PDA

View Full Version : Spitfire...



MB_Avro
03-02-2005, 05:50 PM
Why is there so much moaning and whining about the Spitfire's performance ??

It was an excellent fighter from 1936 until 1945. If you cannot accept this read Luftwaffe pilots accounts of combat. The Flight Model in this sim has been based upon accurate and reliable performance data. Oleg (who is a Russian expert) has not sought to provide an aircraft that favours the British but an aircraft that mirrors it's performance in combat.I suspect that if the Spitfire had been a German aircraft that its performance would have been worshiped in this community as much as the Me 109 and Fw 190. Look at the facts and not rely upon biased ignorance.

Best regards,
MB_Avro

lbhskier37
03-02-2005, 05:58 PM
lines in the water http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

MEGILE
03-02-2005, 06:00 PM
This... isn't going to be pretty.

p1ngu666
03-02-2005, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
This... isn't going to be pretty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so tru bro, so tru

btw, spitfire was a excellent fighter PAST 45 too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BaldieJr
03-02-2005, 06:09 PM
But the spitfire was not the war winner. That distinction belongs to the greatest piece of flying millitary hardware, the P-51 Mustang.

If the spitfire was as great as some say, i'd know about it, because i'm an informed american who watches the History Channel all the time.

MEGILE
03-02-2005, 06:12 PM
Well Baldie, I happen to watch History Channel UK, and they told me Spitfire won the war. Fact.

MEGILE
03-02-2005, 06:15 PM
Let me sum up this thread into 1 post.

LW whiners will say Spit is UFO, and present some facts. Spit whiners will say Spit was UFO in real life, and present some facts.
THere will be a lot of name calling, and arguing, and people getting angry over a flight sim.
Then an informed and educated person... hmmm lets take Faustnik will come in and say

Spit is good, but not the best, but not the worst.

The whiners will whine, Steve will post an ammusing picture and the thread will be locked.

Cajun76
03-02-2005, 06:17 PM
Bah, P-47 is prettier anyway. You can have the performance, I'll take the looks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now just sit back and watch all the Spit Aces come and defend thier ride..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
03-02-2005, 06:18 PM
The spit seems fine to me. At least the match ups between the spit and the 109 and Fw190 seem to "feel" (I hope TAGERT comes by because he loves to talk about feelings) right. They each seem to have there historical strengths and weaknesses as far as overall performance and seem to be corresponding to pilot accounts when the planes are flown using historical tactics. The only thing that drove me nuts for a while was the Spit Vb but then I found out the version in game has an engine from 43 or something like that so it makes a lot more sense now.

Jasko76
03-02-2005, 06:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
But the spitfire was not the war winner. That distinction belongs to the greatest piece of flying millitary hardware, the P-51 Mustang.

If the spitfire was as great as some say, i'd know about it, because i'm an informed american who watches the History Channel all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, and smoking is really, really good for you!

(Disclaimer: Note the sarcasm in this statement please!)

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
03-02-2005, 06:35 PM
That nicotine gum must be REALLY good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Jasko76
03-02-2005, 06:39 PM
Yeah, it's one of those new ones with genuine marijuana taste. Mint is so 2004!

SlickStick
03-02-2005, 06:43 PM
If they're whining now, what are they gonna do when this Bad Girl gets here?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


http://img72.exs.cx/img72/4690/spitfiremkxiv5aq.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/7695/spitxiv3us.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/5500/pic154kw.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/6204/bigxiv4re.jpg

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

http://www.imageshack.com

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

Jasko76
03-02-2005, 06:48 PM
This whine is getting to repetitive. When will they realize it's the men, not the machines?

BaldieJr
03-02-2005, 06:56 PM
If it weren't the machines, all the worlds air forces would be flying Jennys with rocket launchers.

Jasko76
03-02-2005, 06:58 PM
I'd much rather face a rookie in a P-51D than an ace in a Wildcat.

p1ngu666
03-02-2005, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
If they're whining now, what are they gonna do when this Bad Girl gets here?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


http://img72.exs.cx/img72/4690/spitfiremkxiv5aq.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/7695/spitxiv3us.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/5500/pic154kw.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/6204/bigxiv4re.jpg

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

http://www.imageshack.com

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

develop a marked interest in early and mid war servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Bsnakeman
03-02-2005, 07:13 PM
When I was a kid we talked about the finest WWII fighters:

The Spitfire and The Messerschmitt .

Best,

SlickStick
03-02-2005, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
develop a marked interest in early and mid war servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bsnakeman:
When I was a kid we talked about the finest WWII fighters:

The Spitfire and The Messerschmitt .

Best, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. I've loved the Spitfire since I was a kid. I loved the P-51 as well.

My dad must have built that one Monogram P-51D with the working gear, sliding canopy, prop that turned and bombs that dropped, about 25 times. Half of them for me.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
03-02-2005, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
develop a marked interest in early and mid war servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bsnakeman:
When I was a kid we talked about the finest WWII fighters:

The Spitfire and The Messerschmitt .

Best, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. I've loved the Spitfire since I was a kid. I loved the P-51 as well.

My dad must have built that one Monogram P-51D with the working gear, sliding canopy, prop that turned and bombs that dropped, about 25 times. Half of them for me.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you had a good Daddy there.

p1ngu666
03-02-2005, 09:00 PM
actshally, BOF was the highpoint of lw in early war, imo
the poles, yogoslavians etc all but a good defense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Galaboo
03-02-2005, 09:08 PM
Spitfire is okay, I wish everyone in the servers would stop using it but... it's a good plane I must say!

I prefer:

He 162
FW-A9
FW D9
BF G-14

Pro-German!

Fish6891
03-02-2005, 11:05 PM
I'm not even going to say it. Those of you who know me know what I'm thinking.

han freak solo
03-02-2005, 11:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

My dad must have built that one Monogram P-51D with the working gear, sliding canopy, prop that turned and bombs that dropped, about 25 times. Half of them for me.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had one of those! Really cool! If it had been made out of metal it wouldn't have had to be rebuilt so often. I think I blew my up with fireworks eventually.

In fact, either fireworks, ESTES rocket engines, or a combination of the two finished off all my model planes when I became 16 years old. Cars and girls took over, you know?

HayateAce
03-02-2005, 11:20 PM
Nice photos SlickStick, thanks for posting.

Yes, this naughty girl is going to break many luftenweiner hearts, and their fuselages, right in two.

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

Jasko76
03-03-2005, 12:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
actshally, BOF was the highpoint of lw in early war, imo
the poles, yogoslavians etc all but a good defense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P1ngu, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say, but Yugoslavia was attacked together with Greece after BoB, in April 1941, in preparation for Barbarossa.

SlickStick
03-03-2005, 02:16 AM
He was a good guy, Waldo, unfortunately only when the demon alcohol was not controlling him. However, that's a story for another day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

He was a private pilot and we used to fly all over the tri-state area out of Caldwell or Teterboro airport here in NJ. To this day, many of his models are still hanging at those airports.
____________________

My pleasure HayateAce, I love to share good pics I gripped off of the net. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
____________________

Han, I've tried to find that model so I could build it, but no luck. I remember Dad talking about how careful you had to be with the cement or the entire gear assembly would freeze-up and be useless. ****ed guy had some mad modeling skillz, be sure.

I'll have to scan a few pics of his last place of residence someday. Many P47s, 109s, Spits and Mustangs hanging in his room.

Enofinu
03-03-2005, 02:39 AM
most kills made with 109 which would make it best there was. range wasnt any good though.

Cajun76
03-03-2005, 02:48 AM
Again, read more ^

Many, many factors involved, oversimplified to the extreme. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WOLFMondo
03-03-2005, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
But the spitfire was not the war winner. That distinction belongs to the greatest piece of flying millitary hardware, the P-51 Mustang.

If the spitfire was as great as some say, i'd know about it, because i'm an informed american who watches the History Channel all the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Well Baldie, I happen to watch History Channel UK, and they told me Spitfire won the war. Fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You both on the right train of thought herehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The Merlin engine was the greatest piece of military hardware in WW2 and won it. Without it the Spitfire and Mustangs wouldn't have been as great as they werehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
03-03-2005, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galaboo:
Spitfire is okay, I wish everyone in the servers would stop using it but... it's a good plane I must say!

I prefer:

He 162
FW-A9
FW D9
BF G-14

Pro-German! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Over 20000 were built and it did full the ranks of the RAF and most DF missions are low and medium altitude missions where the RAF did a bulk of the work so having all those spits is...well realisitc:/

Fish6891
03-03-2005, 03:44 AM
Sorry, I'm a Daimler Benz fanboy

Fish6891
03-03-2005, 03:45 AM
MONDO! My arch nemesis! You posted that second one at the same time as me! MONDOOOOOOOO!!! :0

I'LL GET YOOOUUU!!!!! :0

Monson74
03-03-2005, 04:47 AM
Let me put it this way: The Spitfire was better than it wasn't. Er...

WOLFMondo
03-03-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fish6891:
Sorry, I'm a Daimler Benz fanboy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah! second rate engines. Rolls Royce is where its at. n00b.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fish6891:
MONDO! My arch nemesis! You posted that second one at the same time as me! MONDOOOOOOOO!!! :0

I'LL GET YOOOUUU!!!!! :0 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arch nemisis! Thats on odd title for someone who's been know to fly on your wing!:P

Don't make me come open a Jug sized can of whoop @ss on you now:P

MEGILE
03-03-2005, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monson74:
Let me put it this way: The Spitfire was better than it wasn't. Er... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Fish when we get the Spit XIV, you are gonna go out and get drunk, then come back and we all fly Spit XIV.

Kurfurst__
03-03-2005, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
If they're whining now, what are they gonna do when this Bad Girl gets here?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/4690/spitfiremkxiv5aq.jpg


Yuck, she`s U-G-L-Y. I`d never, never marry from the uk, hehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Von_Rat
03-03-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
If they're whining now, what are they gonna do when this Bad Girl gets here?!? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


http://img72.exs.cx/img72/4690/spitfiremkxiv5aq.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/7695/spitxiv3us.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/5500/pic154kw.jpg

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/6204/bigxiv4re.jpg

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

http://www.imageshack.com

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

develop a marked interest in early and mid war servers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

or fly the ME 262,, oh wait allies refuse to fly against me262, maybe lw should do same with spit14. lol. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

p1ngu666
03-03-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
actshally, BOF was the highpoint of lw in early war, imo
the poles, yogoslavians etc all but a good defense http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

P1ngu, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say, but Yugoslavia was attacked together with Greece after BoB, in April 1941, in preparation for Barbarossa. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, i cant type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif, i just mean those countries put up a valient defense, and did better than alot would belive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LilHorse
03-03-2005, 10:37 AM
Yeah, okay. Spitfire. Terrific plane, no doubt. One of the greatest in history. Anyone who complains about it doesn't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground and are wusses. I agree totally.

Thing is, I at least have a look at this forum just about everyday. And I never see these Luftwhiners that you weenies talk about. If anything I see more of the: "Here's something that'll show ALL THOSE LUFTWHINERS that our planes really were as terrific as they are in the game." It's like these guys are worried their d!cks are too small or something.

How 'bout this. Next time someone complains about the Spit just shoot 'em down online (again). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F0_Dark_P
03-03-2005, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
Well Baldie, I happen to watch History Channel UK, and they told me Spitfire won the war. Fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No what won the war was Germanys bombings of London instead of the bombing of Britains airfields. Fact.

Monty_Thrud
03-03-2005, 11:02 AM
Yeah, and i bet you dont have a cigarette lighter like this in your 109's

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//spitfire-fire2.jpg

Taylortony
03-03-2005, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MB_Avro:
Why is there so much moaning and whining about the Spitfire's performance ??

It was an excellent fighter from 1936 until 1945. If you cannot accept this read Luftwaffe pilots accounts of combat. The Flight Model in this sim has been based upon accurate and reliable performance data. Oleg (who is a Russian expert) has not sought to provide an aircraft that favours the British but an aircraft that mirrors it's performance in combat.I suspect that if the Spitfire had been a German aircraft that its performance would have been worshiped in this community as much as the Me 109 and Fw 190. Look at the facts and not rely upon biased ignorance.

Best regards,
MB_Avro <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is onething innacurate on the Spit and that is flaps, they are powered by air and slam out and in under .5 of a sec, when the one next door comes back of winter servicing i intend to film it for ya

Taylortony
03-03-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Yeah, and i bet you dont have a cigarette lighter like this in your 109's

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//spitfire-fire2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It helps if you remember to use the booster coils dont it

reverendkrv1972
03-03-2005, 11:34 AM
the spit was great,the mustang was made great by its engine,BUT dont forget the Hurricane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
all throughout ww2 the aircraft facing each other were 'leapfrogging' each other in performance.

one bad thing about online servers is...allied planes fighting allied planes,Spits versus Spits....somehow that is kind of sick.

regards,

Rev

p1ngu666
03-03-2005, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Yeah, and i bet you dont have a cigarette lighter like this in your 109's

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//spitfire-fire2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Photo recon spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

in my mossie book, author said he didnt know why the germans didnt have a photo recon system like the british (which was highly successful). he blamed it on "lack of mastery of the air" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

and yes, i know about the arado jet thing, but it was too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jasko76
03-03-2005, 01:35 PM
Well p1ngu, the Yugoslavs may have put a valiant resistance, but it cost us 1,7 million dead! You can't imagine the furiousness of some of the battles fought. Tito was the man! I love those partisans!

allmenroder
03-03-2005, 01:59 PM
If the Spirfire was/is so good how come I get shot down in it?

Likewise, if the German Aircraft are so good how come I get shot down in them.

Now, as for the US planes, err.....I get shot down in them too.

Same with Russian and Japanese, and please don't bring up the Italian ones.

This game is fatally flawed because I stink in every aircaft in it.

So, for me, its the game, not the aircraft modelling......

SlickStick
03-03-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yuck, she`s U-G-L-Y. I`d never, never marry from the uk, hehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's not confuse British women with magnificent birds of flight.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Although, most Spitters, Patooie!, prefer the graceful lines of the normal wing tips, I prefer the low to mid altitude performance increase of the tough-looking CW versions.

Wow, maneuverability, speed, firepower and she is too pretty, ya big meanie. So, is her younger sister. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://img100.exs.cx/img100/7448/spits9hx.jpg

http://img197.exs.cx/img197/3402/nh799023lc.jpg

http://img188.exs.cx/img188/2824/highflying0rg.jpg

scootertgm
03-03-2005, 03:52 PM
The Spit XIV will be a great plane, but it will not turn as well as earlier models and I fear many spit pilots are then going to whine and cry as they have to learn to fly a different style.

But in the right hands it will be a dominant fighter.

SlickStick
03-03-2005, 05:58 PM
However, it will turn close enough to an VIII or a IX, coupled with that extra speed and climb....mmmm...Spitalicious.....

http://img14.exs.cx/img14/477/homer28ci.jpg

SeminoleX
03-03-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why is there so much moaning and whining about the Spitfire's performance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well now...you never hear any from me. I even think the name Spitefire is so apropos..the way they erupt into flames when you kick in the 20mms.

p1ngu666
03-03-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why is there so much moaning and whining about the Spitfire's performance <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cos it performs well at all heights, is better or equal to its contempories, ie german aircraft

and everyone knows the germans made the best planes, all the time, didnt they? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
03-03-2005, 10:03 PM
Man I love the Spitfire. Its a great plane. I can't wait to get my hands on the XIV...almost as much as I can't wait to fly the Tempest. Those two...makes me drool.

I'm expecting the XIV to be a real treat but not for the traditional dogfighter Spit pilots who should probably stay with the Clipped IXe.

Saburo_0
03-03-2005, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by scootertgm:
The Spit XIV will be a great plane, but it will not turn as well as earlier models and I fear many spit pilots are then going to whine and cry as they have to learn to fly a different style.

But in the right hands it will be a dominant fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the extra power helped in the turn as well, so turning fights will still be fun in hte Spit XIV.

I like the looks of the whole spitfire family. Even the Vs with the vokes filter. Prefer the bubble top MkXIV to the standard one tho.

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 12:02 AM
What Spitfire in this game and other WW2 sims has against it are its own pilots.

Now, there are always exceptions, but the vast majority of Spitfire pilots:

Always go for head-on gun runs, no matter if they face Bf-110G-2 or Fw 190A-9. In few years I play these sims there were about 5 Spitfires I met who did not go for head-on. And I'm not kidding.

Attacking bombers from dead six. Never, and I repeat - never have I seen a Spitfire attack a bomber in any other way than a slow approach from dead six. This "tactic" would doom a 109, but Hispanos are great equalizers and usually both bomber and one way ticket Spitfire are lost.

Following enemy planes in conga lines - it is not at all rare to have a string of 4-5 Spitfires following a faster plane all the way to its base - I guess it is due to frustration of not being able to catch anything.

"To everything - turn - turn - turn" seems to be recipee for everything - setup for attack, guns defense, or merely looking around. Can't blame them, Spitfires are slow, but at least climb some, people.

If your base is vulched, you can be sure Spitire pilots are among the vulchers. And while P-51 vulchers play it carefully, Spit types buy one way tickets only - they never even consider RTB as an option. Remember last time you saw a plane duking it out to the bitter end with his engine smoking ? What was the type again ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Diving to the deck near enemy plane only to fight that poor smoking 109 who tries to limp back to its base. Well, finally something they can catch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Their merge tactics suck. Again, in years of online simming I have seen a handful of Spitifires who did not expend all his E into an aggressive lead turn. If a Spitfire goes for E preserving move, there is little a 109 can do. However, their specialty is a nose down lead turn way above corner speed. Instant E disadvantage not even most generous E modeling can save.

As if the Spitfire pilots are spoiled by the plane, along with plane's attractivness to the noobish, but the most stupid moves online belong to Spitifre pilots. Period.

Of course, there are dangeorous Spitfire pilots. But interestingly enough, these are not Sptifire regulars, but converts who are there for quick fun and are bringing flying discipline from other planes. IMHO, the most dangerous Spitfire pilot is the one who learned his ways in a 109.

All this makes me ignore Spitfires in online combat. They are a minor annoyance unless they surprise me or I get low and slow at the same time. P-51s, for example, are much more dangerous to a LW type.

WOLFMondo
03-04-2005, 12:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:

If your base is vulched, you can be sure Spitire pilots are among the vulchers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've actually seen Spits...or should I say I've never taken a Spit or flown with someone taking a Spit to vulch a base.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I've seen 4+ P38's or a certain pair of FW190's do lots of quick and successful attacks. But no Spitfires.

And for a point of reference Spitfires participated in plenty of straifing runs on German airfields during the war so its hardly unrealistic.

Monty_Thrud
03-04-2005, 01:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifLOL!..Hristo... your a funny man... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 01:31 AM
Yup, and even funnier stuff happens when I take a Fw 190D-9 and switch airshow smoke on.

Seems to piss Spitfires off, as then they then follow to hell and back. Just yesterday I airshow dragged 5 Spitfres to near blue base. One by one they died afterwards, without scoring a single kill.

Monty_Thrud
03-04-2005, 01:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gifWell at least they dont come on here and whine about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 01:44 AM
Too bad, as it an was extremely funny event to take part in.

Next time I'll bring a camera http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
03-04-2005, 03:57 AM
Spitfire is pretty good.

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 04:25 AM
Ugly plane, reminds me of Pluto (from Disney cartons). It alo has ufo FM in this game. Not required to present proofs, it is ufo compared to other planes FM. If you tried it you now. No need for data just try it. It doesnt bleed E at all. You have to be noob to lose E in it.
I like the looks of 109, reminds me of old locomotives, 190 looks pure evil, spit and stang just look sissy. Bolt is beaotifull, but has ugly cockpit.

carguy_
03-04-2005, 04:27 AM
Yeah,cool.Wait till I get my Me262 we`ll talk some more.

Then again,no allied flyer would ever allow the plane online in his right mind I forgot.

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jasko76:
This whine is getting to repetitive. When will they realize it's the men, not the machines? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not the case with the spit in this game. I agree on that with all other planes but spit is just funy in this game. Plane for people who play sims for the first time in life. Maybe it is marketing move, to draw kids to play sims. It flies like it has FM from Crimson skies, or some Star Wars series craft. But it is ok if that will improve sales, just dont say that it is normal not to be affected by gravity at all (spit in this game).

pourshot
03-04-2005, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Not the case with the spit in this game. I agree on that with all other planes but spit is just funy in this game. Plane for people who play sims for the first time in life. Maybe it is marketing move, to draw kids to play sims. It flies like it has FM from Crimson skies, or some Star Wars series craft. But it is ok if that will improve sales, just dont say that it is normal not to be affected by gravity at all (spit in this game). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your hatred of the spit has pushed you over the edge I think, time you had a little lay down.

MEGILE
03-04-2005, 04:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EURO_Snoopy
03-04-2005, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It alo has ufo FM in this game. Not required to present proofs, it is ufo compared to other planes FM. If you tried it you now. No need for data just try it. It doesnt bleed E at all. You have to be noob to lose E in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some of the non researched, sheer guess work, prejudice inspired poop I read here it would seem that all Spits, VVS and axis aircraft had the FM's of UFO's and were favoured by developers, odd that.

SlickStick
03-04-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It alo has ufo FM in this game. Not required to present proofs, it is ufo compared to other planes FM. If you tried it you now. No need for data just try it. It doesnt bleed E at all. You have to be noob to lose E in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some of the non researched, sheer guess work, prejudice inspired poop I read here it would seem that all Spits, VVS and axis aircraft had the FM's of UFO's and were favoured by developers, odd that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

________________________

IceFire, you prefer the IX over the VIII? Interesting to know, given your knowledge of the Spitfire marks. Now, if the job calls for high altitude, I'll jump in the IXe HF, but for dogfighting, the VIII beats the IX in the current versions we have now, IMO.

A little faster, a little better acceleration/climb and better turning circle. If only it had an e wing for the .50s, but those .303s aren't too bad and can still perforate most planes, however, hispanos at convergence....ooh la la. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sounds like Hristo_'s been flying the Spitters from the shallow end of the grey matter pool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

HayateAce
03-04-2005, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
some self-serving bunk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wowsers, H risto you our hero. Good to see you have the whole sim community figured out and sorted into neat little slots.

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
some self-serving bunk <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wowsers, H risto you our hero. Good to see you have the whole sim community figured out and sorted into neat little slots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's why I keep coming back to check if anything has changed.

Regarding Spit types, some things never change http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I really wouldn't mind if Spit pilots were more clever, one might have a challenge fighting them.
But the story is always the same - now they hope XIV will solve everything. It never did, in any sim I've played. Check its stats in Aces High, even being a perk ride.

Still, IMHO, no other plane brings a smile to a Fw 190 type than a Spitfire and its driver. If only there were more of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

P.S.
I love self serving bunks, it adds to the game for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

here's one for you, HayateKid:

http://www.cmgworldwide.com/sports/stoitchkov/images/photos/itzo_03.jpg

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:

Sounds like Hristo_'s been flying the Spitters from the shallow end of the grey matter pool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wha...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.kazalistevirovitica.hr/ansambl/antun_vrbenski.jpg

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pourshot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Not the case with the spit in this game. I agree on that with all other planes but spit is just funy in this game. Plane for people who play sims for the first time in life. Maybe it is marketing move, to draw kids to play sims. It flies like it has FM from Crimson skies, or some Star Wars series craft. But it is ok if that will improve sales, just dont say that it is normal not to be affected by gravity at all (spit in this game). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your hatred of the spit has pushed you over the edge I think, time you had a little lay down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is ok if you find your self at home with noob plane with funy FM. Thats how it is flying spits since last patches, i see a lot of funboys are filling their pants with scare of probability of change. You should because it aint easy in other allied planes. With funy or accurate FM one thing will remain: sissy look.

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 06:35 AM
let's keep Spits no matter what though, they are so fun to tangle with

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It alo has ufo FM in this game. Not required to present proofs, it is ufo compared to other planes FM. If you tried it you now. No need for data just try it. It doesnt bleed E at all. You have to be noob to lose E in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some of the non researched, sheer guess work, prejudice inspired poop I read here it would seem that all Spits, VVS and axis aircraft had the FM's of UFO's and were favoured by developers, odd that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can read from poop? Do you use laboraatory, or manage that with your sence of taste and touch? Outsatanding ability, but your guesing is wrong: only the spits have ufo FM.

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
let's keep Spits no matter what though, they are so fun to tangle with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well ok, kids should have their ride too, we were all kids once.

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 06:43 AM
I once read in poop that .50 cals used to kill Tiger tanks, after ricocheting from hardened poop on the ground.

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 06:46 AM
It seems that poop is important for using and understanding some allied FM-s and weapons.

Nubarus
03-04-2005, 06:50 AM
I was wondering when Darthbane would show up with his usual BS.

And here he is.

It's also great that he always posts with so much backup so that his words actually mean anything.

Oh wait, he doesn't do any of that.

Just his usual childish ranting like a broken record.

Kurfurst__
03-04-2005, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
cool pic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Photo recon spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

in my mossie book, author said he didnt know why the germans didnt have a photo recon system like the british (which was highly successful). he blamed it on "lack of mastery of the air" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

and yes, i know about the arado jet thing, but it was too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool pic indeed ! Such one alone worth a day of standing in the hot summer on an airshow!

btw, pingu, the photo recce fighter wasn`t really a RAF-only thing.. FW 190As and 109s alike (starting with Emils!) were employed as tactical recces, some 109Gs, like some 109G-4 variants were used as long range photo recce planes with two underwing droptanks, G-8 was another FR 109 type. They just don`t get much publicity as FR/Pr spits. The ways were a bit different though, the LW used these FRs for tactical recon, for the more 'serious' task it employed ultra high flying JU86s, and more commonly, recce He111s/Ju88s for longer ranged task, whereas the RAF began to rely on Mossies and high flying PR Spits from 43 onwards even for strategic recons.

As for the "lack of mastery of the air", FRs appeared in use on each side when this began to be the case. Ever think why the RAF introduced very fast, unarmed fighters for recce purposes instead of slow and vulnerable blenheims etc. after 1940?

DarthBane_
03-04-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nubarus:
I was wondering when Darthbane would show up with his usual BS.

And here he is.

It's also great that he always posts with so much backup so that his words actually mean anything.

Oh wait, he doesn't do any of that.

Just his usual childish ranting like a broken record. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh Nubarus what have you done? Quickly call the nanny to fix that! Maybe they wont fix that ufo FM, dont be so scared, you are using way too much dipers a day.

MEGILE
03-04-2005, 07:33 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It alo has ufo FM in this game. Not required to present proofs, it is ufo compared to other planes FM. If you tried it you now. No need for data just try it. It doesnt bleed E at all. You have to be noob to lose E in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some of the non researched, sheer guess work, prejudice inspired poop I read here it would seem that all Spits, VVS and axis aircraft had the FM's of UFO's and were favoured by developers, odd that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

________________________

IceFire, you prefer the IX over the VIII? Interesting to know, given your knowledge of the Spitfire marks. Now, if the job calls for high altitude, I'll jump in the IXe HF, but for dogfighting, the VIII beats the IX in the current versions we have now, IMO.

A little faster, a little better acceleration/climb and better turning circle. If only it had an e wing for the .50s, but those .303s aren't too bad and can still perforate most planes, however, hispanos at convergence....ooh la la. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sounds like Hristo_'s been flying the Spitters from the shallow end of the grey matter pool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say that...if I did, I was on drugs. The VIII is better for me...but not for everyone. I find it doesn't turn QUITE as well as the IX but that its speed and energy abilities are slightly better and therefore its the better Spitfire for me.

VIII = best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I love the UFO Spitfire fantatics...they can't produce a single piece of evidence, a single track, or a single piece of proof. They just blather away...please guys - help us "fix" the Spitfire and do something useful. So far I haven't even seen a specific part of the FM that you guys don't like.

It climbs, turns, and speeds along according to the data we have on LF IX Merlin 66 standard boost Spitfires. So whats wrong?

I see the IX and the Bf-109G-6A/S as two of the most evenly matched aircraft in the sim. The 109 does better in the vertical slightly while the IX is better in the horizontal slightly. If one gets on the tail of the other then its a good chance that someone is going down. And no I don't fly in a vaccum...its teamwork that plays the biggest role.

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 07:45 AM
In all honesty, I support the introduction of the XIV. It flew in WW2 in numbers, and here it would make a Fw 190 pilots think twice before doing certain things.

Spits now seem to be just fine and together with majority of their pilots present the greatest fun for me personally. I stand by my belief that vast majority of Spit types use only a portion of plane capabilities and make it perform far worse of what it can really do. As for good Spit jocks, well, I just run away from them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

SlickStick
03-04-2005, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EURO_Snoopy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It alo has ufo FM in this game. Not required to present proofs, it is ufo compared to other planes FM. If you tried it you now. No need for data just try it. It doesnt bleed E at all. You have to be noob to lose E in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to some of the non researched, sheer guess work, prejudice inspired poop I read here it would seem that all Spits, VVS and axis aircraft had the FM's of UFO's and were favoured by developers, odd that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

________________________

IceFire, you prefer the IX over the VIII? Interesting to know, given your knowledge of the Spitfire marks. Now, if the job calls for high altitude, I'll jump in the IXe HF, but for dogfighting, the VIII beats the IX in the current versions we have now, IMO.

A little faster, a little better acceleration/climb and better turning circle. If only it had an e wing for the .50s, but those .303s aren't too bad and can still perforate most planes, however, hispanos at convergence....ooh la la. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sounds like Hristo_'s been flying the Spitters from the shallow end of the grey matter pool. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say that...if I did, I was on drugs. The VIII is better for me...but not for everyone. I find it doesn't turn QUITE as well as the IX but that its speed and energy abilities are slightly better and therefore its the better Spitfire for me.

VIII = best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I love the UFO Spitfire fantatics...they can't produce a single piece of evidence, a single track, or a single piece of proof. They just blather away...please guys - help us "fix" the Spitfire and do something useful. So far I haven't even seen a specific part of the FM that you guys don't like.

It climbs, turns, and speeds along according to the data we have on LF IX Merlin 66 standard boost Spitfires. So whats wrong?

I see the IX and the Bf-109G-6A/S as two of the most evenly matched aircraft in the sim. The 109 does better in the vertical slightly while the IX is better in the horizontal slightly. If one gets on the tail of the other then its a good chance that someone is going down. And no I don't fly in a vaccum...its teamwork that plays the biggest role. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, copy that, IceFire. I misunderstood what you originally wrote. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hristo_ wrote: "As for good Spit jocks, well, I just run away from them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif."

Now, there's the qualifying statement I was waiting for from a hardened LW flyer. As the term "Achtung!! Spitfire!!!" didn't just start because the LW needed a new radio call, I'm expecting back in WWII they did the same thing when a Spitfire was at the same altitude as them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

dadada1
03-04-2005, 09:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yuck, she`s U-G-L-Y. I`d never, never marry from the uk, hehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let's not confuse British women with magnificent birds of flight.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Although, most Spitters, Patooie!, prefer the graceful lines of the normal wing tips, I prefer the low to mid altitude performance increase of the tough-looking CW versions.

Wow, maneuverability, speed, firepower and she is _too_ pretty, ya big meanie. So, is her younger sister. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

http://img100.exs.cx/img100/7448/spits9hx.jpg

http://img197.exs.cx/img197/3402/nh799023lc.jpg

http://img188.exs.cx/img188/2824/highflying0rg.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For me it's the younger sister that has the best genetics and looks. I really don't get the earlier Spits, elongating the nose to accomodate the Griffon improved the Spits looks no end. Just look at that photo of the IX and XIV side by side, then ask yourself which would you rather go out with, Cinderella or the not so pretty older sister. Maybe Cinders had a better plastic surgeon.

Hristo_
03-04-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:

Hristo_ wrote: "As for good Spit jocks, well, I just run away from them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif."

Now, there's the qualifying statement I was waiting for from a hardened LW flyer. As the term "Achtung!! Spitfire!!!" didn't just start because the LW needed a new radio call, I'm expecting back in WWII they did the same thing when a Spitfire was at the same altitude as them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sentence also contains Spit's biggest drawback. Lack of speed.

You can't run away from a good plane.

Just as Corsairs ran away from Zeros at their six, so do the 190's vs Spits. 190 can dictate where and when it will fight a Spit. Spit, on the other hand, will have to take the fight and not have the luxury to leave when it suits it.

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlickStick:

Hristo_ wrote: "As for good Spit jocks, well, I just run away from them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif."

Now, there's the qualifying statement I was waiting for from a hardened LW flyer. As the term "Achtung!! Spitfire!!!" didn't just start because the LW needed a new radio call, I'm expecting back in WWII they did the same thing when a Spitfire was at the same altitude as them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sentence also contains Spit's biggest drawback. Lack of speed.

You can't run away from a good plane.

Just as Corsairs ran away from Zeros at their six, so do the 190's vs Spits. 190 can dictate where and when it will fight a Spit. Spit, on the other hand, will have to take the fight and not have the luxury to leave when it suits it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a5 and 6 are smidge faster, dunno about a4, a8,9 d9 are much faster...
a8 onwards came in 44, and same time as XIV, iirec IX outperforms the g6 and g6late ingame in every area, hence u never see ppl flying g6 on warclouds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

irrec mw50 109s we have are summer autumn 44, think there was a few mw50 109s around before, but not many?

XIV has performance similer to k4 i think, so as a rough idea how its gonna perform http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tempest may well be the favourite tho... having seen 3 at hendon (1 tiffy, 1 mkv, 1mk2) i can tell u those planes are way more badass looking than in photo's. really looks like it was bulit to kill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
cool pic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Photo recon spit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

in my mossie book, author said he didnt know why the germans didnt have a photo recon system like the british (which was highly successful). he blamed it on "lack of mastery of the air" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

and yes, i know about the arado jet thing, but it was too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cool pic indeed ! Such one alone worth a day of standing in the hot summer on an airshow!

btw, pingu, the photo recce fighter wasn`t really a RAF-only thing.. FW 190As and 109s alike (starting with Emils!) were employed as tactical recces, some 109Gs, like some 109G-4 variants were used as long range photo recce planes with two underwing droptanks, G-8 was another FR 109 type. They just don`t get much publicity as FR/Pr spits. The ways were a bit different though, the LW used these FRs for tactical recon, for the more 'serious' task it employed ultra high flying JU86s, and more commonly, recce He111s/Ju88s for longer ranged task, whereas the RAF began to rely on Mossies and high flying PR Spits from 43 onwards even for strategic recons.

As for the "lack of mastery of the air", FRs appeared in use on each side when this began to be the case. Ever think why the RAF introduced very fast, unarmed fighters for recce purposes instead of slow and vulnerable blenheims etc. after 1940? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i know photo recon isnt only a raf thing, just never read anything much about german recon planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ju86's got scared away or ended there high alt flights anyway for another reason once stuff intercepted them.

i havent heard much about he111 recon planes, alittle on ju88
got any info on them and 109 recon stuff?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

air ministry thought that defensive guns would drive away attackers, and blehium was a very fast aircraft, when it entered service...
60mph faster than raf fighters at the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

mossies and spits had a large degree of un intercepterblility, at high alt, or very low alt... photo recon is very diff to other things, u just wanna get in and out fast, take your pics and never see the enemy. also pilots could return whenever they felt like it, no point taking pics of target, then getting shot down, and also theres the weather... 75% of PR missions where aborted i think, or went to secondary targets, funny some stuff was found purly by chance, like penumunday the v weapon dev site http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

imo PR sorties and planes should be in PF, and hopefully they will be in BOB. maybe we will get the mostly useless speed spitfire, that was used once or twice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

btw, i took a bunch of pics of a 109G at hendon for u http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ill upload em later, and give u linky http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MB_Bennett
03-04-2005, 10:40 AM
I have been watching this thread with interest and would like to add my own considered contribution...........Gentlemen....lets just get things right - The Spitfire can be rightfully compared to a gentleman's sports car flown by men of culture whereas the Messerschmit can only equate to some kind of rough agriculutural vehicle steered by a group of urban ruffians and gang leaders.

Mention has also been made of the mustang but I remember that this aircraft was a complete failure until the addition of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine breathed life into a mediocre and uninspiring flying machine

thank you for reading

Monty_Thrud
03-04-2005, 11:23 AM
Very true MB_Bennet at least the first part, but i kind of prefer the looks of the earlier Mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

scootertgm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Spit XIV will be a great plane, but it will not turn as well as earlier models and I fear many spit pilots are then going to whine and cry as they have to learn to fly a different style.

But in the right hands it will be a dominant fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IceFire
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm expecting the XIV to be a real treat but not for the traditional dogfighter Spit pilots who should probably stay with the Clipped IXe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turning Stall
8. The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though

the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows

sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a

similar manner to other Spitfires.

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

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn

slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed

stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

-----------------------------------------------
Taken from here

Schpitfeuer XIV (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html)

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MB_Bennett:
I have been watching this thread with interest and would like to add my own considered contribution...........Gentlemen....lets just get things right - The Spitfire can be rightfully compared to a gentleman's sports car flown by men of culture whereas the Messerschmit can only equate to some kind of rough agriculutural vehicle steered by a group of urban ruffians and gang leaders.

Mention has also been made of the mustang but I remember that this aircraft was a complete failure until the addition of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine breathed life into a mediocre and uninspiring flying machine

thank you for reading <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p51 with alison engine was good at low to medium alt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

surprised intarnet dogfighters havent whined for the p51a with 4 hispano's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

lrrp22
03-04-2005, 11:55 AM
Hey p1ngu

The P-51/Mk 1A had the four Hispanos- the P-51A had the same four .50's as the P-51B/C. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

How about an RAF Mustang Mk I/IA/II running their Allisons with disabled automatic boost controls at 72" Hg...for 20 minutes straight? Apparently this became a common practice for RAF Allison Mustangs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

p51 with alison engine was good at low to medium alt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

surprised intarnet dogfighters havent whined for the p51a with 4 hispano's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SlickStick
03-04-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
You can't run away from a good plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't run away from a faster plane, but a good plane is not always necessarily faster. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Besides, you can run, but you can't hide. You have to come back and try for the kill sooner or later or go home empty-handed, or of course, find Non-Spitalicious targets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Blutarski2004
03-04-2005, 12:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ju86's got scared away or ended there high alt flights anyway for another reason once stuff intercepted them.


..... The British had a devil of a time in North Africa trying to intercept Ju86's. They went to an absolutely stripped down Spitfire Mk V (even replaced the normal battery with a small lightweight item which barely managed the in-flight elcectricity load). This stripped a/c struggled up to the Ju86's altitude, tried to damage it with its few guns and get it to dive to a lower altitude where a normal Spitfire would presumably administer the killing shots.

Ultimately, several of the valuable Ju86's were shot down in this manner, and the Germans halted the missions.

SlickStick
03-04-2005, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Very true MB_Bennet at least the first part, but i kind of prefer the looks of the earlier Mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

scootertgm
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Spit XIV will be a great plane, but it will not turn as well as earlier models and I fear many spit pilots are then going to whine and cry as they have to learn to fly a different style.

But in the right hands it will be a dominant fighter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IceFire
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'm expecting the XIV to be a real treat but not for the traditional dogfighter Spit pilots who should probably stay with the Clipped IXe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turning Stall
8. The Spitfire XIV gives less warning of a stall in a tight turn than a Spitfire IX, though

the same pre-stall characteristic ("shuddering") occurs. This is a good point as it allows

sighting to be maintained nearer the stall. This aircraft tends to come out of a dive in a

similar manner to other Spitfires.

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

Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn

slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed

stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.

-----------------------------------------------
Taken from here

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good link, Monty. I like these parts, especially. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

69. It has the best all-round performance of any present-day fighter, apart from range.

Interesting things about the VIII and XIV comparison:

Performance- Speeds near the ground are identical, at 10,000 and 15,000 feet the Spitfire VIII is faster, at 20/25,000 ft. similar, at 30,000 ft. and over the Spitfire XIV accelerated faster and was the superior aircraft.

In spite of heavier controls the Spitfire XIV is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire VIII in turns at all heights.

Conclusions- Of the two aircraft the Spitfire VIII is preferable at all heights up to about 25,000 feet except for its turning capabilites. It is much lighter on the elevators and easier for the average pilot to fly. Its performance and fuel consumption are better. The Spitfire XIV is superior above 25,000 and with its better turning characteristics it is more than a match for the Spitfire VIII. The difficulties of trimming will probably be reduced as pilots gain familiarity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mk. VIII beauty we have really should be this good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ju86's got scared away or ended there high alt flights anyway for another reason once stuff intercepted them.


..... The British had a devil of a time in North Africa trying to intercept Ju86's. They went to an absolutely stripped down Spitfire Mk V (even replaced the normal battery with a small lightweight item which barely managed the in-flight elcectricity load). This stripped a/c struggled up to the Ju86's altitude, tried to damage it with its few guns and get it to dive to a lower altitude where a normal Spitfire would presumably administer the killing shots.

Ultimately, several of the valuable Ju86's were shot down in this manner, and the Germans halted the missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, and over britain they where scared away, and in russia by a mig i think, lexx_luther will post.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i think it could fly very high, but not very fast?

i think they used hurri's in north africa, and a mossie was specialy adapted aswell

DONB3397
03-04-2005, 01:11 PM
Didn't topics like this attract informed debate once? Where are the stats? The pilot testimonials? And the charts? And where is Horseback with his disdainful, reasoned summary?

Oh well...

LilHorse
03-04-2005, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
For me it's the younger sister that has the best genetics and looks. I really don't get the earlier Spits, elongating the nose to accomodate the Griffon improved the Spits looks no end. Just look at that photo of the IX and XIV side by side, then ask yourself which would you rather go out with, Cinderella or the not so pretty older sister. Maybe Cinders had a better plastic surgeon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess there's no accounting for taste. I think the early mark Spits are the most beautiful. Clean, elegant design. The later Spits lines got ruined with the "blown" Merlin. And I think the Griffon Spits are butt-ugly.

But here's my question for all you Spit fanbois. What is your favorite LW plane to fly? Notice I said "to fly" not shoot down.

I await the amusing answers.

Badsight.
03-04-2005, 01:38 PM
basically , as long as it flies like the Mk8 we have now but with more power , it should be the most capable all-altitude DFer in the game

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:

But here's my question for all you Spit fanbois. What is your favorite LW plane to fly? Notice I said "to fly" not shoot down.

I await the amusing answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm, fly all types here, but g6as is nice, agile and climb and speed. i like 190 aswell, specialy for jabo... if u include all axis types, really like ki43, 5 a b 21 model zeros, iar8x, and the italien planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LilHorse
03-04-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:

But here's my question for all you Spit fanbois. What is your favorite LW plane to fly? Notice I said "to fly" not shoot down.

I await the amusing answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm, fly all types here, but g6as is nice, agile and climb and speed. i like 190 aswell, specialy for jabo... if u include all axis types, really like ki43, 5 a b 21 model zeros, iar8x, and the italien planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, not amusing but good. I don't want to hijack this thread. When I said that I was awaiting amusing answers I meant that I expected lots of K4s,Doras and Ta-152s, etc. That or ppl who just refuse to fly LW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

SlickStick
03-04-2005, 02:23 PM
Two favorite LW planes to fly:

Bf-109-G2

FW-190-A9

VW-IceFire
03-04-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
For me it's the younger sister that has the best genetics and looks. I really don't get the earlier Spits, elongating the nose to accomodate the Griffon improved the Spits looks no end. Just look at that photo of the IX and XIV side by side, then ask yourself which would you rather go out with, Cinderella or the not so pretty older sister. Maybe Cinders had a better plastic surgeon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess there's no accounting for taste. I think the early mark Spits are the most beautiful. Clean, elegant design. The later Spits lines got ruined with the "blown" Merlin. And I think the Griffon Spits are butt-ugly.

But here's my question for all you Spit fanbois. What is your favorite LW plane to fly? Notice I said "to fly" not shoot down.

I await the amusing answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I fly Luftwaffe alot (despite being a RAF plane fanatic) and my weapon of choice is any variant of the FW190. Particularly the A's right now but the D-9 too. Can't get into the Ta-152H yet...but it has its charms too.

I've read the tests on the XIV and I'm still going to say that the average dogfighting crowd (right now they fly Spitfire IXs alot, they used to fly Ki-84s and La-7s or maybe still do) is going to stay away from this Spitfire...but we'll see. The nastier stall and whatnot may not be too welcome...turns are supposed to be near identical although I can't seeing it be perfectly identical either.

horseback
03-04-2005, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Didn't topics like this attract informed debate once? Where are the stats? The pilot testimonials? And the charts? And where is Horseback with his disdainful, reasoned summary?

Oh well... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Nice to know I've built a fanbase. Sorry Don-I've been rather busy defending the honor of the P-38 and the Wildcat (and trying to write a valid system test while the software types change the code three times a week).

So far, this looks like a test of bladder capacity to me; I mean, even Kurfurst/Isegrim has limited himself to denigrating English womanhood (although the English beauties pictured had much sharper teeth than Elizabeth Hurley).

It seems to me that there is always going to be an imbalance on-line, where the beginners are going to gravitate to the national favorites they read about in comics or saw on TV, and the old pros are going to look for something that suits their personal style.

Since the oldest all-arounders in the FB/AEP/PF series are going to be either German or Soviet fighters, that's what the majority of the online aces fly. There's always going to be a bit of disbelief when a good pilot is able to properly exploit the historically modelled strengths of a relative newcomer, when the hordes of inexperienced fliers of the same type are so easy to cut up into little bits.

I haven't flown the Spitfire in-game much, but the real thing was a formidible knife fighter when flown by a good pilot. A plane that enables you to get a good firing solution quickly and hits hard is always a tough nut to crack.

The Spit had a good reputation with the LW, in spite of the fact that it was often flown by relatively inexperienced pilots. There has to be a reason for that respect.

cheers

horseback

SlickStick
03-04-2005, 03:40 PM
Ice, It may not turn as well, but that extra 30-35mph of speed at any altitude, will come in handy for the vertical game, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm partial to true historic matchups of any year in the game and no LW plane can really hang with an accomplished Spitfire pilot in a turnfight.

Don't get me wrong, 109s can have excellent early engagement moves and can quickly get guns on a Spit, but if the Spitfire counters properly, a late 109 is dead in a prolonged turn fight against all late Spits, basically.

The XIV will just let us get up to the "Fraidy Catmosphere" quicker to engage the B and Zers and try to draw them into a close-diving scissors. The 109 will stall at speeds the Spit can still pull full stick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I speak in planes because when you know you're up against a guy who usually out turns you in the planes he's supposed to and vice-versa, the rest is just to know the order of turning dominance.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:

But here's my question for all you Spit fanbois. What is your favorite LW plane to fly? Notice I said "to fly" not shoot down.

I await the amusing answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hm, fly all types here, but g6as is nice, agile and climb and speed. i like 190 aswell, specialy for jabo... if u include all axis types, really like ki43, 5 a b 21 model zeros, iar8x, and the italien planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, not amusing but good. I don't want to hijack this thread. When I said that I was awaiting amusing answers I meant that I expected lots of K4s,Doras and Ta-152s, etc. That or ppl who just refuse to fly LW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, i fly anything, im a plane **** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
few ppl fly anything that isnt late 44, or a g2 onwhine from what i can tell, i actully flew g6 yesterday, and shot down megile, i then got damaged by someone else, and ended up crashing, meg getting kill as he sprayed me at some point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
its actully not a bad plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MEGILE
03-04-2005, 04:01 PM
G6??!! pffffftt.....

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

G6 is a rarity online anymore... surprising that all the LW luvers aren't flying the most produced variant.

That is why we COOP p1ngu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Nubarus
03-04-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
only the spits have ufo FM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
It seems that poop is important for using and understanding some allied FM-s and weapons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First it's only the Spit and now it's some Allied FM's?
So what is it going to be Darthbane?

Besides, if some Allied FM's are funny then some Axis have a funny FM too.
Just from the top of my head the Bf109G2 can perform some funny moves that don't seem natural, but I am sure you will deny that because it's an Axis plane.

But then again, you never give detailed information on anything, just mindless drivel.

And the only reply you can come up with is this "Ahh Nubarus what have you done? Quickly call the nanny to fix that! Maybe they wont fix that ufo FM, dont be so scared, you are using way too much dipers a day."

It holds nothing important of any kind, nothing other then a dumb response to hide your lack of knowlegde.

And learn how to spell, if you want to be funny at least make sure you type the words that are supposed to be funny correctly.

It's diapers, not dipers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

hop2002
03-04-2005, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can't run away from a good plane.

Just as Corsairs ran away from Zeros at their six, so do the 190's vs Spits. 190 can dictate where and when it will fight a Spit. Spit, on the other hand, will have to take the fight and not have the luxury to leave when it suits it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't win a war by running away.

Next you'll be saying the Italians had the best tanks, because they could choose when to engage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Perhaps this "run away" attitude is why Goering became so disapointed with the Jagdwaffe, forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers? Certainly the bomber pilots seemed to think so. Perhaps that's why the Jagdwaffe whined about it so much, because they couldn't run away when they wanted to?

War isn't a game where you check your score, and avoid fighting if you don't have an advantage. "Play" like that and you'll lose, because whilst your running away, the troops on the ground are getting bombed, their supplies are being destroyed, and they don't have the luxury of running away.

What was the German soldier's joke? If it's blue, it's the RAF, if it's silver, it's the USAAF, if it's invisible, it's the Luftwaffe.

Perhaps they were using their "superior" planes and running away?

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 10:14 PM
hehe hop
reminds me of russian pilot(s) who went to intercept a fw189 that was doing artillary spoting. they got in a fight on the way, used up all there ammo.

so, they went home?

nope he climb up, then dive thru the fw189, using his wings to cut the tail off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

think he bailed out safely http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

thought he was gonna die, but he did it to save his fellow russians on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-04-2005, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:


You don't win a war by running away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you win a war by fighting when you have the advantage. Heroic last stands are exactly that. LAST stands. There is no point in throwing men or equipment away in a forgone battle. If you pick and choose when and where you fight you dictate the terms of engagement and will usually win. Sun Tsu noted that most battles are won BEFORE the fighting begins.

Sabouro Saki noticed that very often American air units would refuse battle if at a disadvantage. He didn't call them cowardly though. He called them smart. That way instead of having 12 P-40s or F4Fs to take on the same number of Zeros the next time they would have 2 or 3 dozen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Perhaps this "run away" attitude is why Goering became so disapointed with the Jagdwaffe, forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers? Certainly the bomber pilots seemed to think so. Perhaps that's why the Jagdwaffe whined about it so much, because they couldn't run away when they wanted to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe were screaming for tighter and tighter cover from their fighters in order to protect the bombers. Having 'little friends' in sight is immensly relieveing to bomber crews. It is a massive psychological sop. However a looser defence is actually more effective; fighters can intercept and divert attackers well away from the bomber stream, interrupting attacks before they develop.

Tying the fighters to the bombers reduced their tactical advantages and options. It was a mistake, quite a large one actually. While it might of made things psychologically easier on the bomber crews it probably endangered them more than a less tightly grouped defense.

Similarly, Goering was right about the bombers; they were ultimately more important to wining the Battle of Britain than fighters. However he seriously over estimated their ability to hurt the British. One of the primary duties of a fighter is to gain air superiority by shooting sdown his opposite number. The WHY of this is that air superiority is necessary for effective bomber operations. An air force without bombers ignores 50% of its role.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
War isn't a game where you check your score, and avoid fighting if you don't have an advantage. "Play" like that and you'll lose, because whilst your running away, the troops on the ground are getting bombed, their supplies are being destroyed, and they don't have the luxury of running away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To fight when you are disadvataged is a good way to loose a war. Pick and choose your battles and victory will be yours. Look at the transition from defence to offence by thee Red Army in the mid 1942 period. They won their battles because of carefully selected and orchestrated local dominance in attack. If you are faced with a superior enemy withdraw, consolidate, fight defensively (a la Stalingrad, Leningrad and the battle for Moscow)but do not attack until you are confident of victory, at least locally if not operationally.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What was the German soldier's joke? If it's blue, it's the RAF, if it's silver, it's the USAAF, if it's invisible, it's the Luftwaffe.

Perhaps they were using their "superior" planes and running away? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a truism because of the ability of the RAF and the USAAF by late 1943-early 44 to pick and choose its battles. 1000 plane raids dont happen without massive planning and confidence in victory.

The Me-262 wasn't superior because of rate of turn or firepower, it was superior because of its speed. Ergo, it could dictate the terms of engagement and win on those terms, much like P-51 and P-38 pilots could do to Zeros.

p1ngu666
03-04-2005, 11:24 PM
theres some truth in what u say. but if your defending something valuable, then u haveto fight, even if its costly.

victory at stalingrad wasnt certain, and what remained of the city probably wasnt worth having anyways.

if the city was called trockskieville, then stalin would equip it with ppl he didnt like, and give them spoons to fend off the germans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if u avoid the fight, the enemy will be stronger next time aswell all things being equal (which they arent)

it depends on the situation which is better

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can't run away from a good plane.

Just as Corsairs ran away from Zeros at their six, so do the 190's vs Spits. 190 can dictate where and when it will fight a Spit. Spit, on the other hand, will have to take the fight and not have the luxury to leave when it suits it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You don't win a war by running away.

Next you'll be saying the Italians had the best tanks, because they could choose when to engage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Perhaps this "run away" attitude is why Goering became so disapointed with the Jagdwaffe, forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers? Certainly the bomber pilots seemed to think so. Perhaps that's why the Jagdwaffe whined about it so much, because they couldn't run away when they wanted to?

War isn't a game where you check your score, and avoid fighting if you don't have an advantage. "Play" like that and you'll lose, because whilst your running away, the troops on the ground are getting bombed, their supplies are being destroyed, and they don't have the luxury of running away.

What was the German soldier's joke? If it's blue, it's the RAF, if it's silver, it's the USAAF, if it's invisible, it's the Luftwaffe.

Perhaps they were using their "superior" planes and running away? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



"But turning doesn't win airbattles!"

Need I remind you who said that ?

Need I remind you of how much shock Fw 190 imposed on RAF in 1942 ? And it wasn't because 190 could outturn a Spit.

No, it was because it outgunned, outpaced, outdove and outranged it.

You remind me of an old propaganda leflet which stated that "...Gladiator is better than 109 because it is slower, thus having tighter turning circle...".

You'd think they knew better, but obviosuly Brits in the West and Japanese in the East thought turning ability is more important than speed.

How about a little test ? Let's say 8 vs 8, Spitfires vs contemporary 190s ?

How about it ?

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
theres some truth in what u say. but if your defending something valuable, then u haveto fight, even if its costly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are defending anything, you've already lost half the battle.

Fighter planes are offensive weapons, not defenders. They should chose where and when to engage, not the enemy. If forced to fight, you can be sure it won't be on their terms.

And even Spitfires would benefit of chosing where and when to attack, not having to rely on their defensive qualities anytime a Fw 190 decides to pick a fight.

What is the saying again, that offence is best defence ?

A Fw 190 can meet 10 Spits, make an attack run and easily get away to fight another day.

What can a Spit do against 10 Fw 190s ?

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:


You don't win a war by running away.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life, which one would you rather be :

a) a lone Spitfire pilot who just met 10 Fw 190s co-E

or

b) a lone Fw 190 pilot who just met 10 Spitfires co-E

What would your options be in a chosen scenario ?

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
theres some truth in what u say. but if your defending something valuable, then u haveto fight, even if its costly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are defending anything, you've already lost half the battle.

Fighter planes are offensive weapons, not defenders. They should chose where and when to engage, not the enemy. If forced to fight, you can be sure it won't be on their terms.

And even Spitfires would benefit of chosing where and when to attack, not having to rely on their defensive qualities anytime a Fw 190 decides to pick a fight.

What is the saying again, that offence is best defence ?

A Fw 190 can meet 10 Spits, make an attack run and easily get away to fight another day.

What can a Spit do against 10 Fw 190s ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

im sorry but most fighters ARE defensive. bombers are the offensive arm.

if u arent defending anything, well then uve got nothing to fight for have u ?

tuskegee airmen protected their bombers, which did the damage to germany.

im sure the troops on the ground where extatic when there planes ran away because they was at a disadvantage, leaving enemy attack planes to attack them at will...

u have a point for internet dogfighting with no objective.

in real war, or in coops where their is more stuff important than being a "ace".

btw a spit V = dead, but a IX could outclimb the 190, the 190 can run away...

offensise isnt always the best form of defense, like tuskegee's who stayed with the bombers. ofcouse they didnt shoot down alot of germans, but every single one of their bombers made it home. on every mission.

some tuskegee's didnt make it home, but the 10 men in each bomber did.

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 09:14 AM
By your logic, the best fighter plane would be souped up Fokker Dr.I circling above target and waiting to be attacked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luckily, poeple know better

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 09:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

being able to run away is a useful ability

but its not always a useful tatic

like the tuskegee and other escort pilots, they often hadto face many more enemy, (germans grouped there units together so localy, they had more planes)

they faught off the attacks though, if they ran away, leaving the bombers to there fait, what would be there worth?

there are things worth defending thats worth the ulimate sacrifice..

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

there are things worth defending thats worth the ulimate sacrifice.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

which ones are those ?

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 10:04 AM
Hristo, your questions and "logic" are utter BS...

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 10:11 AM
freedom, civil rights, other men and woman and other things...

if u haveto ask, well... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

i suggest u look up who's got the VC, medal of honour, and hero of the soviet union.

and why they have that medal. one never even fired a shot, but he still got the MOH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

google for doss.

Extreme_One
03-05-2005, 10:28 AM
As for saying that Fighter planes are designed for an offensive role - that's twaddle.

Most fighters were originally conceived as interceptors to take out attacking bombers. Is that an offensive role?

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 10:51 AM
Fighters are defensive.

Fighter-bombers are offensive.

MEGILE
03-05-2005, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>that's twaddle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Kiss your mother with that mouth?

Monty_Thrud
03-05-2005, 11:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifI SAY!...steady on old boy... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 12:01 PM
Well, some people seem to enjoy Lufberry tactic. Is that why Spits follow people around to their base only to disconnect when hit by AAA ?

I, on the other hand, enjoy aggressive approach. Defend nothing, attack everything, run when in doubt.

P.S.
As for dying for a cause, remember what Patton said ?

"..no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Fighters are defensive.

Fighter-bombers are offensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

horsecrap, if you ask me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tell that to an F-15 or F-22 pilot next time you meet him.

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Fighters are defensive.

Fighter-bombers are offensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

horsecrap, if you ask me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tell that to an F-15 or F-22 pilot next time you meet him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry... I didn't realize I wondered off into the LOMAC forums...



In the scope of the entire war, fighters were primarily tasked with destroying other fighters. Why? To defend ground assets from bombardment and attack. Given, fighters were sometimes given the go-ahead to attack with onboard weaponry, this was not their primary job.

Likewise, in the scope of the entire war, fighter-bombers were given the offensive task of ground attack as a primary role. No longer were these aircraft defending ground assets or bombers, but were rather going in behind enemy lines with the sole intention of direct attack of enemy assets.


You can go on trying to sound masculine by denouncing the fact that fighter aircraft are defensive weapons by nature. A pure fighter aircraft, whether an air superiority fighter or an interceptor, is defensive in design and nature. Its task is to protect aerospace from airborne threats. Just because a fighter aircraft carries weapons does not mean that it is a strategically offensive weapon! In terms describing the entire battlefield, an asset is only offensive if its primary task is to take initiative and seek out and destroy enemy assets, as opposed to seeking out and destroying enemy assets due to the fact that they threaten your own assets. And contrary to what you may think, the F-15 was specifically designed as an air superiority fighter. "Not a pound" was to be wasted for any air-to-ground capabilities whatsoever! Only years after its original conception was it modernized into the F-15E Strike Eagle.

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Well, some people seem to enjoy Lufberry tactic. Is that why Spits follow people around to their base only to disconnect when hit by AAA ?

I, on the other hand, enjoy aggressive approach. Defend nothing, attack everything, run when in doubt.

P.S.
As for dying for a cause, remember what Patton said ?

"..no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nice quote, but u dont go somewhere to die, u go todo as much damage, or protect as best u can.
kamikaze's went to die, but they where trying to stop americans from invading japan, so their country and family would continue as they had before...

fighters are defensive, and secondary to bombers and recon.
5million fighters, in a pure fighter role, over enemy airspace will achive nothing if the enemy just sits on the ground.
if fighters attack ground targets, they become bombers basicaly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 12:22 PM
Fighters should go in BEFORE bombers and impose air superiority.

Only then bombers should go in.

Fighters going together with bombers are making things harder for themselves.

Fighters going in to become defensive already lost the battle.

Gee, people, I hope you'll never lead anyone anywhere to die.

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Fighters should go in BEFORE bombers and impose air superiority.

Only then bombers should go in.

Fighters going together with bombers are making things harder for themselves.

Fighters going in to become defensive already lost the battle.

Gee, people, I hope you'll never lead anyone anywhere to die. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actully, that tatic alerts the ppl on the ground of a raid, so all the AAA is ready, and the target might disperse. AND a few fighters can sneak into the bombers, its gonna be nasty.

and, even in your example, the fighters are still defensive, as their defending the bombers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbcampbe.htm

start reading from the red text onwards.

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 12:36 PM
You'd make a great propagandist. By your logic every war is defensive and every shot fired is in actual self defence, huh ? Hell, every shot fired in Vietnam was to protect some old mama sitting on the porch in Arizona, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Do it other way around and MiGs would have afield day

Extreme_One
03-05-2005, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Fighters should go in BEFORE bombers and impose air superiority.

Only then bombers should go in.

Fighters going together with bombers are making things harder for themselves.

Fighters going in to become defensive already lost the battle.

Gee, people, I hope you'll never lead anyone anywhere to die. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the RAF did use that tactic in 1941 it was called a "Sweep" however as Pingu rightly pointed out it just alerted the enemy to the fact that bombers would be along shortly.

It was used in combat afterwards when the Luftwaffe were weakend and the RAF were attempting to draw them into a fight but on the whole the tactic became redundant.

During BOB the Hurricanes often escorted the Bombers - sticking close to them as the Spitfires flew a looser escort in order to intercept any fighters.
Neither practice could be called an offensive tactic

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:


actully, that tatic alerts the ppl on the ground of a raid, so all the AAA is ready, and the target might disperse. AND a few fighters can sneak into the bombers, its gonna be nasty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No wonder Circuses and Rhubarbs did more harm than good for the Brits if they used your logic.

Few fighters can try to sneak here and there, but that's why you need air superiority in the first place. Air superiority is not something which happens along the way. It takes planning and preparation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
and, even in your example, the fighters are still defensive, as their defending the bombers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbcampbe.htm

start reading from the red text onwards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is "being defensive" having an airforce imposing air auperiority while bomber guys still drink their coffee at their bases ?

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 12:43 PM
And Hristo, you are missing a key point..

What makes you think that enemy fighters will go up and meet your fighters that are going in just to "impose air superiority"? The enemy, provided his foreknowledge is accurate, will not be forced into a defensive stance unless he must defend something. Air superiority fighters alone do not pose a threat, unless I missed out about the part where they built cities and factories in the sky in WWII.

Enemy interceptors will not come up to challenge air superiority fighters already on the spot, unless the air superiority fighters assume an offensive stance themselves, which would largely consist of strafing. Otherwise, if the air superiority fighters were just flying around at altitude, keeping the air clear of interceptors before the bombers arrived, they'd just be burning their precious fuel. For the interceptors, engaging the air superiority fighters would be extremely disadvantageous.
You need an incentive for the interceptors to come up and mix it up, and that's why bombers flew in with escorts. And here again, both the interceptor and the escort are defensive in nature. The interceptor defends his ground assets, while the escort defends his strategic bomber assets.

I'd like you to show me the last time there was a 1,000 airplane raid composed of fighters attacking a factory complex or a city to the effect of the fames 1,000 plane bomber raids over German occupied Europe.

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:


Yes the RAF did use that tactic in 1941 it was called a "Sweep" however as Pingu rightly pointed out it just alerted the enemy to the fact that bombers would be along shortly.

It was used in combat afterwards when the Luftwaffe were weakend and the RAF were attempting to draw them into a fight but on the whole the tactic became redundant.

During BOB the Hurricanes often escorted the Bombers - sticking close to them as the Spitfires flew a looser escort in order to intercept any fighters.
Neither practice could be called an _offensive tactic_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you actually believe close escort is more effective use of fighter planes than fighter sweeps ?!

Extreme_One
03-05-2005, 12:43 PM
Oh - and air superiority is usually acheived by destroying aircraft/ factories/ fuel depots on the ground.

Ever heard of The Blitzkrieg?

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
You'd make a great propagandist. By your logic every war is defensive and every shot fired is in actual self defence, huh ? Hell, every shot fired in Vietnam was to protect some old mama sitting on the porch in Arizona, right ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Do it other way around and MiGs would have afield day <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the stated reason for vietnam was to stop the spread of communism, americans thought it would take over the world, and then them, so they tried to contain it.

there was some major offensive eliements in wars, but one side is normaly defensive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i was talking about fighters really, but in general is also true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

without bombers and recon, theres no reason to have aircraft in a fighter role.

Extreme_One
03-05-2005, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:


Yes the RAF did use that tactic in 1941 it was called a "Sweep" however as Pingu rightly pointed out it just alerted the enemy to the fact that bombers would be along shortly.

It was used in combat afterwards when the Luftwaffe were weakend and the RAF were attempting to draw them into a fight but on the whole the tactic became redundant.

During BOB the Hurricanes often escorted the Bombers - sticking close to them as the Spitfires flew a looser escort in order to intercept any fighters.
Neither practice could be called an _offensive tactic_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you actually believe close escort is more effective use of fighter planes than fighter sweeps ?! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that as soon as the practice of "Sweeping" an area became known it was all but useless.

The enemy merely waited until some juicer targets (bombers) came along.

What would be the point of sending planes into a dogfight knowing that several hundred thousand pounds of explosives would soon be raining down on your homes and your factories?

It makes far more sense to save the fighters to use against the bombers - which is exactly what did happen - which in turn lead to increased fighter escorts for the bombers and the development of long range drop tanks for the fighters.

Why ask what I believe when the facts are so well documented - or are you just trollin' for an argument? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 12:51 PM
LOL You would make a good propagandist, Hristo...

You like changing the subject of things at will.

We are talking about the defense of military assets, and here you go off about the defense of ideals and "grandmas in Arizona".

Let's keep em seperate...

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
And Hristo, you are missing a key point..

What makes you think that enemy fighters will go up and meet your fighters that are going in just to "impose air superiority"? The enemy, provided his foreknowledge is accurate, will not be forced into a defensive stance unless he must defend something. Air superiority fighters alone do not pose a threat, unless I missed out about the part where they built cities and factories in the sky in WWII.

Enemy interceptors will not come up to challenge air superiority fighters already on the spot, unless the air superiority fighters assume an offensive stance themselves, which would largely consist of strafing. Otherwise, if the air superiority fighters were just flying around at altitude, keeping the air clear of interceptors before the bombers arrived, they'd just be burning their precious fuel. For the interceptors, engaging the air superiority fighters would be extremely disadvantageous.
You need an incentive for the interceptors to come up and mix it up, and that's why bombers flew in with escorts. And here again, both the interceptor and the escort are defensive in nature. The interceptor defends his ground assets, while the escort defends his strategic bomber assets.

I'd like you to show me the last time there was a 1,000 airplane raid composed of fighters attacking a factory complex or a city to the effect of the fames 1,000 plane bomber raids over German occupied Europe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed
and even if fighters attacked the sky cities, they would be in a bomber role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

make a cool what if map tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

indeed
and even if fighters attacked the sky cities, they would be in a bomber role http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

make a cool what if map tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reminds me of that one mission in the original Rogue Squadron on the N64 where you had to attack those Tibanna Gas Platforms.

Good times.

Gunner_361st
03-05-2005, 01:45 PM
It is amazing how some people are blind to even the most basic forms of logic.

I think some people here would do well to look into the origins of aircraft in combat, namely in the Great War. A time when men were learning what the airplane could and couldn't do.

It can be plainly seen that Fighter-style aircraft were created to deny the enemy of the air, both in his ability to observe and to project airpower. While technology of that era made air power and it's projection onto the ground war very limited, no one can argue the HUGE impact it had during the second World War.

And the facts are that fighters are made to destroy enemy aircraft, and the notion of doing so is DEFENSIVE in nature. Whether they are defending more vulnerable ground attack aircraft, long-range bombers, or friendly ground forces, it all goes into the same hat.

What I think is the point of confusion here is the tactics involved in doing so. Sending fighters out on free sweeps are useful for reconnisannce purposes and little else. At the speeds involved, fighters can be miles away from their protectees in only an instant. That leaves bombers vulnerable to interception from any enemy forces that sneak in after the initial start of battle.

The reason bombers are routinely butchered most of the time online is because people with your mindset, Hristo, go out on their own little hunts and do more to protect their ego than their friendly bombers. While you're flight is bouncing an enemy flight and scattering them, another comes in a bit later and goes to town on the bombers while you're busy padding your score.

The tactics you speak of as valid and correct only minimize the dangers to yourself, rather than the bombers that you supposedly claim to protect.

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 02:52 PM
To me, a P51 flying close to the bomber I dive on is no factor at all.

However, a P 51 somewhere behind me while I look for bombers is going to prevent me in getting to bombers in the first place.

Your mouths are full of protection, while you're not helping anyone flying beside bombers, except in maybe soaking a bullet or two.

A good vulch does wonders for protecting your bombers, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
To me, a P51 flying close to the bomber I dive on is no factor at all.

However, a P 51 somewhere behind me while I look for bombers is going to prevent me in getting to bombers in the first place.

If all escorts would fly close to bombers online, I'd be a very happy man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're discussing escort techniques now?

Hristo_
03-05-2005, 02:58 PM
Yes. Maybe you learn something if you pay attention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LStarosta
03-05-2005, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
Yes. Maybe you learn something if you pay attention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From you? Don't flatter yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hristo_:
To me, a P51 flying close to the bomber I dive on is no factor at all.

However, a P 51 somewhere behind me while I look for bombers is going to prevent me in getting to bombers in the first place.

Your mouths are full of protection, while you're not helping anyone flying beside bombers, except in maybe soaking a bullet or two.

A good vulch does wonders for protecting your bombers, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes a good vulch protects the bombers, thats what raf mossies and other aircraft did. some went as far as poland and back to catch nightfighters and raid airfields.

a vulcher may well need a escort, and is taking on the role of bomber, attacking things on the ground, even if he uses mg guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

vulching is fine, but unless u vulch every enemy aircraft, your bombers are vunrable.

when i fly with tuskegee's, we fly within sight of the bombers, 1-2k above them, some ahead, and some on the sides and some directly overhead.

if u have a limited number of fighters, then closeish escort is best.

WOLFMondo
03-05-2005, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

fighters are defensive, and secondary to bombers and recon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet name me a WW2 fighter that wasn't used in a ground attack role at some point during its life. The only 1 I can think of that wasn't used in ground attack was the Ta152, Me163 and He162. Then again i might be wrong on those.

p1ngu666
03-05-2005, 05:14 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 p1ngu666:

fighters are defensive, and secondary to bombers and recon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet name me a WW2 fighter that wasn't used in a ground attack role at some point during its life. The only 1 I can think of that wasn't used in ground attack was the Ta152, Me163 and He162. Then again i might be wrong on those. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

true, but if u use a fighter for ground pounding, in effect its a bomber or being used as a bomber.

id say hurty stuff on the ground = bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

OldMan____
03-06-2005, 06:32 AM
you guys are discussing because just a definition of two words!

Oxford dictionary says: Offensive is an agressive action or one that insult others (firing weapons at someone is hardly not agressive... and I am sure pilots used to offend each others mother a lot)

Defensive is fighting to protect something.

So fighters are BOTH offensive and defensive

LStarosta
03-06-2005, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
you guys are discussing because just a definition of two words!

Oxford dictionary says: Offensive is an agressive action or one that insult others (firing weapons at someone is hardly not agressive... and I am sure pilots used to offend each others mother a lot)

Defensive is fighting to protect something.

So fighters are BOTH offensive and defensive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I believe I covered that in my explanation of why fighter aircraft are defensive weapons. Please read my posts more carefully before you attempt to discredit them. Thx.

hop2002
03-06-2005, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No, you win a war by fighting when you have the advantage. Heroic last stands are exactly that. LAST stands. There is no point in throwing men or equipment away in a forgone battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the Russian defenders of Stalingrad.

Sometimes the situation requires a stand, despite the casualties.

Any battle is just a small part of the larger picture, and sometimes you accept losing a small battle because of the advantages it gives you elsewhere.

How well do you think an army would perform if a platoon leader could decide not to assault an enemy position because it would cause his platoon too many casualties?

It's the job of small formations to carry out the orders of their commanders, who have a bigger picture of the battle. That doesn't mean blindly following orders, but it doesn't mean only attacking from advantage either.

I think the Jagdwaffe took a long time to learn that lesson, hence the bitterness towards their superiors for ordering things the pilots didn't want to do.

Too many of the Jagdwaffe, especialy the more senior pilots, were too interested in their "scores", and not interested enough in following orders and winning the war.

Ulrich Steinhilper, JG 52:

"I was thinking we were all fighting to rid the sky of the RAF, and what was developing was that many individuals were using this battle as a stage upon which they could further their own careers and personal scores"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Luftwaffe were screaming for tighter and tighter cover from their fighters in order to protect the bombers. Having 'little friends' in sight is immensly relieveing to bomber crews. It is a massive psychological sop. However a looser defence is actually more effective; fighters can intercept and divert attackers well away from the bomber stream, interrupting attacks before they develop.

Tying the fighters to the bombers reduced their tactical advantages and options. It was a mistake, quite a large one actually. While it might of made things psychologically easier on the bomber crews it probably endangered them more than a less tightly grouped defense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is, it didn't work like that for the Luftwaffe. Goering encouraged them to fly more sweeps, and not close escort, and left the dispositions to the JG commanders.

Losses were terrible.

It's only later in the battle, when close escorts were more enforced, that Luftwaffe losses got closer to RAF losses.

Allowing the escorts to fly further away from the bombers works if the escorts have protecting the bombers as their priority, it doesn't work if the escorts have an attitude that they will only engage when things are just right.

That's why the Luftwaffe lost so many bombers, and why the bomber crews were so bitter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To fight when you are disadvataged is a good way to loose a war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a strategic level yes. On a tactical level, no.

If a platoon defending a village feels free to pullout at the first sign of a larger enemy, you won't win the war. Small units have to obey orders and fight when they are at a disadvantage.

If fighter pilots decline to intercept enemy fighters because they don't have an advantage, what do you think happens to the bombers they are supposed to be escorting?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Pick and choose your battles and victory will be yours. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you pick and choose your offensives.

You leave weak units on the defence, and attack with concentrated force. You relly on the weak defencive units to hold your line in other sectors, you don't allow them to run away when a superior enemy force turns up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They won their battles because of carefully selected and orchestrated local dominance in attack. If you are faced with a superior enemy withdraw, consolidate, fight defensively (a la Stalingrad, Leningrad and the battle for Moscow)but do not attack until you are confident of victory, at least locally if not operationally. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they didn't withdraw in most cases. Look at Stalingrad. They kept pouring troops in, because they knew they couldn't afford to give ground.

What Hristo is suggesting are "hit and run" tactics, which is fine when you are trading land and time, but are essentially tactics of retreat. You don't win a war by retreating.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Similarly, Goering was right about the bombers; they were ultimately more important to wining the Battle of Britain than fighters. However he seriously over estimated their ability to hurt the British. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason he overestimated it is because he didn't realise how few bombers he could deploy.

Because of the losses, the Luftwaffe were forced to provide 3 fighters to escort every bomber, and even then had to withdraw the Stuka altogether.

If the Jagdwaffe had been a bit more keen to engage, instead of "choosing their moment", and letting the bombers get slaughtered, the Luftwaffe could have been deploying 2 or 3 times as many bombers, and hitting airfields with devestating Stuka attacks.

A good example is the attack on Tangmere on 16th August. 84 Stukas, escorted by 214 109s and 54 110s.

The RAF intercepted with 8 squadrons (less than 100 fighters)

The Stukas did a lot of damage to Tangmere, and destroyed 14 aircraft on the ground, but 9 were shot down, and the RAF interceptors suffered few losses.

It's events like that that led to the Stukas being withdrawn, because their losses were too high. That's also why the Luftwaffe were forced to use ever more escorts, and less bombers.

A few more interceptions, even when disadvantaged, and more of the bombers would have got through, more of the bombers would have returned, and more bombers could have been sent each day.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is a truism because of the ability of the RAF and the USAAF by late 1943-early 44 to pick and choose its battles. 1000 plane raids dont happen without massive planning and confidence in victory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the offensive, of course you choose where to attack. But you don't have that luxury in defence.

If you look at the BoB, the RAF were not ignoring raids and choosing not to intercept, and I haven't seen any reports of an RAF squadron spotting the enemy and failing to attack, because the situation wasn't right.

The RAF went into almost every fight during the BoB outnumbered, frequently attacking from below into enemy formations. They had to, because if they didn't they'd have lost the battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Need I remind you of how much shock Fw 190 imposed on RAF in 1942 ? And it wasn't because 190 could outturn a Spit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The air war over France in 1941 and 42 was a sideshow. It was something the RAF engaged in because they had to keep fighters in Britain, and there wasn't much else to do with them.

There was no ground war, no prospect of a ground war, and no worthwhile bombing targets the Luftwaffe had to defend.

In short, much the same as this game, where playing and scores are all that matter, and have no effect on a real war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How about a little test ? Let's say 8 vs 8, Spitfires vs contemporary 190s ?

How about it ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I haven't got 8 Spitfires, and I don't think there are 8 flyable 109s left.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fighter planes are offensive weapons, not defenders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bombers are the offensive weapon. It's bombers that destroyed Germany, deprived it of oil, stopped it's transport and wrecked it's industry.

Fighters are there to support the bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And even Spitfires would benefit of chosing where and when to attack, not having to rely on their defensive qualities anytime a Fw 190 decides to pick a fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any individual benefits himself by choosing when and where to attack. That doesn't mean he's doing much good for his country, choosing to run away when they are relying on him to fulfill his tasks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A Fw 190 can meet 10 Spits, make an attack run and easily get away to fight another day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And achieve what? Pad his score?

It doesn't win wars.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In real life, which one would you rather be :

a) a lone Spitfire pilot who just met 10 Fw 190s co-E

or

b) a lone Fw 190 pilot who just met 10 Spitfires co-E

What would your options be in a chosen scenario ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the problem, Hristo. You are playing a game, and looking at it from that perspective. War isn't a game. War isn't a matter of being able to "score" and run away, it's being able to win, to fulfill your tasks.

That's something the Jagdwaffe didn't do. Perhaps they looked at it like a game too? Steinhilper certainly thought that's what the leading pilots were doing.

Marseille always seems a case in point to me.

Something like 150 fighters claimed, and only 3 bombers.

Playing a game, not fighting a war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> there are things worth defending thats worth the ulimate sacrifice..



which ones are those ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The world from Nazi Germany?

I can understand from the German perspective there was nothing worth laying your life down for, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I, on the other hand, enjoy aggressive approach. Defend nothing, attack everything, run when in doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hristo, I hate to break it to you, but you're PLAYING a GAME. It's not real life.

If you are arguing the 190 is better than the Spitfire for the style you play a GAME, perhaps, but it's not the sort of argument I'm interested in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tell that to an F-15 or F-22 pilot next time you meet him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're used as bombers, not fighters. Don't forget, either of those can carry more bombs than the all up weight of a 190 with bombs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fighters should go in BEFORE bombers and impose air superiority.

Only then bombers should go in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what the Luftwaffe tried during the BoB. That's what they utterly failed at.

Perhaps if the fighters had actually engaged, rather than flying around waiting for a better opportunity, it might have worked. But you need fighter pilots that realise their personal score, and even safety, are not the priority of the mission, clearing the way for the bombers is.

Stephen Bungay, in The Most Dangerous Enemy, has a table showing the best days for the Luftwaffe during the BoB, in terms of kill ratio:

19 July Raf losses 10, Luftwaffe losses 4
7 August Raf losses 4, Luftwaffe losses 3
11 September Raf losses 27, Luftwaffe losses 21
14 September Raf losses 11, Luftwaffe losses 8
28 September Raf losses 16, Luftwaffe losses 4

Those are the days the Luftwaffe "won".

The problem is, most are very low scoring days, when no doubt the pilots were choosing carefull when to engage.

That's fine if you think scores win wars, but of course the RAF could sustain those sorts of light losses indefinately, because replacements arrived at a much faster rate than that.

Kurfurst__
03-06-2005, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
You don't win a war by running away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s sounds familiar, I think this is a qoute from Churchill himself. AFAIK he said that when after years of nothing but bitter failiures and retreats achieved by Britain in WW2, and some Brit leaders started to celebrate when the British army at least managed too flee.. 'save your lives' was their battlecry at that time.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps this "run away" attitude is why Goering became so disapointed with the Jagdwaffe, forcing them to fly close escort to the bombers? Certainly the bomber pilots seemed to think so. Perhaps that's why the Jagdwaffe whined about it so much, because they couldn't run away when they wanted to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very original version, or more like fiction. The Jagdwaffe wanted to run away that`s why Goering ordered to perform also close escort, while other fighters performed fighter sweeps ahead of the bombers, and others secured them from above? Never seen any evidence of such happening in the Jagdwaffe during the BoB, but the book 'Fighters' notes that some Hurricane squadrons fled by September at the first sight of Messerscmitts. Their pilots got frustrated that the Me 109s made maximum use of their initiative advantage, didn`t play 'fairly' and came down to them - instead they made diving attacks, shot them down, and utilized their superior speed to get away from trouble.It appears that the LW`s tactic forced the British pilots to become keen of running away without even trying to fight, rather than the Jagdwaffe.

As for the Jagdwaffe so called 'whining', from the tactical POV it was correct, the 109s ordered for close protection of the bombers had to slow down to the bomber`s speed, and thus loosing a lot of inititative and put them into disadvantage, as they needed to accelerate to the attacking RAF fighter`s speed, which took some time. But perhaps such close-by escort was also neccesary, operational demands overriding tactical considerations. But of course the pilots didn`t like it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>War isn't a game where you check your score, and avoid fighting if you don't have an advantage. "Play" like that and you'll lose, because whilst your running away, the troops on the ground are getting bombed, their supplies are being destroyed, and they don't have the luxury of running away.[QUOTE]

Sun Tzu said some 2500 or so years ago, and his maxim is still though at all major military academies through the world with the exception of the United Kingdom, "A great general first seeks victory, then seeks battle." The same core is expressed by the Dicta Boelcke, 'Secure every advantage before commencing the engagement', another maxim is still though at all major military academies through the world with the exception of the United Kingdom. A prime example for fighting without reason, goal, advantage or any possibility of gain was demonstrated by british commanders in the crimea, in the infamous charge of the light cavarly against russian cannons. Most of them were killed and they gained nothing. Perhaps that`s why you are more likely to hear about the failings of the British army rahter than it`s successes and methods that were later copied by all others... their military doctrine seem to ignore the military wisdom cumulated during thousends of years. Who knows.

[QUOTE]Perhaps they were using their "superior" planes and running away? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a point that the planes of the LW were superior to the RAF`s in a sense they were much faster - and therefore had the option to disengage if things went wrong, and hope that next time he will be in the more advantageous position. A RAF pilot wasn`t given this chance, he was simply killed in the slower plane, being unable to escape. Perhaps in Britain soldiers and pilots were seen as expandable assets, like in the USSR, they had to 'do or die', that how many die in the meantime did not mattered. Perhaps that`s why the British were refusing so strongly any kind of tactical considerations, as you seem to pointed out.

p1ngu666
03-06-2005, 03:02 PM
i think spit and 109 swapped fastest speeds at different alts, but lets not get into my plane is better than urs willy waving ****.

at dunkirk, 300,000 men where evacuated or something, if i remmber it was the luftwaffe's job to stop them returning to britain... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

theres a time to fight, and a time to retreat, the situation in france was untenable.

ive read stalingrad was the transport network hub for that area of russia, so taking that was important. i still think the main reason was it was called stalingrad tho...

problem with fighters at bomber speeds and height, is there just a target really. ppl try to escort u in bombers like that, sit on your 6...

tatics of tuskegee's was to stay within sight of the bombers, contrails would probably help with that. normaly 1-2k above bombers, and to weave abit so your speed is high, but u stay with bombers...

raf fighters often attacked from a disadvantage because HQ wouldnt know for sure if it was a proper raid until they past the coast, be a waste of time. then when they where refueling the real strike would come...

500 pilots died in the BOB, which compaired to ww1, was a extremely cheap price to alter world history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

blakduk
03-06-2005, 06:51 PM
Kurfurst- you bring up an interesting point when you raise the topic of the British catastrophe of their campaign in the Crimea. Contrary to popular perception, the charge of the light brigade was a success. They achieved their objective of overrunning the cannon they faced, but they had no backup- the heavy cavalry failed to follow up their success and they lost the advantage. Their losses were terrible in their charge, however the engagement was a success.
The Germans likewise in WW2 on a number of occassions achieved their objective only to fail to grasp the opportunity that success opened up. Their success over France, giving them airfields within easy range of England meant that like the British in the Crimea they could 'overrun' the defences but had no 'heavy cavalry' to finish the job. Their bombers didnt have the capacity to saturation bomb (to the same degree as the later allied raids could) but more importantly they couldnt achieve complete air superiority to ensure a successful invasion over the English channel.

blakduk
03-06-2005, 07:15 PM
BTW- i am not advocating that kamikaze charges are the best way to conduct a campaign. When the time comes that commanders are demanding suicide missions, you better be sure they have a strategy in mind beyond your death- the Japanese on Okinawa fought bravely for sure, but for what? At least at Stalingrad the defenders bought time for their army to recover.

BaldieJr
03-06-2005, 07:20 PM
I wish I could get a vendors license for threads like this. I'd sell all kinds of cheap plastic momentos and popcorn. I'd make a mint.

Badsight.
03-06-2005, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
From you? Don't flatter yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
in-game , Hristo is a thinking mans pilot

safe , smart & deadly

be sure

Kurfurst__
03-07-2005, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Kurfurst- you bring up an interesting point when you raise the topic of the British catastrophe of their campaign in the Crimea. Contrary to popular perception, the charge of the light brigade was a success. They achieved their objective of overrunning the cannon they faced, but they had no backup- the heavy cavalry failed to follow up their success and they lost the advantage. Their losses were terrible in their charge, however the engagement was a success. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, what I have read about it was that the charge was ordered and executed so badly because of the personal differences and general unsuitability of their commanders. And yes, while the charge was a success in a sense that it reached it`s objective, overall the outcome made little sense, sacrificing almost all of them just to achieve something not really important. A prime example of honourable, but stupid bravery without real gain in military sense, much like as knightly 'tactics' in the medieval ages, and what hop2002 seems to advocate over refined tactics... it looks extremely odd to me! Senseless bravery never triumphed over tactics in the long run.

BTW, it looked terribly odd for me to see those ENGLISH Hussars in that movie about them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
And, as a post scriptum, the whole action was so much unlike of the traditional hussar tactics built on cunning and manouvre, and not on brute force.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Germans likewise in WW2 on a number of occassions achieved their objective only to fail to grasp the opportunity that success opened up. Their success over France, giving them airfields within easy range of England meant that like the British in the Crimea they could 'overrun' the defences but had no 'heavy cavalry' to finish the job. Their bombers didnt have the capacity to saturation bomb (to the same degree as the later allied raids could) but more importantly they couldnt achieve complete air superiority to ensure a successful invasion over the English channel.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, that`s a quite interesting and new parallel, I like it. Personally, I think the main reason the invasion took place because the conditions to have a chance of success didn`t existed. The bombers capacity was one thing, perhaps not so important in view it was short ranged, the planes themselves could carry almost as much as US heavies on their long range sorties. The real no1 problem was that the Kriegsmarine was unprepeared and unfit for such a scale invasion - no specilized landing craft in numbers at the moment, they had to improvize, and they simple didn`t have enough warships to protect them. And the LW was given an impossible task, to devastate an airforce of an industrialized country in just 2-3 months, before the automn storms arrive and make sustained air operations and crossing the channel impossible. The timeframe given, 2-3 months, but a turned out, even 2-3 years were simple not enough to achieve such in WW2. The submission of an airforce of a modern country just by airpower proved to be an impossible task.

p1ngu666
03-07-2005, 09:15 AM
i think the lw bombers wherent doing much damage where they should have been, but the same could be said of most bomber operations...

stuka, and mossie come to mind, both could deliver extremely acurate attacks, but the stuka was too vunrable to fighters. funny that isnt the case in PF, full ai stuka's are way more deadly than fighters, cos they are really tough planes, and they have a sniper in the back...

coops ive been in, we lost 1 or 2 to the g6's, but rest of flight apart from 2 (me and i was badly damaged) got shot down by stuka's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

HorribleSailor
03-07-2005, 10:09 AM
Now I don't want to go massively off topic and start lecturing on the Battle of Balaclava, but the 'charge of the light brigade' was actually pretty successful.

That everyone around the world thinks it wasn't was the fault of the media at the time - incidently the first time an official War Correspondant has been embedded in British forces - who report for sensation, not accuracy.

Oh, and Lord Tennyson's great poem.

Yes, the order to charge was a mistake: Raglan wasn't clear enough about what he wanted charged, the messanger didn't help and Lucan, in command of the cavalry division ordered Cardigan, in charge of the light brigade, to charge main Russian guns rather than the British ones that were in the process of being over-run on the hills.

However, casualties were not as bad as everyone seems to think. Heavy, but, and I forget the exact figure, probably somewhere around 25% - enough to hurt but not destroy the brigade.

More importantly, though, was the long-term effect. In the action, the British cavalry embarked upon what appeared to the Russians as a suicide ride, achieved it by over-running the Russian guns, and actually inflicted vastly disproportionate casualties on the Russian cavalry behind them, forcing it to retreat(!) (oh yes, and it outnumbered them heavily).

As a result the Russian army did not embark upon a single other offensive operation in the Crimean theatre, morale being so shot by this proof of the capabilities of the British army.

[Of course, the Crimean theatre was actually incidental to the course of the war, but that's another story.]

Just so you know, chaps.

Source: the various writings and personal conversations with Andrew Lambert, Laughton Professor of Naval History at King's College London.

Slickun
03-07-2005, 11:53 AM
kurfurst wrote:

The timeframe given, 2-3 months, but a turned out, even 2-3 years were simple not enough to achieve such in WW2. The submission of an airforce of a modern country just by airpower proved to be an impossible task.

Slickun writes:

And how would characterize what happened to the LW in the West between Jan and May 1944?

Kurfurst__
03-07-2005, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Slickun writes:

And how would characterize what happened to the LW in the West between Jan and May 1944? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You probably refer to the fact the LW`s frontline strenght remained very much the same and even increased in those 5 months despite all-out Allied efforts on German aircraft industry. IIRC the LW had some 6000 planes in early 1944, and over 8000 a year later. Very good example to what I stated, Slickun.

Kurfurst__
03-07-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
stuka, and mossie come to mind, both could deliver extremely acurate attacks, but the stuka was too vunrable to fighters. funny that isnt the case in PF, full ai stuka's are way more deadly than fighters, cos they are really tough planes, and they have a sniper in the back... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, those AI snipers are pretty bad. What bothers me the most that no wonder what wild manouvers the bomber or the attacking fighter does, they can always predict it.. seems they got both a leading sight, some kind reading device, and the gunners are immune to G loads!

BTW, the Stuka was quite a big airplane for a single engine, and the airframe was strongly built, it had to withstand the forces of dive bombing. Also we usually face later D models, they have far better guns in the rear (2xMG 81, they fire 1600 rounds/min each, the early B only had a single MG 15, firing 1000/min, not to mention it was fed from 75 round magazines, which had to be changed periodically), and are throughly armored, unlike the early 'Bertha's, which the perception of the Stukas vulnebility born.

OldMan____
03-07-2005, 01:06 PM
Just stay in a fight you cannot win is not what makes war winnig.. that is what makes other side winning wars. That die for your country is a BULL!#!# invented to deceive people... to die for a country only in rare exception acomplish something.


Hitting enemy ang getting home alive is the way you win wars. Kill one enemy every day.. and live for 100 days and you do more thatn killing 10 of them and die in proccess.

p1ngu666
03-07-2005, 01:21 PM
yep i agree with what u say

"full" ai tends tobe pretty good. on b29 they are mostly useless

if u are flying a plane, dear god there wose than useless

enemy 2km away, which i cant possibly see, ill fire my gun away from him aswell!

so when u pop in turret theres no ammo... and ai gunner has done nothing either....

also, its seems impossible to kill the ai gunner, and i feel hes got a wider field of fire than when u man the gun...

id say early 44 is early-mid of lw decline, which started over kursk

the writing was on the wall in early 44. just wasnt the potent airforce it was a year earlier, i include bombers in that aswell. kurfy u got any info on bomber units? i think bomber units shrank as pilots transfered to fighters, and production shifted to fighters. i think in 44 ju88's where mostly fighters, and in 45 no bomber ju88's where made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
03-07-2005, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Just stay in a fight you cannot win is not what makes war winnig.. that is what makes other side winning wars. That die for your country is a BULL!#!# invented to deceive people... to die for a country only in rare exception acomplish something.


Hitting enemy ang getting home alive is the way you win wars. Kill one enemy every day.. and live for 100 days and you do more thatn killing 10 of them and die in proccess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats true, but if leave what u are suposed to defend, and it gets destroyed, well... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

lrrp22
03-07-2005, 01:33 PM
Isegrim,

The Luftwaffe may have increased the total number of aircraft produced, but the fact remains that it ceded near-total air superiority to the Allies during that same period. Further, the the Kanal Front Gruppen most certainly did not increase the number of available aircraft during the period Jan-May '44.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Slickun writes:

And how would characterize what happened to the LW in the West between Jan and May 1944? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You probably refer to the fact the LW`s frontline strenght remained very much the same and even increased in those 5 months despite all-out Allied efforts on German aircraft industry. IIRC the LW had some 6000 planes in early 1944, and over 8000 a year later. Very good example to what I stated, Slickun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun
03-07-2005, 02:59 PM
Kurfurst wrote:

You probably refer to the fact the LW`s frontline strenght remained very much the same and even increased in those 5 months despite all-out Allied efforts on German aircraft industry. IIRC the LW had some 6000 planes in early 1944, and over 8000 a year later. Very good example to what I stated, Slickun.

Slickun replies:

No Sir, I'm referring to the fact that during the June 6 landings on the Normandy coast the LW had been reduced to a "STATE" wherein they could only mount token resistance. A few sorties. They were reduced to a condition the LW attempted to put the RAF in during the BoB.

Numbers of airplanes produced had little to do with this. As you well know. It had everything to do with the resumption of Operation Argument in Jan 1944, which had as its goal the reduction of the LW to a non-factor to enable the Normandy landings. It succeeded.

How? The loss of pilots to long range escorts rendered airframes available a moot point. As you well know.

Planes produced rose every year. The number of experienced pilots available dropped. This is no secret, it is not really controversial. Read Galland's "The First and Last" to get the German side, or read "1,000 Destroyed" to get the 4th FG's opinion on German pilot skill as the winter wore on. Or, one can read "JG 26, Top Guns of the LW" to get the actual numbers showing the devastating losses borne by the LW flying corps.

Citing thousands of planes available to the LW also does in a well used argument by you yourself...that any succcess by US fighter types was due to overwhelming numerical superiority. The second raid on Berlin in early March 1944 featured ONE US fighter group over the target.

If you disagree, then please explain why, with all the planes available, the LW was almost totally absent the 6th of June, 1944? It was no accident.

stathem
03-07-2005, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blakduk:
Kurfurst- you bring up an interesting point when you raise the topic of the British catastrophe of their campaign in the Crimea. Contrary to popular perception, the charge of the light brigade was a success. They achieved their objective of overrunning the cannon they faced, but they had no backup- the heavy cavalry failed to follow up their success and they lost the advantage. Their losses were terrible in their charge, however the engagement was a success.
The Germans likewise in WW2 on a number of occassions achieved their objective only to fail to grasp the opportunity that success opened up. Their success over France, giving them airfields within easy range of England meant that like the British in the Crimea they could 'overrun' the defences but had no 'heavy cavalry' to finish the job. Their bombers didnt have the capacity to saturation bomb (to the same degree as the later allied raids could) but more importantly they couldnt achieve complete air superiority to ensure a successful invasion over the English channel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the charge of the Light Brigade did have one lasting strategic efeect in that war - It convinced the russians (of the time) that the British were a set of complete madmen who couldn't be fought, thus undermining their morale for the rest of that campaign. I belive the Luftwaffe were similarly impressed by RAF pilots willingness to fight regardless of their tactical situation, in all theatres during WW2

EDIT - sorry, missed a page.
and btw, the thing that made the Charge of the Light Brigade so notable was the precesnce of a press corps. 50 years prior to Crimea, that sort of thing ( losing an entire cavalry brigade in a wild charge - which as Sailor says, wasn't quite the case) was quite normal. Cf Waterloo

blakduk
03-07-2005, 04:35 PM
This discussion has opened up a whole new topic that historical simulations always have trouble replicating- propoganda.
With the wisdom of hindsight we can see that the plans for operation Sealion (Wermacht invasion of England) were poorly detailed and basically unfeasible. For the British at the time however the plans seemed very formidable- the fact that France had fallen had been inconceivable prior to its occurence. The LW was used as a 'terror' weapon, and many in Britain, particularly the upper classes, initially urged the leadership to capitulate and accept the terms that Hitler offered. Thankfully Churchill was insane enough to state they would continue to fight 'whatever the cost'. This resolve stiffened the nerve of crucial individuals and enabled them to urgently prepare for total war (prior to this their preparations had mainly been for expeditionary forces). We now know that what they were in fact doing was calling the Nazi's bluff, but they didnt know that at the time. Its easy to appear brave if you know that outcome, its very different to make a choice you believe may be putting your head in the guillotine...

horseback
03-07-2005, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Planes produced rose every year. The number of experienced pilots available dropped. This is no secret, it is not really controversial. Read Galland's "The First and Last" to get the German side, or read "1,000 Destroyed" to get the 4th FG's opinion on German pilot skill as the winter wore on. Or, one can read "JG 26, Top Guns of the LW" to get the actual numbers showing the devastating losses borne by the LW flying corps.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Consider also that the servicability of German fighters, which was never much over 65% (per Galland), declined precipitously after mid-44. A side benefit, one might say, of having to use forced or slave labor for your war industries...

cheers

horseback

Kurfurst__
03-08-2005, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
No Sir, I'm referring to the fact that during the June 6 landings on the Normandy coast the LW had been reduced to a "STATE" wherein they could only mount token resistance. A few sorties. They were reduced to a condition the LW attempted to put the RAF in during the BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False, if the LW had been reduced as you tell, it would show up in it`s strenght reports. But it isn`t so, ie. on

1st January, 1944 the LW possessed 6584 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 1561 s-e fighters, 611 nightfighters, 1604 bombers.

31st May, 1944 the LW possessed 6725 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 1683 s-e fighters, 698 nightfighters, 1240 bombers.

31st August, 1944 the LW possessed 6483 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 1610 s-e fighters, 863 nightfighters, 891 bombers.

31st November, 1944 the LW possessed 7666 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 3040 s-e fighters, 1318 nightfighters, 579 bombers.


Now, in the period you claim the LW`s fighters were destroyed, their strenght actually DOUBLED - it was the bomber force that felt results, slowly being disbanded, their task taken up by cheaper fighter-bombers and attack aircraft.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Numbers of airplanes produced had little to do with this. As you well know. It had everything to do with the resumption of Operation Argument in Jan 1944, which had as its goal the reduction of the LW to a non-factor to enable the Normandy landings. It succeeded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above numbers show it completely failed in reducing the LW at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How? The loss of pilots to long range escorts rendered airframes available a moot point. As you well know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not talking about airframes, I am not talking about airplanes in storage centers, but the actual frontline strenght of the LW - pilots AND airframes. That is what included with the units.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Citing thousands of planes available to the LW also does in a well used argument by you yourself...that any succcess by US fighter types was due to overwhelming numerical superiority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t quite get the logic - if the LW`s fighter force increased from 1600 to 3300, divided between East, South, and West, the RAF, the VVS, the USAAF, while in the meantime the USAAF expanded, say, from 3000 to 8000, how come we can`t speak about overwhelming numerical superiority - which is plain obvious if you read the accounts of German pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you disagree, then please explain why, with all the planes available, the LW was almost totally absent the 6th of June, 1944? It was no accident. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because if you`d have read the subject a bit more throughly, you`d know that German air forces were minimal in France at the time of the invasion, largely limited to the few fighter units near the channel as in the previous 3 years. NOTHING has changed. The plan was to reinforce the Luftflottes in France as soon as the invasion commenced.

Yes it was not an accident; the LW concentrated it`s forces largely on the eastern front and for the defense of the Reich, leaving little in France at the time of the invasion, just as in the previous years, reinforcing it just later on.

Kurfurst__
03-08-2005, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
Consider also that the servicability of German fighters, which was never much over 65% (per Galland), declined precipitously after mid-44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed I checked servicibility rate, it is usually somewhere around 65-75% on avarage. And no, I checked and it`s the same even in 1945, no real sign of decline of servicibility rates. With so many new airframes produced, little surprise - the JG 26 book mentions they were in a luxury not even bothering repairing damaged airframes, just swap a new one from the storage...

To put ca70% into perspective, a LW squadron was authorized to have 16 planes, 12 (75%) with which the squadron would fly the missions, 4 in reserve. So at ca70% servicablilty they would maintain their combat power.

Question is, how did this 65-75% relate to the servicibility of USAAF and RAF Squadrons ? Worser? Better? Comparable?

Cajun76
03-08-2005, 07:01 AM
Can you imagine if the a/c industry had been unaffected by bombing? What would the numbers of airframes produced have been then? I get the feeling that they would be the same, using your logic, Kurfurst__. Just because production increased, does not mean there was no effect.

Take this quote from Luftwaffe_109, from this thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=6911003682&p=2

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> During the first twelve months of the war, the size of the Soviet forces deployed in the Fronts facing the Germans grew from about three million to more than five and a half million. In effect, the size of the Soviet Army had double in less than a year!

During the same period, however, the Red Army had suffered some 7,878,117 casualties of all types. This is equal, fundamentally, to at least twice the size of the Red Army at the start of the war.

In other words, the Red Army not only made good its catastrophically high losses, it also increased the size of its army dramatically, enjoying a strength influx of more than 11 million men during the period (including returning wounded)! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're saying that even though planes and pilots were being lost at an alarming rate, it didn't matter because production increased? And this increase, it obviously benefited the Geramns, right? I mean, they made their presence felt, and helped turn the tide of Allied air power, correct? This increasing a/c strength helped drive the Allied planes from the sky and allowed Germany to take back air superiority, right? Right?

I always enjoy our little History Revised chat's Isegrim. It just wouldn't be the same without you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

hop2002
03-08-2005, 11:21 AM
Sorry, missed a bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A Fw 190 can meet 10 Spits, make an attack run and easily get away to fight another day.

What can a Spit do against 10 Fw 190s ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb.

lrrp22
03-08-2005, 12:05 PM
hop,

Unfortunately, the time required to gain seperation at sustained climb speeds would be lethal unless the Spitfire had gained that seperation before the climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Sorry, missed a bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A Fw 190 can meet 10 Spits, make an attack run and easily get away to fight another day.

What can a Spit do against 10 Fw 190s ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BaldieJr
03-08-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
No Sir, I'm referring to the fact that during the June 6 landings on the Normandy coast the LW had been reduced to a "STATE" wherein they could only mount token resistance. A few sorties. They were reduced to a condition the LW attempted to put the RAF in during the BoB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False, if the LW had been reduced as you tell, it would show up in it`s strenght reports. But it isn`t so, ie. on

1st January, 1944 the LW possessed 6584 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 1561 s-e fighters, 611 nightfighters, 1604 bombers.

31st May, 1944 the LW possessed 6725 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 1683 s-e fighters, 698 nightfighters, 1240 bombers.

31st August, 1944 the LW possessed 6483 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 1610 s-e fighters, 863 nightfighters, 891 bombers.

31st November, 1944 the LW possessed 7666 combat capable planes with the units, (w/o reserves) along them 3040 s-e fighters, 1318 nightfighters, 579 bombers.


Now, in the period you claim the LW`s fighters were destroyed, their strenght actually _DOUBLED_ - it was the bomber force that felt results, slowly being disbanded, their task taken up by cheaper fighter-bombers and attack aircraft.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Numbers of airplanes produced had little to do with this. As you well know. It had everything to do with the resumption of Operation Argument in Jan 1944, which had as its goal the reduction of the LW to a non-factor to enable the Normandy landings. It succeeded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above numbers show it completely failed in reducing the LW at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How? The loss of pilots to long range escorts rendered airframes available a moot point. As you well know.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What are the chances of you reading my reply? As long as its nested withing 5 million quote tags, i'm guessing nill, so don't do this any more.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not talking about airframes, I am not talking about airplanes in storage centers, but the actual frontline strenght of the LW - pilots AND airframes. That is what included with the units.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Citing thousands of planes available to the LW also does in a well used argument by you yourself...that any succcess by US fighter types was due to overwhelming numerical superiority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t quite get the logic - if the LW`s fighter force increased from 1600 to 3300, divided between East, South, and West, the RAF, the VVS, the USAAF, while in the meantime the USAAF expanded, say, from 3000 to 8000, how come we can`t speak about overwhelming numerical superiority - which is plain obvious if you read the accounts of German pilots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you disagree, then please explain why, with all the planes available, the LW was almost totally absent the 6th of June, 1944? It was no accident. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because if you`d have read the subject a bit more throughly, you`d know that German air forces were minimal in France at the time of the invasion, largely limited to the few fighter units near the channel as in the previous 3 years. NOTHING has changed. The plan was to reinforce the Luftflottes in France as soon as the invasion commenced.

Yes it was not an accident; the LW concentrated it`s forces largely on the eastern front and for the defense of the Reich, leaving little in France at the time of the invasion, just as in the previous years, reinforcing it just later on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
03-08-2005, 12:33 PM
So where were they, Isegrim? Just where was this massive force of Germany's finest? How did so many USAAF bomber and fighter pilots, flying over the heart of Germany on a daily basis, manage to complete an entire tour without ever seeing an airborne Luftwaffe fighter?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Yes it was not an accident; the LW concentrated it`s forces largely on the eastern front and for the defense of the Reich, leaving little in France at the time of the invasion, just as in the previous years, reinforcing it just later on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop2002
03-08-2005, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hop,

Unfortunately, the time required to gain seperation at sustained climb speeds would be lethal unless the Spitfire had gained that seperation before the climb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's certainly true for level speeds.

For example, say the 190 has a 20 mph speed advantage over the Spit at a particular height.

That's 30 ft/sec. How long does it take to open a safe gap at 30 ft/sec? Not to mention that the contemporary Spit will outaccelerate the 190 in many cases.

The same is true in climb, of course, but the Spitfire has an additional advantage in climb, in that it can maintain a steeper angle, and the 190 cannot match that angle without stalling out.

The truth is, minor speed differences of that sort don't matter much in combat.

If the 190 spots the Spit early, it can run. If the Spit spots the 190 early, it can climb. But in close combat the 190 will take too long to reach it's speed advantage, (which is only an advantage at lower alts anyway), the Spit can use it's climb advantage from a slow speed fight, especially if it combines it with a spiral. The 190 has no hope of following a Spitfire in a spiral climb, and if he tries he will find the Spit above him with a large energy advantage.

lrrp22
03-08-2005, 01:04 PM
hop

I think the point of the original comment was that an Fw 190 usually had the option to dive away, even if heavily outnumbered, whereas the Spit that tried to use its superior sustained climb to gain seperation would be an easy target for a sizable amount of time.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hop,

Unfortunately, the time required to gain seperation at sustained climb speeds would be lethal unless the Spitfire had gained that seperation before the climb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's certainly true for level speeds.

For example, say the 190 has a 20 mph speed advantage over the Spit at a particular height.

That's 30 ft/sec. How long does it take to open a safe gap at 30 ft/sec? Not to mention that the contemporary Spit will outaccelerate the 190 in many cases.

The same is true in climb, of course, but the Spitfire has an additional advantage in climb, in that it can maintain a steeper angle, and the 190 cannot match that angle without stalling out.

The truth is, minor speed differences of that sort don't matter much _in_ combat.

If the 190 spots the Spit early, it can run. If the Spit spots the 190 early, it can climb. But in close combat the 190 will take too long to reach it's speed advantage, (which is only an advantage at lower alts anyway), the Spit can use it's climb advantage from a slow speed fight, especially if it combines it with a spiral. The 190 has no hope of following a Spitfire in a spiral climb, and if he tries he will find the Spit above him with a large energy advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
03-08-2005, 01:55 PM
swings and roundabouts really

imo, if u want to extend, but continue the fight, then climb advantage is better, if u wanna run home, then speed and dive is better.

kufy, got stats for sortie rates?

bomber stats most interesting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif, effects of disbandment and roving fighters perhaps?

boddenplatt or whatever may sum up late lw, got numbers, decent planes, but cant effectivly use them, aleast most of the time.

Slickun
03-08-2005, 02:10 PM
Kurfurst:

Great job spinning.

The LW managed how many sorties on the most important day of the war in the west? That is the point, all the ducking and spinning do not make this go away. The 8th AF had reduced the LW to a state of ineffectiveness. It was done by the heavies luring the fighters up, and the escorts knocking them down.

You are incorrect as well, about the numbers of planes available on the east and west fronts. There is a nice study on Campbell's JG-26 site that shows, conclusively, that the east was reduced in fighters to defend the Reich.

ploughman
03-08-2005, 03:05 PM
Soooo, let me get this straight. The never so large as it was at that time Luftwaffe's plan for defeating the Allied invasion of Normandy was to wait untill the Allied armies had disembarked from their vulnerable transports and spread out over large areas of France before engaging them by withdrawing air units from other fronts?

Good plan, how'd it work out?

faustnik
03-08-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Not to mention that the contemporary Spit will outaccelerate the 190 in many cases.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which cases are those?

faustnik
03-08-2005, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
The 8th AF had reduced the LW to a state of ineffectiveness. It was done by the heavies luring the fighters up, and the escorts knocking them down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how you can argue with that.

The RAF tried and failed. The 8th Air Force succeeded.

p1ngu666
03-08-2005, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
The 8th AF had reduced the LW to a state of ineffectiveness. It was done by the heavies luring the fighters up, and the escorts knocking them down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how you can argue with that.

The RAF tried and failed. The 8th Air Force succeeded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

there wasnt anything in france the germans carried that much about :\

back in germany, there was...
also the 8th lost ALOT of planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

bomber command did, aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

p1ngu666
03-08-2005, 06:50 PM
btw, hitler wanted 262 jabo (which 75% if lwflier community hates) tobe ready for the invasion, he reasoned that allies would put up tons of planes (13,000+ sorties?) and any normal aircraft wouldnt get thru

262 jabo could have wrecked havoc over the beaches

Cajun76
03-08-2005, 09:28 PM
262's weren't untouchable in the air. Also, their range was not that great. Remember, only about 300 ever saw combat and between all the fighters in the air, and 262's having to be reletivly close to the beaches, I don't think they would have made much of a difference to the landing. My humble opinion, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

OldMan____
03-09-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
262's weren't untouchable in the air. Also, their range was not that great. Remember, only about 300 ever saw combat and between all the fighters in the air, and 262's having to be reletivly close to the beaches, I don't think they would have made much of a difference to the landing. My humble opinion, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its range was still better than of Bf109.

Kurfurst__
03-09-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Great job spinning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a great job Slicky being wrong again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The LW managed how many sorties on the most important day of the war in the west? That is the point, all the ducking and spinning do not make this go away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you basically say that the sorties flown on a single day in an area of France which we know the Germans didn`t want to defend at all from the air for 4 years, having nothing important for them there, tells more about the state of the LW than the actual strenght reports to their high command that are preapeared for this very reason?

If that`s your point, that`s quite stupid.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The 8th AF had reduced the LW to a state of ineffectiveness. It was done by the heavies luring the fighters up, and the escorts knocking them down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mantra again. Repeat it slickun. Repeat it again. It will work, it will convince a lot of people who are like you. And I have absolutely no problem with if you want to fool yourself that way, close your eyes on the actual number of fighters used by the LW and the number of sorties they flown with them, while stubbornly repeating the LW ceased to exists just because it must be so in Slickun`s private reality.
Gee, why would I have a problem people fooling themselves instead of attempting to learn? Tell me.

Kurfurst__
03-09-2005, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
262 jabo could have wrecked havoc over the beaches <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`d got through, but the effect? 2x250 kg bombs, come on. The FW 190 Jabos that got through and bombed the invasion craft could carry more of that. It would change much, unless there were thousends of them, and that was simply impossible to achieve by anyone at the time.

And please, not the Hitler wanted it jabo stuff again... Junkers Motoren was slow to develop those engines, that`s all. So there were some delays - no big stuff even. The plane went into service 2 years after it`s first flight, pretty typical, it took the Meteor 3 years BTW. just not the putting a ordinary bombrack on it delayed it by yeards.. Mtt said it`d took a few days to change the plans.

p1ngu666
03-09-2005, 07:26 AM
ive never heard of 190 jabo's bombing invasion craft, i know a couple strafed stuff tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

262's had the best chance to get to target, and back

190jabo, 109 jabo, 110 210, ju88 he111, all would be intercepted FAR more easily than 262

allied fighters would for sure press home there attacks, cos of pretecting the 1000's of men in ships and beaches http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

262's would take heavy losses, but less than other planes...

and kurfy, i know it was the engines, and not the jabo that delayed 262 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hop2002
03-09-2005, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> think the point of the original comment was that an Fw 190 usually had the option to dive away, even if heavily outnumbered, whereas the Spit that tried to use its superior sustained climb to gain seperation would be an easy target for a sizable amount of time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in a spiral climb. A 190 attempting to follow a Spit in a spiral climb would stall out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Which cases are those? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any time the Spitfire had a climb advantage over the 190, it would have an initial acceleration advantage. Any time the 190 had a speed advantage, it would have a final acceleration advantage.

If a plane has both a speed and climb advantage at a particular altitude, it will accelerate better throughout the speed range.

Here's a (hypothetical) example:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1093216393_rocspeedspit190.gif

It's not accurate, because climb rate does not reduce in a linear fashion with speed, but it gives the idea.

Both climb and acceleration are functions of excess thrust. When you have a climb advantage, you have an acceleration advantage (at that speed)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The RAF tried and failed. The 8th Air Force succeeded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When?

I remember the RAF trying on it's own, I remember the USAAF trying in conjunction with the RAF.

The RAF fighters flew 43,500 sorties over Europe in 1942, the Americans contributed another 1,081 fighter sorties.

In 1943, when the Luftwaffe suffered horendous casualties, FC flew 80,000 sorties, the USAAF contributed 17,500

In the first half of 1944, the USAAF flew 98,000 fighter sorties, the RAF another 45,000 in the first 5 months.

So, the totals went from around 3,700 per month in 1942 to about 24,000 a month in the first half of 1944, following nearly 8,200 a month in 1943.

With the Americans pulling their weight, of course there was an improvement.

RedNeckerson
03-09-2005, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
When?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


During the "Non-Stop Offensive" is one case in particular.

The Germans started calling it the "nonesense offensive"

Even the British acknowledged at the time that it was a miserable failure.

lrrp22
03-09-2005, 08:39 AM
I ask again, Isegrim: where were they then? Why were the majority of bombing raids virtually unoppossed after mid-summer of '44?

And nothing valuable in France? The majority of German ground forces in the West wasn't valuable?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Great job spinning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a great job Slicky being wrong again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The LW managed how many sorties on the most important day of the war in the west? That is the point, all the ducking and spinning do not make this go away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you basically say that the sorties flown on a single day in an area of France which we know the Germans didn`t want to defend at all from the air for 4 years, having nothing important for them there, tells more about the state of the LW than the actual strenght reports to their high command that are preapeared for this very reason?

If that`s your point, that`s quite stupid.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The 8th AF had reduced the LW to a state of ineffectiveness. It was done by the heavies luring the fighters up, and the escorts knocking them down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mantra again. Repeat it slickun. Repeat it again. It will work, it will convince a lot of people who are like you. And I have absolutely no problem with if you want to fool yourself that way, close your eyes on the actual number of fighters used by the LW and the number of sorties they flown with them, while stubbornly repeating the LW ceased to exists just because it must be so in Slickun`s private reality.
Gee, why would I have a problem people fooling themselves instead of attempting to learn? Tell me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22
03-09-2005, 08:41 AM
hop,

A question: what program are you using to build your graphs? I've tried using Excel but have not been happy with the results.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> think the point of the original comment was that an Fw 190 usually had the option to dive away, even if heavily outnumbered, whereas the Spit that tried to use its superior sustained climb to gain seperation would be an easy target for a sizable amount of time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in a spiral climb. A 190 attempting to follow a Spit in a spiral climb would stall out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Which cases are those? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any time the Spitfire had a climb advantage over the 190, it would have an initial acceleration advantage. Any time the 190 had a speed advantage, it would have a final acceleration advantage.

If a plane has both a speed and climb advantage at a particular altitude, it will accelerate better throughout the speed range.

Here's a (hypothetical) example:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1093216393_rocspeedspit190.gif

It's not accurate, because climb rate does not reduce in a linear fashion with speed, but it gives the idea.

Both climb and acceleration are functions of excess thrust. When you have a climb advantage, you have an acceleration advantage (at that speed)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The RAF tried and failed. The 8th Air Force succeeded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When?

I remember the RAF trying on it's own, I remember the USAAF trying in conjunction with the RAF.

The RAF fighters flew 43,500 sorties over Europe in 1942, the Americans contributed another 1,081 fighter sorties.

In 1943, when the Luftwaffe suffered horendous casualties, FC flew 80,000 sorties, the USAAF contributed 17,500

In the first half of 1944, the USAAF flew 98,000 fighter sorties, the RAF another 45,000 in the first 5 months.

So, the totals went from around 3,700 per month in 1942 to about 24,000 a month in the first half of 1944, following nearly 8,200 a month in 1943.

With the Americans pulling their weight, of course there was an improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

csThor
03-09-2005, 08:48 AM
To get the argument of "non-existant" LW in the West on Jue 6 1944 right.

In France - which was under the control of Luftflotte 3 which was still controlled by Generalfeldmarschall Hugo Sperrle - were exactly 2 (in words - two) Jagdgeschwader, which were JG 26 "Schlageter" and JG 2 "Richthofen". These two units had to control the whole space from the border between France and Belgium down to the Spanish border. (Of course mostly there was no fighter cover on the French Atlantic Coast as there was no real need for it.) A few days before the landings these two units were spread across the whole of France to cover any potential landing zone - although this had been a simple trick by the Allies. That is why Priller did only have his own plane plus his wingman at his disposal for his well-known sortie on June 6.

After the landings the code "Dr. Gustav West" (Drohende Gefahr West - Impending Danger West) was issued and all units of the Reichsverteidigung except JG 300, JG 301 and JG 301 (plus II./JG 27) were transfered to France, mostly under chaotic circumstances.

What made the efforts by the Luftwaffe so problematic was the chaos caused by their superiors - orders were issued only to be contradicted by the following orders, airfields were poorly chosen and underequipped, supply was practically non-existant etc etc etc.

Blutarski2004
03-09-2005, 08:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Kurfurst:

Great job spinning.

The LW managed how many sorties on the most important day of the war in the west? That is the point, all the ducking and spinning do not make this go away. The 8th AF had reduced the LW to a state of ineffectiveness. It was done by the heavies luring the fighters up, and the escorts knocking them down.

You are incorrect as well, about the numbers of planes available on the east and west fronts. There is a nice study on Campbell's JG-26 site that shows, conclusively, that the east was reduced in fighters to defend the Reich. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The withdrawal of fighter strength in the East is so clear from the data, I cannot believe that anyone would try to dispute it.

ploughman
03-09-2005, 08:52 AM
So the Luftwaffe's failure to interdict the Normandy landings and subsequently to provide cover for German ground forces in France was deliberate; based on the assessment that neither the Allied invasion of Normandy nor operations in support of German ground forces were important.

It's becoming much clearer to me now.

Cajun76
03-09-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
262's weren't untouchable in the air. Also, their range was not that great. Remember, only about 300 ever saw combat and between all the fighters in the air, and 262's having to be reletivly close to the beaches, I don't think they would have made much of a difference to the landing. My humble opinion, of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its range was still better than of Bf109. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not saying much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And Kurfurst: The Western Allies getting a foot on Germany's doorstep is not important enough?

That's funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

csThor
03-09-2005, 09:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So the Luftwaffe's failure to interdict the Normandy landings and subsequently to provide cover for German ground forces in France was deliberate; based on the assessment that neither the Allied invasion of Normandy nor operations in support of German ground forces were important.

It's becoming much clearer to me now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No - there were plans to transfer fighter strangth to France in case of a landing (as did happen), but before the Defense of the Reich had a much higher priority.

p1ngu666
03-09-2005, 09:11 AM
190's and 109's would face more opposition if they flew from france to get at bombers
spitfires, p47s and some p51's, depending on how they traveled to there rendouv with the bombers...

was far better to attack bombers over reich, with less fighter cover

hitler hoped 262 jabo could pin down allies, and then his panzers could drive them into the sea. it isnt a horribly bad plan, actully...

ploughman
03-09-2005, 10:53 AM
Oh, I can completely understand the logic of the defence of the German heartland as being the number one priority, and the logic of transferring resources to new theaters as their importance is reassessed.

It seems the Luftwaffe only began movement to the Normandy front on June 7th when it became clear that Overlord was not a feint and that the real landings would not occurr at the Pas de Calais.

Here is a link (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/mccrabb2.html#contributor) to an interesting article by Lt Col Maris McCrabb, USAF, concerning pre-Normandy air-campaigns that I hope you all may find interesting.

Slickun
03-09-2005, 04:18 PM
And why were units transferred from the French coastline? The ones closest to Britain?

The opposition's increasing range of escort fighters had nothing to do with that, right?

This whole thing, that the LW didn't defend Normandy cause they didn't feel like it, or it wasn't important, is moot. They didn't. Since we ARE talking about the invasion, what exactly WAS the cause of the LW not having assets in place to fiercly defend the continent? It wasn't ground or naval action, I guarantee you.

They were unable to mount anything but token resistance to the invasion (unlike their Wermacht brethern. They thought it was important). This WAS accomplished, was the goal of the 8th AF. The LW was unable to put the RAF into this state. Look up Operation Argument.

The #1 priority of the 8th AF being the destruction of the LW had nothing to do with it, right?

Mantra? Yeah, but not just mine. Try the Luftwaffe War Diaries if JG26, The First and Last and 1000 Destroyed don't do the trick for you.

Truth be told, the 8th had trouble getting the LW to EVER oppose a fighter sweep. Sending heavies over was the only sure way to get the LW up.

This conversation is verging on the surreal.

lrrp22
03-09-2005, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
This conversation is verging on the surreal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim's inability to accept that the Luftwaffe could ever be defeated guarantees that 'Surreal' is the inevitable result...

hop2002
03-09-2005, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And nothing valuable in France? The majority of German ground forces in the West wasn't valuable? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There wasn't much the Germans needed to defend in western Europe until the second half of 1943, when they became concerned over the possibility of invasion.

France couldn't be used as a free fire zone either. Any troops garrisoned in towns or villages were effectively off limits because of the risk of collateral damage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hop,

A question: what program are you using to build your graphs? I've tried using Excel but have not been happy with the results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't get on with excel either. I tried a couple of drawing programs on the pc, but they were worse than excel. I finally started using an Amiga emulator and an old Amiga drawing package I used to use years ago.

What I use now though is the "graph paper" I created in that, and draw the graph lines freehand with photoshop elements. Any PC graphics pacage that can draw straight lines will work, though. (and if you want the "graph paper" blank, let me know)

Quite honsetly it's probably easier than using excel, at least for what I use it for (plotting simple data points, combining graphs from different sources etc). If you want to create proper graphs from spreadsheet data though, it's not much use.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> When?



During the "Non-Stop Offensive" is one case in particular.

The Germans started calling it the "nonesense offensive"

Even the British acknowledged at the time that it was a miserable failure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The British never thought they could "reduce the Luftwaffe to a state of ineffectiveness"

Indeed, the original orders for the start of offensive action by FC called for action to "harass" the Germans, nothing more.

The whole point was that Britain had to keep large numbers of fighters at home, in case the Germans began to attack again. There was little point in keeping the fighters sitting idle, especially whilst the Germans were fighting the Russians (and in the Med).

So the purpose was for the British based fighters to attack the Luftwaffe over France, and force the Luftwaffe to keep strong fighter forces in France. (which they did. not particulary large numbers, but the finest quality they had, and even those numbers would have been welcomed in Russia or North Africa)

VW-IceFire
03-09-2005, 06:43 PM
For sure...from the encounters that Pierre Closterman had with JG2 and JG26 over the Western Front...both of these groups were flying some excellent aircraft with excellent tactics. Seemed like a pretty even fight between the RAF squadrons and them.

faustnik
03-09-2005, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

If a plane has both a speed and climb advantage at a particular altitude, it will accelerate better throughout the speed range.

It's not accurate, because climb rate does not reduce in a linear fashion with speed, but it gives the idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying the Spit had an advantage in low speed climb acceleration? That does make sense as, starting with the Merlin 66, the Spit did have a climb advantage. In level and dive acceleration most of the advantages were held by the Fw190 even against the Spit IX.

**************

When did the 8th AF begin to destroy the Luftwaffe?

As soon as they started flying escorted daylight heavy bomber raids the LW struggled to cope. Before the 8th AF arrived the LW was doing fairly well agianst the RAF with only a few units.

Here's an interesting link for Hop:

Impact of the 8th AF (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/mar-apr/murray.htm)

It gives a good account of how the LW loss rate drastically increased in '43 due to the 8th stepping up the daylight raid pressure.

RedNeckerson
03-09-2005, 11:50 PM
1943 was likely worse for the 8th AF than it was for the Luftwaffe.

The 8th AF suffered horrendous casualties in their daylight bombing offensive in 1943. Schweinfurt, Regensburg, and second Schweinfurt are obvious examples. (but not the only ones)

This lead to a situation in the 8th AF called the "Fall Crises" -> even by 8th AF standards losses were becoming prohibitive. The saying in those days was: "to be a member of the 8th AF was to hold a ticket to your own funeral."


The true attrition of the Luftwaffe began in 1944. Operation ARGUMENT(Attriting of Luftwaffe), followed by operation OVERLORD(Nomandy umbrella). The Luftwaffe could no longer make good their losses in experienced pilots, even if they could (and did) in machines. The 8th AF could continue simply to replace every aircrew it lossed over and over again (and then some)

The Spitfire, as good a fighter as it was, played no real comparitive role in the true attrition of the Luftwaffe in those days.

ploughman
03-10-2005, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So much of air's contribution to the success of the Normandy landings depended upon the cumulative effect of operations extending back through the days, months, and even years which preceded D day that D day itself, though providing an obvious climax to this preparatory work, seems almost an anticlimax.

There were no great air battles--so well had the preparatory work been done and so overwhelming were the Allied air forces that the Luftwaffe refused the challenge. The record of air operations in its most significant aspects points chiefly, therefore, to impressive evidence of a victory already won and to a massive effectiveness speaking first of the singularly undramatic skills of organization and planning.

Official (US) Army Air Forces history of World War II. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe began to transfer forces to the newly opened Normandy Front on June 7th, 1944. Due to the indecision of the German high command in issuing the orders, (they still though Overlord was a feint, and the real invasion would be coming via the Pas de Calais) the Luftwaffe took the movement based upon its own authority.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One of the most remarkable facts of the entire war is that the Luftwaffe did not make any significant daylight attacks on D day against Allied forces in the Channel or on the beaches. The Allies flew over 14,000 sorties in support of the landings alone while the Luftwaffe was only able to muster 319 sorties the entire day! This success is directly attributable to the length of the counterair campaign. The Luftwaffe had been finished. The remnants were tied to the defense of the Reich.

Lt Col Maris McCrabb, Chief of the Warfare Studies Division at Air command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666
03-10-2005, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:
1943 was likely worse for the 8th AF than it was for the Luftwaffe.

The 8th AF suffered horrendous casualties in their daylight bombing offensive in 1943. Schweinfurt, Regensburg, and second Schweinfurt are obvious examples. (but not the only ones)

This lead to a situation in the 8th AF called the "Fall Crises" -> even by 8th AF standards losses were becoming prohibitive. The saying in those days was: "to be a member of the 8th AF was to hold a ticket to your own funeral."


The true attrition of the Luftwaffe began in 1944. Operation ARGUMENT(Attriting of Luftwaffe), followed by operation OVERLORD(Nomandy umbrella). The Luftwaffe could no longer make good their losses in experienced pilots, even if they could (and did) in machines. The 8th AF could continue simply to replace every aircrew it lossed over and over again (and then some)

The Spitfire, as good a fighter as it was, played no real comparitive role in the true attrition of the Luftwaffe in those days. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

spitfires did the enitial escort of bombers AND fighters didnt they? not much happened cos lw didnt turn up much, specialy later on...
p47 had a similer effect http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-10-2005, 09:04 AM
How many Luftwaffe pilots does it take to change a lightbulb?

12

One to screw in the bulb, the others to complain that the bulb wouldn't have blown if it had been modelled correctly...

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

RedNeckerson
03-10-2005, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
spitfires did the enitial escort of bombers AND fighters didnt they? not much happened cos lw didnt turn up much, specialy later on...
p47 had a similer effect http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Spitfires squadrons were notorious for being non-aggresive in the limited escort role they performed.

The best tactics against Luftwaffe fighters in 1943 was devised by Hub Zemke with the 56th FG -"Zemke's Wolfpack".

P-47s would range out ahead of the bomber streams and try to bounce Luftwaffe fighters - from the east, from the direction of Germany as they climbed to intercept.

This is how Wutz Galland (Adolph Galland's brother) lost his life when he was bounced from behind - from the direction of Germany - as he climbed to intercept the B-17s.

Still, the facts show that the premier fighter group in the 8th AF at the time - the P-47 equipped 56th - was fought to a standstill by JG/26. JG/26 was tasked primarily with bomber interception.

The P-47 Thunderbolt in the escort role _without question_ out-performed the Spitfire in 1943.

Still, if you look closely at the number of B-17s lost in the first 6 months (for example) following the introduction of the Thunderbolt - to Luftwaffe fighters alone - they are quite high.

It was in 1944, when the Allies could put up huge numbers of the very best fighter they possesed (without question it was the P-51 Mustang) as well as huge numbers of bombers at the same time (Operation ARGUMENT) that the real attrition of the LW began.

This was all by design in preperation for the Normandy landings in June 1944.

ARGUMENT became OVERLORD==> allied umbrella over western France.

The Spitfire wasn't a major player by comparison, as the 8th AF was now equipped with the superior strategic fighter: the P-51 Mustang.

The LW back was broken by the 8th AF, B-17 Flying Fortress working in conjunction with the P-51 Mustang in huge numbers.

hop2002
03-10-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So you are saying the Spit had an advantage in low speed climb acceleration? That does make sense as, starting with the Merlin 66, the Spit did have a climb advantage. In level and dive acceleration most of the advantages were held by the Fw190 even against the Spit IX. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in "climb acceleration", just in acceleration.

Acceleration is a function of excess thrust.

You need a certain amount of thrust to keep the plane flying at it's current speed, anything extra can either be used to accelerate the plane, or make it climb.

The better climbing plane at a particular speed will also be the better accelerating at that speed.

You can work out roughly which plane will climb and accelerate better at a particular speed using a graph like the one above.

For most planes, we know the climb rate at 2 speeds at any particular altitude; the best climbing speed (max climb rate) and the top speed (climb rate = 0)

Plot them on a graph for different aircraft and you will see which climbs and accelerates better at any speed (but it's only valid for one particular altitude)

I've just done a quick and dirty one for the Spit LF IX against 190 A8, the 190 at 1.65 ata, the Spit at 18 lbs.

According to the graph the 190 will out accelerate the Spit from about 310 mph up, at 24,000 ft the Spit will out accelerate the 190 at all speeds (and by a pretty large margin).

Because the climb/acceleration does not decline at a linear rate with speed, a straight line graph like this gives too low a speed at which the faster plane begins to outaccelerate the better climber.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As soon as they started flying escorted daylight heavy bomber raids the LW struggled to cope. Before the 8th AF arrived the LW was doing fairly well agianst the RAF with only a few units.

Here's an interesting link for Hop:

Impact of the 8th AF

It gives a good account of how the LW loss rate drastically increased in '43 due to the 8th stepping up the daylight raid pressure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually what Murray says is:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>July and August 1943 saw the final collapse of the strategy to slug it out with Allied air forces in peripheral theaters, while the pressure in the west exerted by American bomber crews became almost unbearable. In the great battle around the Russian city of Kursk in early July and then in a series of ferocious struggles in August as the Russians counterattacked, the Luftwaffe formations in the east suffered enormous losses. Similarly, the Anglo-American invasion of Sicily in July forced the Germans into major commitments in the Mediterranean. Finally for the first time, in July and August the American bomber raids reached toward the jugular of German industrial production. In those two months the Luftwaffe wrote off 1032 aircraft in the Mediterranean, 1030 aircraft in the east, and 1151 in the west. Thus, total losses amounted to 3213 from a force structure numbering 7080 aircraft (including noncombat aircraft) in early July. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That means only 1/3 of losses were in western Europe, and obviously not all those were to the 8th AF.

A gernerous interpretation would give the 8th AF credit for about 25% of the Luftwaffe losses in that period.

It really strikes me as silly to compare the USAAF and RAF records against Germany, when the RAF fought the Luftwaffe single handed for a time (with small but important contributions from various "free" forces and Commonwealth countries), then the Russians joined in as well, then the USAAF finally joined in.

At no point did the USAAF fight the Luftwaffe alone, and therefore it's rather silly to apportion credit to them for victory.

If a policeman is fighting to subdue a suspect, then a second policeman joins in, and finally a third, before the suspect is subdued, does all the credit belong to the third policeman? Or a joint effort, because all 3 policemen were involved, and it's fairly obvious that as the numbers go up, so does their chance of success?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The true attrition of the Luftwaffe began in 1944. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The true attrition of the Luftwaffe began in 1939. It was rather heavy in 1941, again in 42 again in 43, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Operation ARGUMENT(Attriting of Luftwaffe), followed by operation OVERLORD(Nomandy umbrella). The Luftwaffe could no longer make good their losses in experienced pilots, even if they could (and did) in machines. The 8th AF could continue simply to replace every aircrew it lossed over and over again (and then some)

The Spitfire, as good a fighter as it was, played no real comparitive role in the true attrition of the Luftwaffe in those days. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire played no part in the Normandy battles?

There were 55 squadrons of Spitfires in the UK at the time, flying huge numbers of sorties over the Normandy area. Spitfires were the first allied fighters to be based in Normandy, on 10th June.

It was Spitfires that straffed Rommels car, putting him out of the battle.

Here's an example of 1 Spitfire squadron's workload on 6th June:

329 squadron acted as low beach cover in the following waves:
0900-1050 €" 12 aircraft patrolled Caen €" Bayeaux (led by Wg Cdr Crawford-Compton)
1400-1555 €" 12 aircraft patrolled Le Havre €" Trouville
1720-1920 €" 12 aircraft patrolled Caen €" Bayeaux (led by Wg Cdr Crawford-Compton)
At 2000-2200, 12 aircraft escorted gliders troops to Caen €" Albermarles towing Horsas.

Of course, there wasn't much "trade" on D Day, but there was soon afterwards.

The Luftwaffe moved 200 fighters to France within the first 36 hours after the invasion, they added another 100 by 10th June.

The Luftwaffe lost 362 aircraft in the first week of operations against the Normandy area, another 232 the next week.

This from Williamson Murray:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Moreover, by throwing their aircraft into the invasion battle,
Hitler and Goring gave Eighth Air Force carte blanche to attack the synthetic fuel
facilities; and almost as fast as the Germans fed aircraft into the Normandy battle,
American and British fighters shot them down . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From June 6 to the 30th, RAF and American squadrons flew 163,403
sorties over the continent, of which 130,000 supported the invasion . Conversely,
Luftflotte 3-even with reinforcements-only flew 13,829 sorties . German losses
were again devastating . In France, the Luftwaffe lost 931 aircraft on operations,
with a further 67 lost due to noncombat causes ; over Luftflotte Reich, the Germans
lost an additional 250 aircraft on operations, with 183 more aircraft destroyed due to
other than combat causes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ploughman
03-10-2005, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> French crews pressed into service by the Germans to operate the rail system deserted in large numbers, particularly when fighter-bomber pilots started the practice of dropping their nearly full belly tanks on the trains, then setting them afire through strafing attacks.
link (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/mccrabb2.html#contributor) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Will this be in v3.05?http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

faustnik
03-10-2005, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:


According to the graph the 190 will out accelerate the Spit from about 310 mph up, at 24,000 ft the Spit will out accelerate the 190 at all speeds (and by a pretty large margin).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, yes if you are judging the Fw190 at altitudes outside of its performance envelope. The usual tactics. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I agree that the RAF and the 8th AF worked together to crush the LW in the west, and that all efforts should be appreciated.

p1ngu666
03-10-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> French crews pressed into service by the Germans to operate the rail system deserted in large numbers, particularly when fighter-bomber pilots started the practice of dropping their nearly full belly tanks on the trains, then setting them afire through strafing attacks.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/mccrabb2.html#contributor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Will this be in v3.05?http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in a tiffy book i read awhile ago, couple of pilots stop off at a cafe, and one of the male staff has a nervous twitch.
he was a train driver in france http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
pilots liked to blown up the loco cos it went bang in a big way, tons of steam etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

hop2002
03-10-2005, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, yes if you are judging the Fw190 at altitudes outside of its performance envelope. The usual tactics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gave 2 sets of figures, one for sea level, one for 24,000 ft (the choice of 24,000 ft was deliberate as it's above BOTH aircraft's critical altitude).

If I'd wanted to give an unfair perspective, I'd have chose 22,000 ft for the high alt figures, as it's the Spit's critical altitude, and I'd have chosen 10,000 ft for the low alt figures, because it's the Spit's low alt critical altitude. (at 10,000 ft the Spit will again out accelerate the 190 A8 at all speeds)

The choice of 0ft and 24,000ft was deliberate to favour neither aircraft, whilst still providing high and low alt figures. 0 ft is below critical alt in low gear for both (although much closer to the 190s), 24,000ft is above critical alt in high gear for both (although much closer to the Spit's)

(Note also the figures are for 1.65 ata for the 190, only 18 lbs for the Spit).

Perhaps I shouldn't bother, and just present biased figures instead? It seem to be what's expected, and assumed.

faustnik
03-10-2005, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Perhaps I shouldn't bother, and just present biased figures instead? It seem to be what's expected, and assumed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, pretty much, to be honest, sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The "my favorite Spitfire is better than any other a/c in every way" gets old. Just like Kurfurst and his pet Bf109 with associated charts and graphs, same deal.

Daiichidoku
03-10-2005, 12:38 PM
I p i s s on all spits from my mighty Juggernaut


much more greased to be getting the Mosquito, anyhow, a real mans ship, not for nancy-boy spit pilots

spits are lucky the mossie wont be getting the high alt merlins, or they could kiss it goodbye up high

p1ngu666
03-10-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Perhaps I shouldn't bother, and just present biased figures instead? It seem to be what's expected, and assumed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, pretty much, to be honest, sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The "my favorite Spitfire is better than any other a/c in every way" gets old. Just like Kurfurst and his pet Bf109 with associated charts and graphs, same deal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think hop is less biased than kurfy for what its worth, but im more well read on english aircraft than other nations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

probably stuff from that pm, from back in the day u havent read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
03-10-2005, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

i think hop is less biased than kurfy for what its worth, but im more well read on english aircraft than other nations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

probably stuff from that pm, from back in the day u havent read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't, two sides of the same coin. Twins seperated at birth, like Austin Powers and Doctor Evil.


***********

Checking PMs DOH! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Monty_Thrud
03-10-2005, 01:57 PM
Well if thats the case i'd have to say Kurfurst is DR EVIL and HOP2002 is Austin Powers...YEAH BABY!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
03-10-2005, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Well if thats the case i'd have to say Kurfurst is DR EVIL and HOP2002 is Austin Powers...YEAH BABY!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes perfect sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
03-10-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:

i think hop is less biased than kurfy for what its worth, but im more well read on english aircraft than other nations http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

probably stuff from that pm, from back in the day u havent read http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't, two sides of the same coin. Twins seperated at birth, like Austin Powers and Doctor Evil.


***********

Checking PMs DOH! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

hop2002
03-10-2005, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just like Kurfurst and his pet Bf109 with associated charts and graphs, same deal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I was doing a Kurfurst, I'd use data from the RAE test of Faber's 190, claiming it was the "only serial production data" I have.

I'd then compare that to a Spitfire on 100/150 fuel at 25 lbs boost, and use the 10,000ft and 22,000ft altitudes.

If you notice, the figures I gave for the 190 actually showed it superior at some speeds. I could quite easily have chosen data that would have shown the Spit superior at all speeds.

I used what I think is a good cross section of data, 2 altitudes, favouring neither aircraft, but one low down where the 190 does best, one up high where the Spit does best.

faustnik
03-10-2005, 02:21 PM
The problem with that anology is that it makes me this guy:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SentaiFaustSig.jpg

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

faustnik
03-10-2005, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

If you notice, the figures I gave for the 190 actually showed it superior at some speeds. I could quite easily have chosen data that would have shown the Spit superior at all speeds.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif It proves the irrelevence our some of your and Kurfy's handmade charts. They do look nice though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

horseback
03-10-2005, 04:29 PM
Hop2002 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If a policeman is fighting to subdue a suspect, then a second policeman joins in, and finally a third, before the suspect is subdued, does all the credit belong to the third policeman? Or a joint effort, because all 3 policemen were involved, and it's fairly obvious that as the numbers go up, so does their chance of success?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor analogy. If the criminal is beating the cheese out of the first two cops, and the third arrives, gives both the other cops new uniforms, a hot meal, fresh nightsticks and a blood transfusion, all while helping subdue the thug, then you're getting a little closer to the reality.

I take it you're English. Take a drive down to Bury St. Edmunds, and check out all those crosses. Those are just the guys whose planes made it back. The overwhelming majority of them were 8th AF bomber enlisted crewmen, not particularly well educated or priviledged. Most were volunteers, not draftees. I doubt many of those guys really thought that Hitler could make it across the Atlantic, even with possession of the Royal Navy's ships.

So why did they come?

To be honest, Britain deserves great credit for attempting to make the pinch in the first place, especially when Ivan, the second cop, was on the take and happily watching the struggle before the criminal attacked him, and the third cop was drinking coffee at the precinct house.

But let's also remember that the third cop was told quite firmly at Versailles in 1919 that he was no longer needed to walk that 'beat'.

cheers

horseback

hop2002
03-10-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That is funny. Too Happy It proves the irrelevence our some of your and Kurfy's handmade charts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me see if I've got this right.

I work out the (approx) acceleration of the 190 and Spit at 2 altitudes, 0ft and 24,000ft.

You accuse me of choosing altitudes that favour the Spitfire.

I point out I didn't, and that I could have chosen altitudes that would favour the Spitfire.

You say the fact that I could have chosen different altitudes proves the data is irrelevent?


Speed, climb, acceleration all vary with altitude. Of course you can use carefully selected altitudes that might give a false picture overall, that hardly makes showing different altitudes "irrelevent".

All this because I said the Spit would outaccelerate the 190 in many cases. I stand by that.

Certainly you can carefully pick and choose altitudes and speeds where the 190 will accelerate best, and vice versa, but that's not what I've tried to do.

I don't think you'll find any altitudes at which the 190 will outclimb (and therefore outaccelerate) the Spit when both use best climb speeds (contemporary models only, no Dora vs Spit I), I can certainly show you altitudes where the Spit has both superior climb rate AND superior speed, which means the Spit accelerates faster at all speeds at that alt.

The fact that you can show Spitfire superiority at ALL speeds at some alts, and only 190 superiority at higher speeds at others, should demonstrate the average acceleration for the Spit is higher.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Poor analogy. If the criminal is beating the cheese out of the first two cops, and the third arrives, gives both the other cops new uniforms, a hot meal, fresh nightsticks and a blood transfusion, all while helping subdue the thug, then you're getting a little closer to the reality. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly, but that wasn't the case.

Only a fool would describe the Luftwaffe in early 1943 as "winning", let alone "beating the cheese" out of it's opponents.

It had effectively abandoned NA in the second half of 1942 (look at the superiority the RAF and dominion AFs enjoyed for El Alemain). It had already abandoned all but harassing attacks against the UK, and the RAF was launching regular huge bombing raids against Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I take it you're English. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Welsh.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Take a drive down to Bury St. Edmunds, and check out all those crosses. Those are just the guys whose planes made it back. The overwhelming majority of them were 8th AF bomber enlisted crewmen, not particularly well educated or priviledged. Most were volunteers, not draftees. I doubt many of those guys really thought that Hitler could make it across the Atlantic, even with possession of the Royal Navy's ships.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'll find slightly more crosses marking the graves of RAF personnel. (and I do mean slightly. RAF and USAAF losses were remarkably similar)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So why did they come? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because Japan attacked America, and Germany then declared war on America.

Why did Britain fight? Germany had little interest in attacking Britain, Hitler was pretty clear he wanted eastern Europe. He even offered peace terms in 1940.

Britain could quite easily have sat out the war. Hitler had no more chance of crossing the channel than the Atlantic, as Germany didn't have a big enough navy, and it was a bit too far to swim. And what's more, Hitler clearly had no desire to cross the channel before the war.

Germany did not engage in a large naval buildup before the war, the one thing that would have actually endangered Britain.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>o be honest, Britain deserves great credit for attempting to make the pinch in the first place, especially when Ivan, the second cop, was on the take and happily watching the struggle before the criminal attacked him, and the third cop was drinking coffee at the precinct house.

But let's also remember that the third cop was told quite firmly at Versailles in 1919 that he was no longer needed to walk that 'beat'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me?

Remember the League of Nations?

From Woodrow Wilson's 14 points:

"A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike."

The LoN was created, everybody else signed up, the US didn't.

It was the US that chose to turn isolationist, not the Europeans who told them to leave.

horseback
03-10-2005, 07:21 PM
First of all, the food, materials, and new weapons were all crossing the Atlantic well before Pearl Harbor, and the US Navy was taking care of the Western half of the convoys before Hitler made his greatest blunder: giving FDR carte blanche to get in the war, even though we weren't fully prepared, being a democracy and all.

As for the isolationist movement by the US post-Armistice, the Senate rejected the Treaty because the US was flatly snubbed by LLoyd George and Clemanceau (not sure of the spelling). Americans believed that they pulled your arses out of the mess you got yourselves into, and then got treated like the fat chick you went out with the one time because you heard she was easy, and then didn't want to be seen in public with. Instead of treating the US like the power it was rapidly becoming, you gave the isolationists the excuse to pull back from the resposibilities of being a great power (Washington's warning about Foreign Entaglements, you know).

Britain and France had no business acting like that, and it cost them dearly twenty years later.

As for how well the war was going in 1943, it was because there were competent generals and admirals running things by then; the only thing your lot hadn't botched before Pearl Harbor was the Battle of Britain, and then you went and sacked the man most responsible, Sir Hugh Dowding.

By the end of 1942, George Marshall and Ernest King were firmly in control of the Western Allies' military operations, and you should thank God, or your personal Cosmic Muffin, for it.

cheers

horseback

mynameisroland
03-11-2005, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
First of all, the food, materials, and new weapons were all crossing the Atlantic well before Pearl Harbor, and the US Navy was taking care of the Western half of the convoys before Hitler made his greatest blunder: giving FDR carte blanche to get in the war, even though we weren't fully prepared, being a democracy and all.

As for the isolationist movement by the US post-Armistice, the Senate rejected the Treaty because the US was flatly snubbed by LLoyd George and Clemanceau (not sure of the spelling). Americans believed that they pulled your arses out of the mess you got yourselves into, and then got treated like the fat chick you went out with the one time because you heard she was easy, and then didn't want to be seen in public with. Instead of treating the US like the power it was rapidly becoming, you gave the isolationists the excuse to pull back from the resposibilities of being a great power (Washington's warning about Foreign Entaglements, you know).

Britain and France had no business acting like that, and it cost them dearly twenty years later.

As for how well the war was going in 1943, it was because there were competent generals and admirals running things by then; the only thing your lot hadn't botched before Pearl Harbor was the Battle of Britain, and then you went and sacked the man most responsible, Sir Hugh Dowding.

By the end of 1942, George Marshall and Ernest King were firmly in control of the Western Allies' military operations, and you should thank God, or your personal Cosmic Muffin, for it.

cheers

horseback <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


yadda yadda yadda

What a load of Tosh , your account of history is as biased as ive heard on this forum for a long time.

What was the most important allied operation of WW2 ? D Day who was it organised by and executed by? The Royal Navy. Who provided the most soldiers?> the British and Commonwealth Armies.

Without Britain, America would have been useless against Germany in WW1 and in WW2. How can you fight a war in Europe without an allied nation to use as a depot to build up supplies and forces in?

What you also fail to note regarding both wars is, that the US stayed out of them - while enriching their coffers in the meantime then joining in at a point convienient for them. Dont go claiming that the US saved everyones bacon from bad old Adolph - WW1 and WW2 were wars of convienience for your country.

hop2002
03-11-2005, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for the isolationist movement by the US post-Armistice, the Senate rejected the Treaty because the US was flatly snubbed by LLoyd George and Clemanceau (not sure of the spelling). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?

Wilson campaigned heavily for the treaty and the League, the Republicans, led by Henry Lodge, rejected it, principally because of article 10:

"The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."

That's a mutual self defence treaty, and the US wasn't ready to committ themselves to the defence of any other country.

Senator Borah, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"What is the result of all this? We are in the midst of all of the affairs of Europe. We have entangled ourselves with all European concerns. We have joined in alliance with all the European nations which have thus far joined the League and all nations which may be admitted to the League. We are sitting there dabbling in their affairs and intermeddling in their concerns. In other words, Mr. President -- and this comes to the question which is fundamental with me -- we have forfeited and surrendered, once and for all, the great policy of "no entangling alliances" upon which the strength of this republic has been founded for 150 years."

"Lloyd George is reported to have said just a few days before the conference met at Versailles that Great Britain could give up much, and would be willing to sacrifice much, to have America withdraw from that policy. That was one of the great objects of the entire conference at Versailles so far as the foreign representatives were concerned. Clemenceau and Lloyd George and others like them were willing to make any reasonable sacrifice which would draw America away from her isolation and into the internal affairs and concerns of Europe. This League of Nations, with or without reservations, whatever else it does or does not do, does surrender and sacrifice that policy; and once having surrendered and become a part of the European concerns, where, my friends, are you going to stop?"

The US rejected Versailles and the League of Nations because it wished to remain isolationist, not because of any imagined "snub" at the conference of Versailles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for how well the war was going in 1943, it was because there were competent generals and admirals running things by then; the only thing your lot hadn't botched before Pearl Harbor was the Battle of Britain, and then you went and sacked the man most responsible, Sir Hugh Dowding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dowding was sacked because he had no effective answer to the Blitz.

As to the rest, I shall use a quote from your same post:

"even though we weren't fully prepared, being a democracy and all."

How well do you think the tiny, badly equipped US forces of 1940 and 1941 would have stood up to Germany?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By the end of 1942, George Marshall and Ernest King were firmly in control of the Western Allies' military operations, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Admiral King, the fool who refused to institue convoy operations, and gave the Kriegsmarine their greatest "happy time"?

Here's Eisenhower's opinion of King:

"Admiral King, commander in chief of United States fleet, and directly subordinate to the president, is an arbitrary, stubborn type, with not too much brains and a tendency toward bullying his juniors."

"One thing that might help win this war is to get someone to shoot King. He's the antithesis of cooperation, a deliberately rude person, which means he's a mental bully. He became Commander in Chief of the fleet some time ago. Today he takes over, also, Stark's job as chief of naval operations. It's a good thing to get rid of the double head in the navy, and of course Stark was just a nice old lady, but this fellow is going to cause a blow-up sooner or later, I'll bet a cookie."

"Lest I look at this book sometime and find that I've expressed a distaste for some person, and have put down no reason for my aversion, I record this one story of Admiral King. One day this week General Arnold sent a very important note to King. Through inadvertence, the stenographer in Arnold's office addressed it, on the outside, to "Rear Admiral King." Twenty-four hours later the letter came back, unopened, with an arrow pointing to the "Rear," thus: (Here a long, heavy arrow has been drawn in a diagonal line underneath and pointing to the word "Rear.") And that's the size of man the navy has at its head. He ought to be a big help winning this war."

And King of course was never in command of "western allies military operations". He was only ever in command of US navy operations, and the US navy was very much the junior partner to the RN in the war against Germany.

The British were frantic to get King to listen to reason and begin the convoy system in American waters, but King wouldn't listen. According to King at the start of American involvement:

"inadeqautely escorted convoys are worse than none"

By June 1942, under heavy pressure from above, he had changed his tone:

"escort is not just one way of handling the submarine menace, it is the only way"

Marshall was a much better officer (and he hated King as well), but again he was never in command of allied operations, just US forces.

In fact, whilst Eisenhower was in command of much joint allied military activity (as a political move), the military command was usually in British hands.

For Torch, the invasion of NW Africa, Sir Andrew Cunningham was in command of naval operations, everything else was handled by Eisenhower.

For Husky, the invasion of Sciliy, Cunningham was again in command of naval forces, Sir Henry Alexander was commander land forces, Sir Arthur Tedder was in charge of air operations.

For Overlord, the invasion of Normandy, Leigh Mallory was in charge of air forces, Sir Bertram Ramsey in charge of naval operations, Montgomery in charge of ground operations.

The fact that British officers were, in the main, in charge of such major operations is not suprising, of course, as the British had much more experience than the US forces.

horseback
03-11-2005, 11:00 AM
Our 'depot' in WWI was France (both my grandfathers spent some time there at the time-one Marine, one Army Air Service). WWI was NOT our fight; it was the result of the competition between the old empires of Europe, which most of our citizens at the time had emigrated from specifically to escape. Had the Kaiser not been so obnoxious about a little thing called freedom of the seas, we would not have entered.

I note that you do not deny that our decisive input in that war was treated ingraciously. My grandfathers both commented that the British soldiers were quite glad to see them, but that their officers were condescending at best to their American counterparts (a HUGE mistake when dealing with Regular Army or Marine Corps personnel). That tone from the 'elites' continued through the peace process, and contributed greatly to Wilson's final illness, and his party's defeat in the next elections.

As for D-Day, I believe a chap named Eisenhower had some input, and that the overwhelming majority of material used (particularly landing craft) was stamped "Made in the USA". That the RN was a major player in the operation was a given; the waters surrounding Europe were their main area of responsibility, as the rest of the world was ours.

I note that you needed to take credit for the Canadians too, to make your point.

As for a depot in WWII, Long Island could have served as well (ok, we would have had to concentrate more resources into Naval aviation instead of B-17s), and the food would have been better, but we were begged to come over. The condition was respect, and control of our own contributions. Since we were providing most of the provisions, we got to provide adult supervision.

Do you really think Monty (your only competent general, and I'm being generous in light of his willingness to take casualties for no reason) had the diplomatic skills to run the Invasion?

Please. Britain and the Soviet Union might have prevailed without American help, but ALL of Europe would have been firmly in the Soviet grip, and Britain at best a satellite state, stripped thoroughly of her empire and influence.

I have a tremendous respect for the British contribution to the war effort, the much greater proportional sacrifice, the technical excellence of her industry and science, but Britain's top military leadership were not up to the task, and they knew it. By allowing the Americans to make the best choices for America, they hoped to recover somewhat from their earlier foulups.

Britain's traditional elites failed her badly for much of the first half of the twentieth century, and she lost most of her power and influence as a direct result.

You are entitled to resent America's primacy in the English-speaking world, but it came from your leaders' errors, not our leaders' ambitions. We never wanted the job. If Lloyd George had shown a modicum of real class in 1919, 'rap music' might well have been limited to being an American urban curiosity.

Is that enough twaddle for you?

horseback