft to ofset the horrendous losses and the mobilisation of the vast manpower pool that the Soviet Union had at its disposal (also to ofset what were terribly high casualty numbers) the Soviet Unions survival was almost assured.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It is also one of the great ironies of recent history that while the Soviet Union invested much more blood and treasure, it was the US and its allies that reaped the greatest benefits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree completely, the US (with none of its industry affected, on the contrary completely geared up by the war, with massive military formations formed, etc, etc) was by far the big winner of the war (in terms of gains I mean, not in terms of paying the greatest cost for victory in Europe).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Is it coincidence that the Soviets started to make serious gains against the Germans only after the Allies landed in Sicily? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, apart from the Hermann Goering FallshirmPanzer Division that fought in Sicily I am unaware of any panzer divisions that fought in Italy at all, so how much this contributed to the Ostfront is debatable, but still it was something nonetheless. Just I doubt as significant as this sentence makes it appear.

Also, I note that the manpower contribution to Italy was, relativly, not that great as Italy consisted of numerous defensive postions.

I would rather venture that the disaster at Stalingrad with the capitulation of 6.Armee was far more significant. Note also that the Italy campaign was fought to a standstill and could never be desicive, also that it made use of many light troops (eg. fallshirmjaggers at Monte Cassion).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For Hitler, the threat of an invasion of the continent far outweighed the risks of a slow and possibly temporary retreat in the east. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I doubt that this is strictly correct, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Hitler knew, as most generals did, that if the Allies were successful in gaining a foothold in France then the war was lost. Unlike in Italy, an invasion in France could be decisive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Soviets could discount the ability of the German army to recover from its failure to break through at Kursk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The failure here was more than just in not straightening the line at Kursk, but in the large counter-offensive that followed, the large armour losses to the Germans and the loss of initiative to the Soviets.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> With the Allies engaged in the land war (even in a minor way), the Soviets could discount the ability of the German army to recover from its failure to break through at Kursk, unlike after the tentative Soviet victory in the winter of 1941-42 and the Stalingrad victory in the winter of 1942-43 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply because Germany was able to launch offensives in 1943 does not neccessarily mean that it was the best course of action at the time. I note also that Germany continued to launch abortive offensives much later than what the sentance claims, for example the Ardennes in 44 and even as late as early 45 in Hungary, Operation Spring Awakening.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> From 1943 on a significant percentage of the Third Reich's military forces were either engaged or at least deployed against the western Allies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe from July 1944 would be a more acceptable, because France had numerous Panzer divisions, many elite (eg. Das Reich, Hitlerjugend, Panzer Lehr to name but a few) wherease Italy did not.

All in all, not a bad article, however, though as you may have noticed I disagree with it on a few points.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The results would have been very different if the Brits or Soviets had been alone with no help from anyone else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, a war is an extremly complex thing, and every little factor no matter how minor or how major influences the course it takes (though not every little factor will influence its result). I never suggested otherwise.


Best Regards

StG77_Stuka
01-05-2005, 07:13 PM
aaaaahhhhh....eeerrr...ooopppss, Musta accidently wandered into the Egos & Horse hokey Thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

VW-IceFire
01-05-2005, 08:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CURTISLOQW:
I just stall the p-51 out read bad when i try to follow other planes through rolls and climbs ,needs too much speed .
To tell u the truth I think U.S. planes are the best in real life, but I dont use them in the game because I cant keep enemy planes lined up long enough to shoot them down with 50. cal I need cannons.
The only U.S. plane i use is the F4u because of rockets and tiny tims, I usally do ground attacks because im a noob and can only get shot down in doggy : ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The simple procedure to keep the Mustang as a potent fighter:
1) Not a good fighter on the dogfight servers where the airfields are 1 minute apart, the fighting is low and slow, and you are prone to getting into a dogfight no matter how hard you try. There, you want something light, fast, and agile. The Yak-3 and La-7 are amongst the best and many can make the 109 work for them too (generally the G-2 and G-6A/S are best suited for this).
2) If you must take it to these sorts of locations. Drop it down to 25% fuel. Its quite a bit more agile and you still have an hour and something fuel. Think of it this way, at 100% fuel in a FW190 you have something thats close to the endurance of a P-51 at 25% fuel. I didn't calculate it out but I have a pretty good feel for the fuel consumption based on the guages.
3) Take off, climb for altitude greater than the average opponent (in many places, this is 2000 meters+), search for targets that are not actively doing loops and circles around each other, dive, reduce throttle (because you will be fast and loose wings if you pull hard), use the gyro gunsight to guestimate your target, aim for the engine (on 109s especially), let loose with a sustained blast (stay with them into the attack - something you can do in a 51 and few others), and pull off. Total destruction is not required but if he's disabled then he's out of the fight. If nobody else is around then the second pass will be easier and he'll be down.
4) If you get an enemy on your tail such as a 109 then dive, gain speed, pull a tight manuver (but controlled), zoom climb (because the 51 is very clean aerodynamically and you can feel this at 500 kph in a zoom climb), and reverse. If its a 190, then outmanuver him at relatively high speeds (but lower than his best turn at 400 kph+). If its other opponents, weigh your options. Usually the Mustang is the average of all and therefore you have to play to your advantage and his disadvantage but don't let them in close...then you are done for.

geetarman
01-05-2005, 08:42 PM
Well I don't know about in RL , but in the game an LA-7 is basically a target for a Mustang at over 10,000'. If that was the case in RL, it's the height of folly to claim it was the best piston-engine fighter of WWII!

It seems only the Soviets built their planes to excel in the weeds. Don't get me wrong - they apparently were excellent weapons down low, but give me a Thunderbolt, Mustang, Spit, Lightning, 109, etc. where the air gets thin.

joeap
01-06-2005, 06:35 AM
Well, we ought to remember something comparing the arial combat on the West vs. the Eastern Front vs. the Pacific. The West was in some ways "smaller and taller" than the Pacific. In Russia, combat was down low and also airfields were closer to the action than the West or in Asia/Pacific. The sim shows off some of these features in the planes.

I think Icefire's suggestion for the Mustang are very good, I use similar procedures and since there is no real need in most game situations for the Pony's long range, no need to fill er up.

@ Luftwaffe, always good to debate you. As I said we are discussing nuanced points as we seem to be on the same wavelength. Re: Russian participation in the Asian/Pacific War it always has impressed me how the Soviets moved a large army in place so quickly to crush the Kwantung army in Manchuria. You made good points about Ralph Z's article (I do know him from other foroms). The only point I was trying to make was that, while I respect the way Soviets improved tactically and esp. strategically, the Germans kept a tactical edge in ground warfare until 1945 (over the Western Allies too) IMO. The only point I think he was making about Sicily was it may have caused the transfer of elite units. Again I don't have the information in front of me and there were other factors involved surely. It would be like making a ratio of Soviet/German KIA and saying each German killed or transfered saved X Soviet lives. Of course the reverse is true too...X (A much larger X than otherwise) Allied lives were saved by the Soviets...and the Germans were in the vise no matter what. Again jsut a matter of discussing details..."East Front" won(and lost) the war.

LilHorse
01-06-2005, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
RAF test pilot Captain Eric Brown said of the IL2 "It was not a particularly good aeroplane. The Russians were tactically naive - it was no wonder the German aces were able to run up such huge scores when there were big gaggles of 50+ Il-2s to attack. I asked Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann (352 kills) once if he had ever fought in the west - he said he had, he hadn't scored once, had been scared the whole time and thought himself lucky to have lasted a month - it was a whole different ball game."


Now ya'll go at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, now this is one area where the Western Front was worse (for the Germans anyway) than the Ostfront. It seems that many of those German pilots who flew in the East who also flew in the West said that the West was much more deadly than the East.

Karaya_69th
01-06-2005, 11:07 AM
I know the P-51's strengths and weaknesses both historical and in this sim. But one thing I can't seem to put into place is a direct quote from Bud Anderson or Chuck Yeagers book (sorry I can't remember which one despite looking)and that quote was "To beat them you had to turn with them." I never have figured that out.

FatBoyHK
01-06-2005, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karaya_69th:
I know the P-51's strengths and weaknesses both historical and in this sim. But one thing I can't seem to put into place is a direct quote from Bud Anderson or Chuck Yeagers book (sorry I can't remember which one despite looking)and that quote was "To beat them you had to turn with them." I never have figured that out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they have this impression because they had the majority of their fight on 25000ft or higher... at that alt Mustang is clearly superior in almost all departments, turning included...

and those 109 and 190 usually carried extra equipemnts, such as gunpod and rockets...

chaikanut
01-06-2005, 03:44 PM
A historical sidenote: The Soviet Union from 42/43 onwards was beating the germans fairly and it would have no trouble at all to finish the war on its own. A few more million men would have died from both sides and perhaps a few more years of war with new and exotic weapsons would go on but the German defeat was assured even without military help of the allies. The most significant assistance the allies gave to Russia is vehicles for transport like locomotives and trucks, thus freeing up the russian industy and preventing economic and transport paralysis, and a majority of certain resources like high octane fuel for aircraft and vast amounts of aluminum, copper and canned food (all American). Military hardware provided was much less (about 4% of total armament) and some of it, like most of the British equipment, was second rate trash anyway.

The invasion of the allies prevented the soviets from taking over the rest of europe. The consequences of that are obvious to anyone.

Luftwaffe_109
01-06-2005, 07:49 PM
Hello joeap,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> always good to debate you. As I said we are discussing nuanced points as we seem to be on the same wavelength. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I too enjoy debating history with you (usually minor, nit-picking, points, but then, that's what discussing history is all about!) and I agree that our too stances are fundamentally similar.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The only point I think he was making about Sicily was it may have caused the
transfer of elite units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfourtunately, I haven't my sources in front of me, but I doubt this. The only panzer or mechanised infantry units that I recal serving in Sicily were 15th-Panzergrenadier and the Fallschirm-Panzer-Division Hermann Goering (which could certainly be described as an elite division).

The Hermann Goering was formed in May 1943 in the Santa Maria area from remnants of the old division (Division General Goering, destroyed in Tunisia) and new parts forming in France. It fought in Italy and only arrived on the Eastern Front on mid-July 1944.

The 15th Panzergernadier was formed in 1943 also and first served in Sicily. I dont recal any other info about this division.

I doubt very much, though, that transfering these divisions or any of the infantry divisions to the east could have made any difference to the course of events on the Ostfront.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The only point I was trying to make was that, while I respect the way Soviets improved tactically and esp. strategically, the Germans kept a tactical edge in ground warfare until 1945 (over the Western Allies too) IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree here completely. The Germans, even as late as 1945 were capable of inflicting enourmous casualties on the Russians, something of the order of 2:1 in their favour. Apart from the obvious imporvements in tactics and strategy that the RKKA developed (some of these no doubt a result of lessons learnt in the Winter War but not put into practise until long after Barberossa began), lets not also forget that their ability to outproduce their enemies and more than replace their casualties suffered (and, furthermore, to go on and achive huge supremacy in numbers) are too other factors that were instrumental to their success. One can make the conclusion that, had Soviet replacement levels been anything near that of German ones that they would surely have had to cease conducting the massive offensive operations that they were capable of within a period of perhaps 6 months. Basically, it was (at least in part) their manpower pool which allowed them to wage war in the manner that they did and utterly grind down the German war machine

I also agree that the Germans showed a tactical edge over their Western Allied counterparts even late-war.

Till next time.

To chaikanut,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Soviet Union from 42/43 onwards was beating the germans fairly and it would have no trouble at all to finish the war on its own. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I assume you refer to after Winter 42/43

In any case, let's not forget the recovery in the south with the retaking of Kharkov by II SS Panzekorps under von Manstein and the prevention of the annialation of German forces in the south which was the aim of STAVKA at the time and a distinct possibility. Without this victory after the disaster at Stalingrad we can be sure there would not have been a Kursk offensive that summer.

Also that the German army was still capable of undertaking (admitedly limited) campaigns (eg. Kursk).

Best Regards

heywooood
01-06-2005, 08:02 PM
Hmmm..couldn't we say that it is lucky for all of us that Hitler was stupid (or egomaniacal) enough to try a two front war?....

I dunno if anyone else has suggested this here but I personally believe that, but for some true heroics in the Battle of Britain, the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, and the incredible and indomitable spirit of the Russian people...things would be very different today.

Germany - with all of her determination, technology and efficiency (and with a slightly different leader) would have made a permanent alteration to our collective present day, be sure.

kameron1974
01-07-2005, 12:36 PM
They also said the Sherman was better than the Tiger 1. Because there was more of them.
The 109 is the greatest aircraft.
Hartmann flew a 109. A few other good pilots did too I think.

gates123
01-07-2005, 02:07 PM
Without the help of the Brits in North Afica and the invasion of Sicily the Germans would've won the eastern front and swept north through Egypt and Iraq. The MTO checked the Germans and left the east open to a war of attrition. I just don't think the Russians could've stopped them w/o the effort in the Med. Then again Hitler was an Psycho/idiot and countered all military logic that his generals advised him on.

Blackdog5555
01-08-2005, 01:19 AM
Its funny how some history revisionist can poo poo allied contibution to the "great Patiotic War"...Ok, this is the Pacific Fighter forum &..ok, the US and Aussies & friends where doing What in the Pacific? And...Who prevented the Germans from obtaining heavy water for their nuclear bomb project? Who prevented the Japanese from opening of a second front on the east against Russia? Who prevented Germanys dirty bomb usage..the japanese biological weapons..who won the Battle of Britain? etc etc etc. Man o man You can't simply quantify or qualify nation contibution in something as complex as WWII. Just counting dead bodies is not necessarily the only way to determine military advantage. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. And, too many "wud ifs" to be absolutely sure. Cheers and happy hunting mate.

Cmte. Carvalho
01-08-2005, 02:21 AM
If you think that flying a Mustang is a chess game, try flying a P-47... It's like playing chess and soccer at the same time... And this make all victories with it a joy, a big pleasure.

So my vote goes to Jug and it's 8 fifties...

249th_Harrier
01-08-2005, 07:19 AM
Sorry to add to the OT debate but I couldn't resist.

'41 '42 the USSR was on the ropes, and could have been defeated, but managed to prevent this with minimal help from the allies. However, there is a big difference between being able to hold off an invader and being able to turn the tables and annihilate your attacker. I believe without the involvement of the USA and the UK, Stalin would have been forced to an armistice of some kind.

From the numbers I have found, the population of the USSR, after the advances of the German army in '41 '42, was 200million. Germany and her allies were ~120m. Germany, including the all of the absorbed German speaking territories, was ~80m! Germany was clearly technologically superior to the USSR. How could the USSR outproduce Germany by 5:1 in '43? How could the USSR sustain casualties 4x the Wermacht in the same year and still build its military? The answers are lend lease and mobilization, which were not unrelated.

In '43 to the end of the war, the Soviet economy was 100% military. The supply of food and raw materials from lend-lease, available in signifigant volume in '43 on, allowed this to happen. Germany, on the other hand, was living in an economic boom with the plunder of war. To quote the ETO stategic bombing survey, the German economy wanted both guns and butter. The difference in war production and soldier numbers was not due to 5:1 difference in economic base or population, it was due to the relatively un-mobilized German economy.
Women were not used in factories. Military production was on a one shift per day basis. The USSR not only had women in the factories, women were flying fighters in combat missions!

It was only by Dec '44 that Germany had reached the same level of mobilization that the USSR had been at all along. By then 80% of fighting age men were dead, incapacitated by injury, or POW, so it was too late.



With this in mind, what was the impact of the help of the allies?
1) '43 would have been much harder for the Soviets without lend-lease due to the reasons mentioned above. Would they have been defeated? Maybe not. Would they have been able to go on the offensive like they did? Probably not.
2) Given the relative military parity in '43 on the Ostfront, did the Germans miss the 10% of their available infantry divisions diverted to Italy? Of course! Did they miss the thousands of 88 guns diverted to AAA over Germany? Of course! Even more than that, they must have missed the Luftwaffe resources sent to counter the USAAF in the mto and over Germany.
3) In the absence of the Allied bomber offensive and invasion of Italy and then France, Germany may have had more time to fully mobilize militarily before their losses became too great. It is often said that in Germany the idea of a short war lasted long after it had become a long one. If Germany had had more time to realize this, the outcome could have been very different. Given this information, it seems mistaken to assume that the course of the war was a foregone conclusion after Stalingrad. If Germany had fully mobilized and retreated to a more defensible "east wall", and continued to outpace the USSR in technology, it seems very possible that Germany could have forced a stalemate and made Stalin to agree to a cease fire.

NorrisMcWhirter
01-08-2005, 07:32 AM
Hi,

Hugh Dowding, Keith Park, RJ Mitchell and Sidney Camm won the war, be sure. If the BoB had been lost, the war would have been more protracted and Germany would have had time to develop their 'weapons of mass destruction'. There would have been no 'UK aircraft carrier' and Hitler would have been able to concentrate entirely on Russia.

The P51 just won credit for being there when things had become "easy" + propaganda of the history channel which still shows programmes of P51s hurtling into action against footage of 109Es going down in flames.

Cheers,
Norris

chaikanut
01-08-2005, 10:35 AM
Hello.

I dont think that my first post here was well understood so I will explain: We were talking about the outcome of ww2 in Europe right? The military outcome in the war between the Soviet Union had been decided after the disaster at stalingrad.
The germans lost there a very large number of experienced troops and massive amounts of equipement.
The German industry was not ready for the production amounts needed for total war. Even as early as 1942, SU was making 25436 aircraft, 24446 tanks and 176000 artillery pieces, compared to the 15409 , 9300 and only 12000 aircraft, tanks and artillery made by the germans. German industry slowly adapted, diverted production from the civilian to the military sector and made less complicated, lower quality products but in larger number. As a result by 1944 the numbers of aircraft, tanks and artillery made by the SU and the German Reich were 40300, 28963, 178400, 39807, 27300 and 41000 respectively. As you can see the russians had the advantage by a decent margin and after the catastrophic defeats of the germans in 1942 and the large improvements in soviet tactics and leadership during the war we can say that the balance of forces was heavily tilted in favor of the Soviets. Soviet production of steel and coal throughout the war was less than half of the german and aluminum was 51.7 thousand tons in 1942, increased to 82.7 in 1944 (german amounts remained steady up to 1944 in the 250 th.t range), whereas the soviets had a distinct advantage in the production of crude oil (average of 22 million tons throughout the war compared to the german average of 5.7 mt in the first four years, most of it synthetic oil and imports). Throughout the war the russians were low on resources compared to the germans and most of the food production facilities as well as 40 percent of their population was lost due to the terrirory the Germans gained. American economical assistance was absolutely vital to the survival of the soviets. Like I said earlier they provided 58 percent of aviation fuel, 4/5 of all copper, 1/3 of total explosives and more than half the total production of aluminum (328000 tons throughout the war compared to soviet total production of 283000 tons) and enough canned food to provide a meal for every russian soldier each day (in theory). They also provided 409000 vehicles, mostly trucks (compared to 265000 produced in the soviet union), 1900 locomotives (compared to only 92 produced), 43% of all tyres and 56% of rails for the russian railways. The americans also provided thousands of radios to the otherwise primitive mechanised forces, thus boosting their effectiveness.

From all the above I can safetly conclude these:

The Russian-German war was heavily tilted in favour of the soviets since 1942/43. The result of the war had been indeed decided this early in the war. The reasons for the above are the following:

Gross inefficiency of the german military output in the early years compared to superb efficiency of Soviet economy.

Vital American resources supplied to the Soviet military industry.

Large amounts of american made vehicles and machinery.

The destruction of the elite core of the German army in the first year of the war.

The continuous improvements of soviet military leadership (through trial and error http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

The large improvement in mobility and coordination of soviet mechanised forces (mainly due to the radios imported)

Massive advantage of the soviet military in terms of artillery pieces.

Without American economical assistance the Soviets would collapse in late 42, early 44 at the latest.

As far as the leaders are concerned, both Stalin and Hitler were no strangers to strategic planning. However, apart from the occasional brilliant insights of Hitler, they were both amateurs compared to their staff and responsible for most of the defeats that their armies suffered.

The war in Europe was indeed a foregone conclusion and the allied leaders knew that. You can fill in the rest... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As for the rest of the fronts and the contributions of the allies I know quite a bit about ww2 and would be glad to talk in another thread or disprove any rants etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

CURTISLOQW
01-08-2005, 11:28 AM
U guys are forgettin the thread point the P -51, for that matter all U.S. planes stall out so bad I cant even fly them.
This could not be the case in RL I cant even keep them in the air in slow turns.
I always fly russian planes there the best in the game.I know this is not the case I have ww 2 plane books I can read (Im not stupid like there say Im smart)LOL
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
01-08-2005, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Hugh Dowding, Keith Park, RJ Mitchell and Sidney Camm won the war, be sure. If the BoB had been lost, the war would have been more protracted and Germany would have had time to develop their 'weapons of mass destruction'. There would have been no 'UK aircraft carrier' and Hitler would have been able to concentrate entirely on Russia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget Rolls Royce! Without there great engineering skills things may have been allot different. If all we had were those Bristol Radials we could have been in deep water. The Mustang would have kept its allison and the Spitfire would have been powered by a second rate radial and the mosquito would never have earned the nick name wooden wonder.

WOLFMondo
01-08-2005, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CURTISLOQW:
U guys are forgettin the thread point the P -51, for that matter all U.S. planes stall out so bad I cant even fly them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They only stall when mistreated!

NorrisMcWhirter
01-08-2005, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

Hugh Dowding, Keith Park, RJ Mitchell and Sidney Camm won the war, be sure. If the BoB had been lost, the war would have been more protracted and Germany would have had time to develop their 'weapons of mass destruction'. There would have been no 'UK aircraft carrier' and Hitler would have been able to concentrate entirely on Russia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget Rolls Royce! Without there great engineering skills things may have been allot different. If all we had were those Bristol Radials we could have been in deep water. The Mustang would have kept its allison and the Spitfire would have been powered by a second rate radial and the mosquito would never have earned the nick name wooden wonder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops...yes..forgive me for forgetting RR. Indeed, and this gets us back to the P51, you are correct; where would this amalgation of German & British engineering have been without them?

As to stalling...if you cannot fly a US aircraft without stalling it all the time then perhaps you ought to a) buy a joystick b) fly a pacific theatre aircraft as they are clearly easier on the handling.

Cheers,
Norris

Luftwaffe_109
01-08-2005, 09:51 PM
Hello chaikanut,

Thankyou for your detailed reply. I agree with what you said, for the most part at least. Lend-lease was vital for the vast improvement of Soviet performance that can be noticed in 1943.

The Soviet strength levels had been growing dramatically all through 1942 until they could field about twice as many troops in late 1942 as they could in late 1941. It appears to me fairly obvious that this is what basically allowed the turning of the war in the East. In fact, the same result would have been produced even without the casualties to the Ostheer that were incurred when the Red Army succeeded in trapping and destroying the 6th Army (notwithstanding the obvious fact that strategic considerations would have changed, and thus make this observation irrelevant, but you see my point).

Thus once can argue that: as long as the Soviets retained the capacity to maintain (and, in fact, even further increase) their force levels in the face of continuous very heavy losses, their survival was ensured.

Regarding the strength of the Ostheer, the loss of 6th Army was of course serious (as you alluded to), but Stalingrad is not a very sudden decrease in German strength. As a matter of fact, German strength in the East increased somewhat between December of 1942 and July of 1943. For example, during March and April alone, a larger number of replacements and returning wounded men arrived on the Ostfront than the entire number of men who fought at Stalingrad in the Wehrmact. Also, arguing that losses in experience personeel in 1941-42 cost Germany the war seems likewise dubious to me, as there doesn’t seem to be a great drop in the performance of the Wehrmact after Stalingrad (at least, if one looks at casualties incurred by both sides, which are commonly skewed very much in Axis favour even late war).

Basically, what turned the tide of the war in the East is that the Red Army was able to absorb huge casualties without serious loss of strength through 1943 and 1944, and it is basically because of this, which was possible partially due to Lend-Lease, especially of strategic materials (as you so accurately demonstrated), that the Russian’s were able to win the war. We can thus conclude that Germany had to win the war by the end of 1942, for after this point it was never able to compete in terms of force levels.


To Blackdog5555,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the US and Aussies & friends where doing What in the Pacific? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Pacific War was almost a completly seperate conflict from the War in Europe, and has little at all to do with Germany's loss (except, of course, for Hitler's declaration of war with the US after Pearl Harbour).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Who prevented the Germans from obtaining heavy water for their nuclear bomb project? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am suprised that you don't know that it was ten Norwegian resistance fighters trained by the SOE that destroyed the German heavy water plant in Vemork, Norway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Who prevented the Japanese from opening of a second front on the east against Russia? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Japan was not capable or willing to fight a large, conventional, land war with the Soviet Union (no doubt due to its loss at Khalkin Gol). Also, its eyes were turned to South-East Asia for expansion, not to the Soviet Union. What's your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Who prevented Germanys dirty bomb usage <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd be very interested in you providing an example where the Western Allies thwarted a German attempt to use "dirty bombs" that they hadn't developed (I am aware of the suggestions to use them). In any case, "dirty bombs" would do nothing to change the outcome of the war (just like the V-2 campaign) and would have resulted in little else than large casualties.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the japanese biological weapons <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, you are wrong here, as the Japanese used chemical and biological warfare extensivly in China, and they weren't prevented from doing so by the Allies as you alluded to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your post has certainly demonstrated that.

To 249th_Harrier,

I agree with almost all that you had to say except for you assertion that the eight German divisions in Italy could have changed anything on the Eastern Front.


Best Regards

WOLFMondo
01-09-2005, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Who prevented the Germans from obtaining heavy water for their nuclear bomb project? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am suprised that you don't know that it was ten Norwegian resistance fighters trained by the SOE that destroyed the German heavy water plant in Vemork, Norway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was even a film about it with Kirk Douglas.