PDA

View Full Version : What did USAF/RAF/VVS/JA/LW learnt from each other?



zugfuhrer
03-21-2006, 02:29 PM
There are in some parts contradicting results from test of WWII aircraft performance.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html
Quote; The better known German fighters, the Me. 109 and F.W 190 presented little difficult to the versatile Spitfire IXB, and the Spitfire XIV was vastly superior to either of them as it was faster and could out-turn and out climb them with ease.
My note; (The spit IXB climbs approximately 400 m higher for every minute up to the height of 7000m).


http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 -
the approximate differences in speed are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire
At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190
At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX
At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same
At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190


Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing.

If the spitfireperformance.com is true, RAF only had to take off and start playing with the Germans.

But the LW got many RAF/USAF/VVS aircrafts to test. What conclusions did they make?

If they got the same results as RAF why didn€t they copy something like the Merlin/Griffon or the magnificent wing profile of the Spit.
Wasn€t it Adolf Galland who answered the question "What do you want to have?"

With; "A wing of Spitfires".


Was Herman Goering so full of prestige that he refused to face facts?
What was USAF / RAF:s conclusions from the test flights of Yak and La:s?
The French squad Normandie Niemen prefeared the Yak 9.
The post-war French air force used the FW 190 for some years.

Jaws2002
03-21-2006, 02:59 PM
Take what you read on the net with a grain of salt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



---------------------------------------------
"Wasn€t it Adolf Galland who answered the question "What do you want to have?"

With; "A wing of Spitfires"."
----------------------------------------------
The way Goering asked them to do the escort (in a slow close formation with the Ju-88's and stukas) Spitfire was much better then the high wing loading 109's and 110's.



----------------------------------------------
" The post-war French air force used the FW 190 for some years. "

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


There were FW-190 factories in France after the German army retreated. They assembled the airframes left in the factory and used them, since was cheaper then buying new stuff.

VW-IceFire
03-21-2006, 03:03 PM
This is going to get ugly fast.

The reports your drawing from are basically accurate, however, they represent a "snapshot" historically speaking. At the given time they were presented this was the best the RAF could come up with...and at several points in the war the Spitfire was better than the opposing aircraft. But that was never true for the entire war...

The Spitfire F.IX they were testing against for instance...a FW190A-3. By 1944 in the skies over Normandy supporting the D-Day invasion the majority of FW190 models were A-6 or A-8s...faster and better climbing than the A-3 and more capable of dealing with the Spitfire.

There wasn't some magical superiority of one nations fighter while another nation was obviously deluded into thinking its aircraft were superior when they weren't. This is certainly not true of the European threater on the whole...certain aspects of German/British/American/Russian aircraft were better than their adversaries. Some aircraft were inferior in all levels but many types were of similar power, weight, firepower, and ability relative to their opponents and the defining factors were pilot skill, logistics, and tactical positioning (also luck). The difference between the Spitfire and the 109 or 190 is in a series of tradeoffs. The 190 sacrificed turning for speed, roll, and firepower. The 109 sacrificed range and ease of use for superb climb rate and firepower options. The Spitfire itself was very much a sacrifice...its firepower barely caught up during the war to the German fighters and its low altitude performance was not always as good as the design was capable of (thus the specialized models required to fill the gap) nevermind its extremely poor range which was essentially never solved. Turn rate and altitude performance was gained by a sacrifice in aerodynamics...if you consider that the P-51B and the Spitfire IX use essentially the same engine and yet the P-51 is so much faster (409mph at altitude vs 439mph at altitude) you begin to see what I mean.

The Yak's were another completely different kettle of fish. They sacrificed high altitude performance, firepower, and range for a very durable, manueverable, and robust fighter that could be mass produced. The Normandie-Niemen prefered the Yak-9 and later the Yak-3 because for their work the Yak was well suited...close in dogfighting was the Yak's forte and its speed at low altitudes (slightly swept wings with good area but short span combined with low altitude performing engine) meant that it could keep up with the Germans for long enough for it to matter.

WWII air combat is a complex subject...you cannot point to a single report and suggest that it is the grail. I've spent most of my short life understanding the subject...I know alot...but there is still much to understand. The more I read...the more I understand that there weren't that many huge differences between the nations involved...but the requirements to fit the situation were the defining factor in everything.

TX-Zen
03-21-2006, 03:42 PM
Nice post Ice

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

JadehawkII
03-21-2006, 08:35 PM
Bravo Ice! Well said!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
May I add that everyone should also look at the difference in how each nation waged war as well. The Russians were mostly designed to support the ground forces, hence why they hardly messed with high altitude fighter aircraft.
The Americans however did. The British were kinda in the middle of all that with the Germans at first designed for mostly Offensive war.

In later years, they changed all that to defective and if you ask me, they pretty much were like what the Americans and British were, but mostly defensive for obvious reasons.
Because of all this, their design requirements would be different from each nation.

Take the Japanese for instance, they had light, very maneuverable aircraft for fighters when they first started to wage war as it was their belief this would help them achieve success. They were right too at first as history tells us all.

However, they stuck to this idea for too long as most nations they faced no longer were dogfighting hardly at all, but used new tactics (and new planes to deal with these types)to defeat them at this type of fighting. The Flying Tigers are an excellent example of this.
So saying this plane is better than this one can mostly be a moot point if they were not designed for the same type of mission(s).
I could go on and on, but I think you get my point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Happy flying fellas! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2006, 12:23 AM
Jade::
The Russians were mostly designed to support the ground forces, hence why they hardly messed with high altitude fighter aircraft.
After the events of 1941, true. In mid-1941 the MiG-3 high altitude fighter was being produced in far greater numbers than Yak or LaGG. Through initial success, the Luftwaffe, which was totally designed for support of ground forces since 1939 Poland, dictated the low level air war in the East which forced the abandonment of the MiG in favour of IL-2.

World's largest, and only, MiG-3 website ~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html

zugfuhrer
03-22-2006, 02:02 AM
I am glad that this thread is clean so far.
Nice conclusions Ice thanks.
I am referring to spitfireperformance figures.

I don€t agree with you in the matter speed and climb for the spitfire. This is maybee true for the Spit V and earlier.

The Spit got more firepower than the Me-109 (later than E-4 and the 20mm equipped spit) and the Spit XIV has the best climb rate I have seen and is not bad at high altitudes (IX and later).

The most modern FW-190 is slower than the most modern operational Spitfire at level flight and cant out dive Spit XIV.

Generally speaking of copying technology, I can draw parallells to the development of tanks.
The Germans could deal with the T-34 during 1941-42 by improvise and adapt, but they draw conclusions of it and build the Panther as a new concept. The Tiger was a logical development of the Panzer IV but with the 88:mm gun.
The German saw the potent ional of the T-34 a very good concept of tank manufacturing and built the Panther. The earliest 109 was equipped with the RR Kestrel engine, why dont copy the Merlin and the Griffon?

According to French air force, there where lots of very cheap piston-fighters 1946.

I have read Gallands book and I know what he meant, but the found the spit as a formidable oponent.

Herman Goering himself changed the tasks for the 109:s from free fighter sweeps to close support of bombers.
The 109 was not suited for close support.
Herman was not the best man for his job, as many other nazis. We shall be thankful for that.

If there is other sources as accurate as the ones in spitfireperformance.com I am most interested.

stathem
03-22-2006, 02:40 AM
Well, maybe some examples you're looking for;

The Hawker Fury (Sea Fury) and F8F were heavily influenced (note NOT copies of) by the FW190

Ta154 - They even named it the same.

But generally things just went down similar routes because of the state of technology at the time. The Germans didn't need to copy the Merlin and Griffon becuase the Db Series was just as good. But look at the similarity; The Db603 was a scaled up 600/1 (more or less), like the Griffon was a scaled up Merlin (m o l).

Even more so, look at the Manchester and the He-177. Independent, similar, but both failures.

ImpStarDuece
03-22-2006, 02:54 AM
Its very dangerous to make absolute statements when regarding WW2 fighters. Unless something is the case for the whole war, it can generally be refuted fairly quickly and easily. The too and fro of technology, engine upgrades and new models and marks meant that technical dominance, whether in speed, climb, armament or almost any other performance category was a continual see-saw during the war.

Don't take one source as the be-all and end-all of WW2 aviation knowledge. Mike and Neil's site is fantastic, but spread yourself around and you'll be amazed at what you else can dig up. There are dozens of sites out there, all with additional information which can shape your knowledge a bit better.


Originally posted by zugfuhrer:

I don€t agree with you in the matter speed and climb for the spitfire. This is maybee true for the Spit V and earlier.

The Spit got more firepower than the Me-109 (later than E-4 and the 20mm equipped spit) and the Spit XIV has the best climb rate I have seen and is not bad at high altitudes (IX and later).

The 109K was a superior climber to the Mk. XIV in a straight climb to altitude, being some 1000lbs/450 kg lighter and having similar engine power. Time to height was about 10-15% lower.

Take the Spitfire Mk I in 1939-early 1940 and compare it to the 109E. Initially the 109 had a lower maximum speed, but climbed FAR better and was generally faster at very high and very low atltiudes.

But in mid 1940 the Spitfire recieved internal armour, external windscreens, a new Constant Speed Propellor and clearance for 5 minutes at +12 1/2 emergency over-boost on 100 octane fuel. All of a sudden things are very different. The Spitfire is now slightly SLOWER than the 109 at rated altitude and emergency climb is now better than the 109s, but only below 10,000 feet. Speeds at all altitudes are within 5-10 mph of each other.

Introduce the Bf-109F1 and all of a sudden the 109 is faster and climbs FAR better again, until the introduction of newer Spitfire models. And so on and so forth.


The most modern FW-190 is slower than the most modern operational Spitfire at level flight and cant out dive Spit XIV.


But the most modern FW-190 is also faster than the Spitfire XIV at low altitudes, still has better dive performance and significantly better rate of roll.

Generally speaking, the FW-190 held a speed advantage below 20,000 feet until the introduction of the specialised low altitude Mk XII and the very fast XIV. But even then some FW-190s were faster at some altitudes.

Take the RAF reports as an assesment of what they THOUGHT they knew about German plane performance. Sometimes they got tings right, other times they got things quite wrong. They were operating unfamiliar machines that they couldn't replace (although the RAF had almost 20 flying 109s on hand before the end of the war).


Generally speaking of copying technology, I can draw parallells to the development of tanks.
The Germans could deal with the T-34 during 1941-42 by improvise and adapt, but they draw conclusions of it and build the Panther as a new concept. The Tiger was a logical development of the Panzer IV but with the 88:mm gun.
The German saw the potent ional of the T-34 a very good concept of tank manufacturing and built the Panther. The earliest 109 was equipped with the RR Kestrel engine, why dont copy the Merlin and the Griffon?

Because Germany had their own, very good engine makers: Damiler-Benz, Junkers Jumo and BMW all made engines just as capable as the Merlin or Griffon. The Jumo 213, BMW 801 and DB 601, 605 and 603 were all excellent engines. They did't need or even want a Merlin or Griffon. It took much longer in WW2 to develop an engine than it did to develop the rest of the airplane. 5-6 years was the generally accepted period to create a reliable, effective engine. Why then try to copy someonelses engines when your own are just as good?

And the Merlin and Griffon are NOTHING like the Kestrel. It was much smaller and lower capacity than either


According to French air force, there where lots of very cheap piston-fighters 1946.

That may have something to do with Britain and the USA manufacturing around 192,000 military aircraft in the last 18 months of WW2. When you manufacture 10,000-20,000 of a particular fighter, but lose less than 5,000 of them during the war, there are bound to be a few lying around. The RAF had to scrap hundereds of Lend-Lease fighters and bombers at the end of the war.

badatflyski
03-22-2006, 03:29 AM
The most modern FW-190 is slower than the most modern operational Spitfire at level flight and cant out dive Spit XIV.


Just a little paranthese:
the most modern FW190 was actually the TA152 (Ta is for Kurt TAnk, the 190 designer),
there were not much of those planes produced, but that bird was "better" in any point compared to any allied fighter end44-45, it flew higher(pressurized cockpit), it flew faster(overboosted jumo), it turned the same(long high portance wings with laaarge ailerons).
There were not much in operation (about 80) but none of those planes has been destroyed by enemy fire, they lost one due to mechanical failure.
This brid was the most advanced fighter/interceptor of WW2.(find the after war reports of any allied pilot who flew them and ya'll see)...it's a luck for the allied pilots that germany couldn't build more of those.
And about the spit14...there were not so much of those planes in activity, the most squadrons finished the war with MKIXc..like in the LW there were still old A6,G6...even one crazy pilot finished the war with his Stuka http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

back to topic now...

stathem
03-22-2006, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

The most modern FW-190 is slower than the most modern operational Spitfire at level flight and cant out dive Spit XIV.


Just a little paranthese:
the most modern FW190 was actually the TA152 (Ta is for Kurt TAnk, the 190 designer),
there were not much of those planes produced, but that bird was "better" in any point compared to any allied fighter end44-45, it flew higher(pressurized cockpit), it flew faster(overboosted jumo), it turned the same(long high portance wings with laaarge ailerons).
There were not much in operation (about 80) but none of those planes has been destroyed by enemy fire, they lost one due to mechanical failure.
This brid was the most advanced fighter/interceptor of WW2.(find the after war reports of any allied pilot who flew them and ya'll see)...it's a luck for the allied pilots that germany couldn't build more of those.
And about the spit14...there were not so much of those planes in activity, the most squadrons finished the war with MKIXc..like in the LW there were still old A6,G6...even one crazy pilot finished the war with his Stuka http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

back to topic now... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What utter tosh.

So MkXIV, over 120 (minimum) in service, is 'not much number'

Ta152, on their best day, maybe almost 10 servicable. 50% chance of the engine catching fire whenever you turn it on. Yeah, great.

There were more Mk 21 Spitfires in service, for longer, than Ta152s. The Ta was rushed into service in desperation way before it was even close to being ready. You think it was better than the P51H that was happily flying about in the USA at the time?

badatflyski
03-22-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
What utter tosh.
So MkXIV, over 120 (minimum) in service, is 'not much number'[QUOTE]

For an allied plane, it's more like a prototype -serie

[QUOTE]
Ta152, on their best day, maybe almost 10 servicable. 50% chance of the engine catching fire whenever you turn it on. Yeah, great.[QUOTE]

yeah right, it's not a Napier Sabre u're talking about.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

[QUOTE]
There were more Mk 21 Spitfires in service, for longer, than Ta152s. The Ta was rushed into service in desperation way before it was even close to being ready. You think it was better than the P51H that was happily flying about in the USA at the time?

Please, read some books before saying things u really don't know...especially about the numbers of "used" planes...Ta152 was ready in 43and put in production mid44....and yes it would be better than the poney-H (if this one had time to cross the ocean to meet him)...and how many mk21 saw combat??? the same number than P80? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm sure you're the kind of men thinking that there were also in 1945 20 me262 flying around, 45 pieces of 190D9... and the rest was 109E4 from 1940... READ BOOKS(the european ones, there is not ounce of patriotisme in those ones!!!)....yeah...yeah the poney won the war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

ImpStarDuece
03-22-2006, 06:25 AM
Well, the late war 'super props' are an interesting and sprited bunch:

Tempest II -445 mph
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Spitfire Mk 21 -455 mph</span>
Hornet F.1 - 472 mph
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">190D-12 -453 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">109K-4 -452 mph </span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Ta-152 -472 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Do-335 -474 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">P-47M -470mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">P-47N -460 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">F-4U4 - 464 mph</span>
P-51H - 487 mph
F8F-1 - 435 mph


Those planes marked in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">YELLOW</span> so some action in WW2, even if it wasn't an A to A kill.

By 1945 everyone knew that jets were the way foward. The hey-day of the high performance single prop fighter was fast disappearing, despite many planes pushing the 500mph barrier (and one breaking it in level flight).

Still, I personally would of loved to have seen the Mk 21 with contra-rotating props go into action. Imagine an almost torqueless Spitfire with a 2350 hp Griffon 88 in the nose.

stathem
03-22-2006, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
What utter tosh.
So MkXIV, over 120 (minimum) in service, is 'not much number'[QUOTE]

For an allied plane, it's more like a prototype -serie

[QUOTE]
Ta152, on their best day, maybe almost 10 servicable. 50% chance of the engine catching fire whenever you turn it on. Yeah, great.[QUOTE]

yeah right, it's not a Napier Sabre u're talking about.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

[QUOTE]
There were more Mk 21 Spitfires in service, for longer, than Ta152s. The Ta was rushed into service in desperation way before it was even close to being ready. You think it was better than the P51H that was happily flying about in the USA at the time?

Please, read some books before saying things u really don't know...especially about the numbers of "used" planes...Ta152 was ready in 43and put in production mid44....and yes it would be better than the poney-H (if this one had time to cross the ocean to meet him)...and how many mk21 saw combat??? the same number than P80? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm sure you're the kind of men thinking that there were also in 1945 20 me262 flying around, 45 pieces of 190D9... and the rest was 109E4 from 1940... READ BOOKS(the european ones, there is not ounce of patriotisme in those ones!!!)....yeah...yeah the poney won the war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D@mn, I better give this argument up, the level of your intellect is quite frightening.

ImpStarDuece
03-22-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:


Please, read some books before saying things u really don't know...especially about the numbers of "used" planes...Ta152 was ready in 43and put in production mid44....and yes it would be better than the poney-H (if this one had time to cross the ocean to meet him)...and how many mk21 saw combat??? the same number than P80? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm sure you're the kind of men thinking that there were also in 1945 20 me262 flying around, 45 pieces of 190D9... and the rest was 109E4 from 1940... READ BOOKS(the european ones, there is not ounce of patriotisme in those ones!!!)....yeah...yeah the poney won the war... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

The Mk 21 flew 154 combat sorties in the last 28 days of the war in Europe. Mk 21s were replaced by the Mk 22 with bubble canopy, by December 1945.

The first Ta-152H conversions were made in early August 1944, with initial production beginning in October 1944 and the first deliveries for assment in November. By the end of January, even though 67 Ta-152s had been produced, the type had flown for less than 50 hours in flight testing, mostly due to a combination of lack of fuel and engine problems which caused the loss of several planes.

Approximately 150 Ta-152s were produced by the end of the war. However, there were only 2 Ta-152Cs operational at the end of April 1945. Apart from losses to Allied bombing and straffing, the small number of remaining Ta-152Hs had been grounded because of reliability concerns, which says something significant given the situation Germany found itself in.

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2006, 06:57 AM
"What did USAF/RAF/VVS/JA/LW learnt from each other?"

Well the Brits learned from the Russians that the IIC was actually a good idea.

The Americans learned from the Brits how to land a corsair on a carrier.

Russians discovered that bad American planes could actually be quite good.

Americans discovered that the Japanese could actually make good fighter aircraft.

Germans learned it was all over when they saw P51s over berlin.

Irish_Rogues
03-22-2006, 07:24 AM
And so it begins......

JG52Karaya-X
03-22-2006, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Well, the late war 'super props' are an interesting and sprited bunch:

Tempest II -445 mph
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Spitfire Mk 21 -455 mph</span>
Hornet F.1 - 472 mph
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">190D-12 -453 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">109K-4 -452 mph </span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Ta-152 -472 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Do-335 -474 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">P-47M -470mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">P-47N -460 mph</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">F-4U4 - 464 mph</span>
P-51H - 487 mph
F8F-1 - 435 mph


Those planes marked in <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">YELLOW</span> so some action in WW2, even if it wasn't an A to A kill.

I guess the K4 saw more than just "some" action - after all AT LEAST 700 were produced, some sources stated even up to 1700 units. They were used on both the western and eastern front as most JGs sooner or later traded their G14 and G10s in for K4s.

Agree with the rest of the list though - all of those had a very very short combat records and/or were produced in very limited numbers (Ta152, FW190D12, Do335)

horseback
03-22-2006, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
Please, read some books before saying things u really don't know...especially about the numbers of "used" planes...Ta152 was ready in 43and put in production mid44....and yes it would be better than the poney-H (if this one had time to cross the ocean to meet him)...and how many mk21 saw combat??? the same number than P80? Maybe you need to read a few more books there, slick. Try reading the ones that mention how several US-based manufacturers were told in mid-1944 to scale back war production, because the politicians thought the war was already won, and they had 'better' things to do with the taxpayers' money. The USAAF and the RAF were already beating the Luftwaffe's brains out with what they had on hand-there was no pressure to bring the P-47M or P-51H into combat before they were absolutely ready, in contrast with the LW's desperate straits.

You claimed that the Ta-152 was ready for production in 1943; that's a hell of a trick to pull off in light of the fact that Kurt Tank himself is quoted in a number of sources as telling the JG 54 pilots who took delivery of the first Dora-9s in October 1944 (NOT '43) that the Dora was an 'interim type' until the Ta-152 could be made ready.
I'm sure you're the kind of men thinking that there were also in 1945 20 me262 flying around, 45 pieces of 190D9... and the rest was 109E4 from 1940... READ BOOKS(the european ones, there is not ounce of patriotisme in those ones!!!)....yeah...yeah the poney won the war... Apparently these European books have "not an ounce of patriotism"(besides the Resistance groups, many of which were organized and supported by the British or the Soviets, what exactly do most Europeans have to be 'patriotic' about vis a vis WWII?-I could go into a long riff about how pitiable I find people who have replaced love of their own country with hatred for mine, but that's for another time), but they do have gallons of anti Anglo/Americanism and a healthy dose of revisionism and specious relativism, if these 'books' are Oleg's mysterious sources of data.

The reason there has been an unbalanced amount of data about British and US conduct of the airwar from 1939 to 1945 is simply that the Germans and Japanese were ashamed (for excellent reasons) for their parts in the war, the Eastern Bloc thought that the Soviets' military histories were primarily an avenue for propaganda, and English speaking readers were the biggest single market for aviation oriented war stories. German, Hungarian, and Romanian kids didn't have a whole lot of cash to buy airplane books or build plastic models for the first thirty years or so after the war.
Basic rule of capitalism: no demand, no market, no product (or very little-books were very expensive to produce until just very recently).

Naturally, there ware a lot of cheap, poorly researched books put out between war's end and around 1990, primarily written for pre-adolescent boys, but most of the people on these boards are bright enough to know the difference between serious researchers and historians and the guys who write glorified comic books and movie scripts (this is my cue to apologize for 'Pearl Harbor' and Ben Affleck-AGAIN).

But get over yourself, please. Deriding or minimizing British and American accomplishments is no proof of historical authority.

Sometimes, the generally held opinions are the correct ones.

cheers

horseback

Slickun
03-22-2006, 12:16 PM
555 P-51H's produced. Many more ordered, but cancelled after the war.

They, and the F8, were literally hours away from operational use when the war ended, by most accounts.

Others say the H never left the States.

Some say the H actually did see combat in the Phillipines, a question not fully resolved to all's satisfaction.

487 mph, 440 at low alittudes, lower wing loading, better view, G-Suit, lead-computing gunsight, improved armament, quite a package.

Slickun
03-22-2006, 12:50 PM
Maybe you need to read a few more books there, slick.

Easy there, Buck! Smile when you say that!

Slickun
03-22-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
"What did USAF/RAF/VVS/JA/LW learnt from each other?"

Well the Brits learned from the Russians that the IIC was actually a good idea.

The Americans learned from the Brits how to land a corsair on a carrier.

Russians discovered that bad American planes could actually be quite good.

Americans discovered that the Japanese could actually make good fighter aircraft.

Germans learned it was all over when they saw P51s over berlin.


Americans learned not to turn with Japanese planes.

horseback
03-22-2006, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe you need to read a few more books there, slick.

Easy there, Buck! Smile when you say that! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How's this? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously, when have I failed to address you without at least a capital S?

cheers

horseback

CUJO_1970
03-22-2006, 07:28 PM
The US and USSR learned a great deal from German research and development in the immediate post-war years.

Operation Lusty, Project Overcast, Project Paperclip...