PDA

View Full Version : Is the FW190 a Small Aircraft?



zxwings
06-16-2009, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige (his signature):

"The FW-190 is a small aircraft period. It flys like its huge, It hits like its huge but in dimensions its tiny. Goering didnt call it his deadly horse fly for nothing" -Me
In fact the FW190A is not tiny - it's simply neither big nor small.

Difference between the size of the FW190A and that of the Bf109 is negligible: the wingspan of the Bf109 (F, G, K) is 10.6m and the wingspan of the FW190 10.52m, so the diference here is less than 1%.

And, with regard to wingspan, these two aircraft, of the same size, are LARGER than the La5 (including La5F and La5FN) and La7 and the Yak by about half a meter, but smaller than the Spitfire also by approximately half a metre. The FW190-D9, in addition, is longer than the Spitfire, again by half a metre or so.

So, while the La and the Yak may look a bit small, the FW190 is not a small aircraft at all.

zxwings
06-16-2009, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige (his signature):

"The FW-190 is a small aircraft period. It flys like its huge, It hits like its huge but in dimensions its tiny. Goering didnt call it his deadly horse fly for nothing" -Me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact the FW190A is not tiny - it's simply neither big nor small.

Difference between the size of the FW190A and that of the Bf109 is negligible: the wingspan of the Bf109 (F, G, K) is 10.6m and the wingspan of the FW190 10.52m, so the diference here is less than 1%.

And, with regard to wingspan, these two aircraft, of the same size, are LARGER than the La5 (including La5F and La5FN) and La7 and the Yak by about half a meter, but smaller than the Spitfire also by approximately half a metre. The FW190-D9, in addition, is longer than the Spitfire, again by half a metre or so.

So, while the La and the Yak may look a bit small, the FW190 is not a small aircraft at all.

danjama
06-16-2009, 07:42 PM
Okey doke.

You can't argue with the "flys like its huge, It hits like its huge" part though.

zxwings
06-16-2009, 07:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
You can't argue with the "flys like its huge, It hits like its huge" part though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Freiwillige
06-16-2009, 07:49 PM
I was talking about the impression the 190 had in the minds of most people I had discussed this with.

It seems as it had at one time to me as well that to many the 190 seemed much larger than the 109 and even nearing p-47 dimensions! So my sig points out that it is in fact small.

The 109 is considered small. Most people realize that Russian fighters are tiny. The 190 and the 109 as well as yaks and la's are for the most part "Small fighters"

BillSwagger
06-16-2009, 07:52 PM
Coming from myself, who regularly uses a P-47, the Fw190 is a small plane, based on wing span and the length of the fuselage.

What is deceivingly large about it, is it has a radial engine, which adds to its mass, making it appear much larger than most inline engine driven planes like the 109, or even a spitfire.

Throw in the Dora models with the longer nose and the design looks much sleeker, and a bit smaller, when in fact it is larger than a stock 190 airframe.

I think if people were able to see planes like these side by side, at an airshow, then they might grasp how large even the smallest fighter planes were, especially radial engine designs.

wingspan, and length only describe a portion of its dimensions.

danjama
06-16-2009, 08:22 PM
I agree. It doesn't matter how many times i walk the flight line at Duxford, i am always in awe at the size of the fighter aircraft we talk about here daily. P47's and P51's especially.

I also agree that the general sim population might believe the 190 to be a large fighter. I used to think so too. It's great though how short the wings are, and how much of that wing the aileron takes up. You can understand how the roll is so incredible.

R_Target
06-16-2009, 08:32 PM
A few years back, the Smithsonian displayed their Fw190 and P-47 right next to each other. Subjectively, the size difference is not nearly what you'd think. Hawker Sea Fury is monstrous, and side by side with an F4U, can make the Corsair look petite.

zxwings
06-16-2009, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Coming from myself, who regularly uses a P-47, the Fw190 is a small plane, based on wing span and the length of the fuselage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It can also be interpreted in this way: the P-47 is indeed a large piston engine fighter (with a wingspan of 12.4m), and this makes a normal-sized fighter appear small.

BillSwagger
06-16-2009, 08:49 PM
not exactly...whats defined as normal sized is completely subjective.
try to look at the whole of my post, and not pull aside one sentence.

I'm saying the 190 appears larger (than say a spitfire) because it has a radial engine and requires the necessary cowling to house it. Its still, in many ways, a small plane.

Spitfires are much sleeker in design and appear smaller, even with longer wings.

zxwings
06-16-2009, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
whats defined as normal sized is completely subjective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the only point on which I can try to agree with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

zxwings
06-16-2009, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
A few years back, the Smithsonian displayed their Fw190 and P-47 right next to each other. Subjectively, the size difference is not nearly what you'd think. Hawker Sea Fury is monstrous, and side by side with an F4U, can make the Corsair look petite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've seen similar pictures.

zxwings
06-16-2009, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I was talking about the impression the 190 had in the minds of most people I had discussed this with.

It seems as it had at one time to me as well that to many the 190 seemed much larger than the 109 and even nearing p-47 dimensions! So my sig points out that it is in fact small.

The 109 is considered small. Most people realize that Russian fighters are tiny. The 190 and the 109 as well as yaks and la's are for the most part "Small fighters" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand the bold type part of what you said; so far as I can remember, you or perhaps someone else talked about that long ago in this forum. But it seems to me that, to correct the false impression that the 190 is very large, saying it is small or even tiny is a bit of an exaggeration.

Kettenhunde
06-16-2009, 10:19 PM
The FW-190 is a much smaller aircraft than the P47; there is no comparison between the two when side by side.

The FW-190 is one of the dimensionally smallest fighters in WWII.

The FW-190 is 2/3rds the weight of P47 series. The P47 is ~2300lbs heavier empty compared to the FW-190A-8's empty weight.

http://www.white1foundation.or...~black3parts/b3a.jpg (http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/%7Eblack3parts/b3a.jpg)

The FW-190 is ~7ft shorter in length, ~6ft shorter wingspan, and depending on strut charge, ~3ft-~2ft shorter in height on the gear than the P-47.

"Tiny" is relative.

Dimensionally for WWII fighters, the P-38, P-47, and FW-190 on are different ends of the relative scale.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ba5tard5word
06-16-2009, 10:23 PM
Just set some stationary planes on the ground in FMB to see them stacked against each other.

Size doesn't matter much when you have armament like the FW-190's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
06-16-2009, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zxwings:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige (his signature):

"The FW-190 is a small aircraft period. It flys like its huge, It hits like its huge but in dimensions its tiny. Goering didnt call it his deadly horse fly for nothing" -Me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact the FW190A is not tiny - it's simply neither big nor small.

Difference between the size of the FW190A and that of the Bf109 is negligible: the wingspan of the Bf109 (F, G, K) is 10.6m and the wingspan of the FW190 10.52m, so the diference here is less than 1%.

And, with regard to wingspan, these two aircraft, of the same size, are LARGER than the La5 (including La5F and La5FN) and La7 and the Yak by about half a meter, but smaller than the Spitfire also by approximately half a metre. The FW190-D9, in addition, is longer than the Spitfire, again by half a metre or so.

So, while the La and the Yak may look a bit small, the FW190 is not a small aircraft at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now wait a second! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You're comparing the FW190 to other really small aircraft as well. The 109? Tiny! The La and Yak? Also very small. The FW190...for whatever reason...looks like a much larger aircraft but the first time you see one in person you have to do a double take and ask the museum staff if its a 3/4th replica or some other sort of impersonator.

When sitting it next to a Hellcat, Corsair, Thunderbolt, Lighting, it looks considerably smaller ...because it is! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
06-16-2009, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zxwings:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
whats defined as normal sized is completely subjective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is the only point on which I can try to agree with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

=)

If you think its a normal or medium sized plane, thats cool. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

I just think its a small plane... mistaken for a larger plane because of its radial engine and cowling. This beefs up its appearance next to spitfires and 109s, but IMO its still a small plane.

JtD
06-16-2009, 11:20 PM
If there's a lot of "tiny" aircraft and only a few "normal" and even less "big" ones, than maybe you need to adjust the scales.

Main fighter models that were considerably bigger than the Fw-190 (say a meter in both, length and span):
P-38
P-47
F6F
F4U
Hawker Hurricane
Hawker Typhoon
Hawker Tempest
Ki-84
That's all. It leaves about 40 main models that were not considerably bigger than the Fw.

WTE_Galway
06-16-2009, 11:57 PM
Having seen a Sea Fury close up ... I can vouch for them being rather largish ...

M_Gunz
06-17-2009, 01:12 AM
I've always thought of most US fighters as being large to huge and heavy. By that standard I thought the FW to be medium,
the 109 also. When I think small it is Yak-1 and I-16. Now I have to rethink the FW is smaller than I felt, esp after
what Crumpp and others showed in comparisons. Kurt Tank really packed that thing tight!

TS_Sancho
06-17-2009, 01:27 AM
FW190 Anton and Grumman F4F Wildcat are roughly comparable.

Freiwillige
06-17-2009, 04:04 AM
FW-190 A-8 span 10.5M-34ft 5in

F4F-4 Span 11.58M-38ft

F4F has three and a half feet on span


Length is roughly the same at 29ft for the F4F
vs 29ft 4in for the FW-190

M_Gunz
06-17-2009, 04:58 AM
Seen through a gunsight at 100-200m, is there much difference in size?

And while it says The FW-190 is a small aircraft period.
it also says in dimensions its tiny.

Here's a joke: Its tiny what? As opposed to it's tiny. ba-da-bump!

Anyway for me your point is made and perhaps a bit over-made -- which may be the OP's point?

VW-IceFire
06-17-2009, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've always thought of most US fighters as being large to huge and heavy. By that standard I thought the FW to be medium,
the 109 also. When I think small it is Yak-1 and I-16. Now I have to rethink the FW is smaller than I felt, esp after
what Crumpp and others showed in comparisons. Kurt Tank really packed that thing tight! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats the really impressive and fascinating part about both the 109 and the 190. They are small, compact, and yet they manage to pack everything in. Radios, potent guns, adequate visibility for the pilot, etc.

SterlingX
06-17-2009, 07:25 AM
it has been discussed:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/3781022307/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3781022307/p/1)

zxwings
06-17-2009, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Seen through a gunsight at 100-200m, is there much difference in size?

And while it says The FW-190 is a small aircraft period.
it also says in dimensions its tiny.

Here's a joke: Its tiny what? As opposed to it's tiny. ba-da-bump!

Anyway for me your point is made and perhaps a bit over-made -- which may be the OP's point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SterlingX:
it has been discussed:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/3781022307/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3781022307/p/1) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A wonderful picture there. However, the bombers, including the dive bombers, are irrelevant to the topic. I meant only to discuss piston engine fighters. BTW, the aircraft close to the left and right borders of the image are likely to be subject to deformation in 3D graphics and be a little enlarged.

ElAurens
06-17-2009, 08:03 PM
The F4F is positively petite compared to an F6F or P47.

The 109E is also very, very small.

ElAurens
06-17-2009, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Thats the really impressive and fascinating part about both the 109 and the 190. They are small, compact, and yet they manage to pack everything in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything except enough fuel to make them really useful for anything but point defense.

zxwings
06-17-2009, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
If there's a lot of "tiny" aircraft and only a few "normal" and even less "big" ones, than maybe you need to adjust the scales.

Main fighter models that were considerably bigger than the Fw-190 (say a meter in both, length and span):
P-38
P-47
F6F
F4U
Hawker Hurricane
Hawker Typhoon
Hawker Tempest
Ki-84
That's all. It leaves about 40 main models that were not considerably bigger than the Fw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Ki-84 is not on the list above; it's as large as the Spit.

Yes the "normal" ones should include the largest number of fighters.

It seems that everyone agrees that the Spitfire is neither large nor small, then it is reasonable to regard the Spitfire as the typical medium sized fighter. It is also reasonable to expand this medium point into a small band which is a little more than one metre long, so as to cover planes smaller or larger by less than one metre (or roughly half a metre) in this band. As a result, this band includes the FW190 and also includes, I guess, the largest number of fighter plane types.

deepo_HP
06-17-2009, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Everything except enough fuel to make them really useful for anything but point defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you mean 'really useful' like in 'useful for escort'?
i agree...
but then again, besides buff-sitting, those flying fuel-jacuzzis are not exactly the heaven of usefulness for the fighting purpose.

however, i could imagine that in the design process of the 'useful' fighters it was less like:
'hey guys, for a true fighter lets double the size and fill it up - has never been done before, must be genius'
than:
'how do we get a competitive fighter, even if we need to fill all the petrol in, so it has to be heavy?'

R_Target
06-17-2009, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Everything except enough fuel to make them really useful for anything but point defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif You can't fight if you can't get to the fight. 5th AF burned hundreds of planes on the ground when IJAAF units believed themselves out of range of American fighter sweeps.

K_Freddie
06-18-2009, 12:53 AM
German point defence was rather effective, I'd say. They didn't have to do anything else, making it costly for the allies.
Their general doctrine was flawed though, putting almost everything into 'blitzkrieg' tactics, and not developing long range a/c, which probably would have made a different result in BoB.

Kocur_
06-18-2009, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Thats the really impressive and fascinating part about both the 109 and the 190. They are small, compact, and yet they manage to pack everything in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything except enough fuel to make them really useful for anything but point defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they didn't really try. There was some space in wings of Fw 190 (and very little in Bf 109) that could have been used for fuel tanks. I don't think it would be hard to add several hundred liters in Fw 190 if outer pair of cannons was deleted.
Relation between external dimensions and tankage can be more flexible than one might think. Yak-9DD: regular Yak-9s dimensions and 845 l of fuel, over twice more than usual Yak, due to extra tanks packed wherever possible and some strenghtening of airframe. To put it in perspective: P-51 had 680 l in wings plus up to 320 in fuselage, for 1000 l in total.

horseback
06-18-2009, 10:17 AM
Just put my 1/48th scale models of the P-51B and FW-190A-3 (both Tamiya) side by side.

The size difference is not that obvious from above (planform view), though you can tell at a glance that the Mustang is bigger in both length and wingspan. The FW has a thicker fuselage and a much more pronounced taper from nose to tail.

From the side the Mustang's longer nose makes it seem even longer while the 190 still seems thicker overall, even though the Mustang is obviously deeper at the center of its fuselage.

From a 3/4 view, they look about the same size.

Now, here's a twist; I put an ICM Spitfire MkIX (early; round tail, basic elevators), which is very very close to the best scale drawings I have of the Mk IX next to the other two.

Nose to tail, the Mustang looks shorter than the Spit, although it's a scale foot or two longer when you hold one over the other. The narrowness of the Spit's fuselage emphasizes it's length, and makes it 'appear' a bit longer than the Mustang and much longer than the 190.

In planform the Spit's narrow body is swallowed up by those longer and much wider wings and again makes it seem huge compared to the 190, and it is quite a bit longer (if the noses are even, the 190's elevators end almost exactly where the Spit IX's tail section begins).

In 3/4 view, the Spit's wings again dominate; it looks huge vs the 190; a much better target.

Finally, I pulled out the ICM 1/48th scale early Yak-7 'heavy' fighter. It is very similar in overall dimensions in length and wingspan to the FW-190, and because the fuselage does not have the same taper in side view as the previous examples, gives the same perception of 'size'.

Viewed from above or 3/4 view, the 'squared' shape of the 190's wings and its thicker body make it appear somewhat larger to the eye than the Soviet 'heavy' fighter, but it's close.

I get the impression that the 190 seems nearer to the observer than the Yak, which was not the sort of effect the Mustang or Spitfire comparisons gave.

Conclusions: The 190 is not particularly big, by the standards of the day, but it was definitely compact. If it were a boxer, it would be Mike Tyson; a bit shorter than the conventional heavyweight, but heavily muscled, deceptively quick and possessing a devastating left hook.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
06-18-2009, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There was some space in wings of Fw 190 (and very little in Bf 109) that could have been used for fuel tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wings tanks are not something a designer necessarily wants to add to a dogfighter.

Wing tanks will exhibit stronger forces about the CG than a fuselage tank which can lead to some very bad or even dangerous flying characteristics.

It is not something added lightly to an aircraft intended for hard maneuvering.

All the best,

Crumpp

ElAurens
06-18-2009, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
not developing long range a/c, which probably would have made a different result in BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This.

Bremspropeller
06-19-2009, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Everything except enough fuel to make them really useful for anything but point defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Still didn't stop them from shooting down 13 in one mission or 18 a day.

They are fighters develloped for european warfare.
You know, we don't need SATCOM in order to talk to our neighbours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

danjama
06-19-2009, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Everything except enough fuel to make them really useful for anything but point defense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Still didn't stop them from shooting down 13 in one mission or 18 a day.

They are fighters develloped for european warfare.
You know, we don't need SATCOM in order to talk to our neighbours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

ElAurens
06-19-2009, 03:56 PM
Typical clueless response.

If your fighters had real range, well, why bother, they didn't, and you lost because of it.

You can't win a war with an air force designed to only fight in it's own back yard.

Something our European allies still don't get.

It's called force projection.

Look it up.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bremspropeller
06-19-2009, 06:37 PM
The fact that you're telling people (your "allies") what they're supposed to "get" is pathetic.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You can't win a war with an air force designed to only fight in it's own back yard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong.
Hundreds of wars or conflicts have been fought and won with tactical approaches only.


Oh, and I don't need to look up anything.
I guess it's time for hell to freeze before I need an advice on aerial warfare from your side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

julian265
06-19-2009, 07:27 PM
Us and them???? WTF?!

The war finished 64 years ago folks.

Logic dictates that having a longer range capability, even if you don't fill the tanks, is an advantage.

BillSwagger
06-19-2009, 07:40 PM
If i were to generalize or oversimplify the air war, then both allies and axis powers generally attacked with bombers and defended with fighters.
This is why neither side had longer range fighters until the second half of the war, when the allies needed escorts for their bombing runs.

The PTO, is different story entirely, and anyone with a globe can see why.


I'm sure had the German army had a need for longer range escort fighters it could've easily developed them, but German tactics had shifted to more modern ideas of warfare. Like rockets, and buzz bombs.

Is the 190 small, ..........yes.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the discussion. Its a subjective opinion on the size of a plane, especially when you start throwing in modern jet fighters like the f-18, or f-22. Even for WW2 standards, i regard the 190, Spitfire, yak, 109, and a handful of others as small aircraft.

I would consider the f4U a medium sized fighter. I'm looking beyond wingspan and length, but more overall mass of the airplane.
Wingspan and length, don't tell you the shape or thickness of the wings or fuselage, which tend to dictate how large you see something as.

VMF-214_HaVoK
06-19-2009, 08:49 PM
Such a simple observation and question turns into this...

danjama
06-19-2009, 09:05 PM
I pretty much agree with what Bill said above.

M_Gunz
06-20-2009, 05:57 AM
I think that in the start that the Germans expected to escort bombers with Bf-110 fighters. Ranges equaled, no?
Not so sure but was the Fairey Battle supposed to be an escort?
The Japanese sent Zeros to cover their bombers.

Sometimes the bombers flew alone especially at night with some well known exceptions.

IMO the Germans early to mid-war strategies did not call for long range fighters or bombers. It was a mistake
I am sure that at least some of them came to regret too late. It is a long time from perceived need to working
solution. If they hadn't bungled the job through short-sightedness then jets would likely have filled the bill.
Thank goodness that they did screw the pooch there!

Gammelpreusse
06-20-2009, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I think that in the start that the Germans expected to escort bombers with Bf-110 fighters. Ranges equaled, no?
Not so sure but was the Fairey Battle supposed to be an escort?
The Japanese sent Zeros to cover their bombers.

Sometimes the bombers flew alone especially at night with some well known exceptions.

IMO the Germans early to mid-war strategies did not call for long range fighters or bombers. It was a mistake
I am sure that at least some of them came to regret too late. It is a long time from perceived need to working
solution. If they hadn't bungled the job through short-sightedness then jets would likely have filled the bill.
Thank goodness that they did screw the pooch there! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany only had so much ressources. It had to concentrate on key components. And in the long run the interceptor and air superiourity roles of her fighters worked out much better then a dedicated long range escort fighter.

There were only two roles where a long range scort fighter would have made sense for Germany. In BoB, lasting only for one summer, and in Russia. But given the equal lack of a heavy four engined bomber, this hardly makes sense. Few countries can afford to invest equally in air, land AND sea warfare. Not a mistake, just a matter of priority.

Bremspropeller
06-20-2009, 03:38 PM
I've just come back from Le Bourget, where I had the chance to compare a 190A to a Yak-3, a P-47 and a P-51.

In conclusion, the 190 is much smaller in appearance than both, the 47 and the 51.
It's pretty much evenly sized (again, appearance) with the Yak.

-----

Luftwaffe had the RAF almost to the point of crumbleing - without those ominous "escort-fighters" some people claim to be so important for winning wars.
An "escort-fighter" is not a substitute for good tactics (or the lack thereof).


Then again, Germany never planned to either invade Britain or fight strategical wars.
There was thus no need for strategical approaches on fighter operations.

Claiming Germany lost the war just due to their lack of long-range fighters is really pathetic and a pretty bad oversimplification, given the campaigns the Luftwaffe fought and the successes it had.

USSR never had a "strategic" fighter arm during WW2 and still managed to win the war.

So much for countries not being able to win wars without strategical potential.
There are tons of other examples.

You can have all your strategic stuff if you want. It's not neccessary.

slipBall
06-20-2009, 03:46 PM
(quote)
Claiming Germany lost the war just due to their lack of long-range fighters is really pathetic and a pretty bad oversimplification, given the campaigns the Luftwaffe fought and the successes it had.



I feel the biggest reason, was the bombing of her factories, and the disruption's of her supply network.

ElAurens
06-20-2009, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:

I feel the biggest reason, was the bombing of her factories, and the disruption's of her supply network. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which was made possibe by...


...the ability to cover those bombers with fighters the entire time.

Or to put it from the Axis perspective, imagine the BoB if the 109E had the endurance of a Ki-61. The Luftwaffe would have been able to provide air cover for the bombers the entire time, and have fuel for far more than 10 or 15 minutes of combat. It would have changed the entire complexion of the campaign.

Why this is hard to understand is beyond me.

Bremspropeller
06-20-2009, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why this is hard to understand is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's wrong.

slipBall
06-20-2009, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why this is hard to understand is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Brem, what do you beleive to be the main reason?...sorry I did not read the whole thread.

danjama
06-20-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm with Brems on this. And slipball too. The luftwaffe were equipped to defend the reich and french soil until the invasion of normandy and beyond. The destruction of the luftwaffe and their fuel supplys was detrimental to their efforts and a key factor, not their effective range to fight. It's not like they were trying to go anywhere too far, plus they had drop tanks too, just like the allies.

I also disagree that the allied bombing offensive was made possible by escorts being present in and out. It was made possible by sheer determination of the allied bomber groups and their leaders. And the unrelenting number of bombers actually becoming operationally available thanksto factories churning them out. The main threat to allied bombers was always flak, which they could do nothing about. Again, the luftwaffe becamse less of a nuisance due to resource issues, and lack of well trained experienced pilots i believe.

DuxCorvan
06-20-2009, 04:42 PM
Well, not a fighter, I know, but what most shocked me was to realize about the size of a Ju 87 "Stuka". That plane was HUGE, but being single engined, it deceives the observer easily.

As for the role of long-range fighters, well, they would have been useful in the BoB, but still the Germans lost because they stopped dedicating all the pressure on the RAF precisely when it started to show weakness. Had they gone on with RAF erosion and attrition, Germany may have executed Sea Lion successfully, long range fighters not being really necessary then.

As for the rest of the war, Germany really needed more interceptors than long range stuff.

On the other side, IMHO, the real importance and success of the strategic bombing campaign over Germany has been grossly exaggerated. It was really devastating, but, usually, the results were readily repaired, and shortages were not that severe, specially when compared with the also heavy cost of the whole operation for the Allies. There's much war and post-war Allied propaganda about this, but if you weigh all the factors, the strategic bombing campaign was not a failure, but it was hardly a success, either.

Germany lost because the war was too long, and it couldn't compete with the endless human and material resources of their too many enemies, that's all.

ElAurens
06-20-2009, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why this is hard to understand is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your opinion.

Which is wrong.

But enough of this post count raising frivolity.

No one's minds are going to be changed.

Ever.

julian265
06-20-2009, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why this is hard to understand is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice reasoning. I'm totally convinced.

deepo_HP
06-20-2009, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by julian265:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why this is hard to understand is beyond me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it's wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice reasoning. I'm totally convinced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

as much a nice reasoning as you are convinced by it. if you feel the need for ironical replies, why shouldn't bremspropeller try the most reduced?

i would think, his reply was pointing to the quite unnecessary finish of elaurens post... at least asking someone, why he doesn't 'understand' is just like claiming to speak some basic truth - whereas elaurens hasn't done more than suggesting a hypothetical change of events. debating theoretical different outcomes of past events is not a question of 'understanding' and less is to just refuse other's arguments by 'beyond me'.

maybe bremspropeller's reply did miss reasoning nevertheless, even if i imagine it to be reasoned.
however, what was your intention then to add more of that?

M_Gunz
06-21-2009, 12:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Claiming Germany lost the war just due to their lack of long-range fighters is really pathetic and a pretty bad oversimplification, given the campaigns the Luftwaffe fought and the successes it had. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you didn't leap from me calling Germany's lack of long range bombers and escorts being a mistake to
claiming they lost the war just due to lack of long range fighters?

It has been stated since long ago that if Germany had long range bombers then they could have hit the moved
Russian industries and other strategic targets including the railroads. It might have made a difference in
when but Germany was going to lose the war anyway.

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 03:04 AM
I think everyone can agree that there is more than one single reason for Germany's defeat in the war.

The allied bombing campaigns were a success, a lot of that contributed to cutting off their supply to make new war machines, including planes.
i came across my grandfathers notes, recently. He was a tail gunner on a B-17. He gives a short account on each of his missions. His closest call was when they lost an engine to flak, and another engine had a run away prop. They had to fly home in a 110mph head wind, meaning their ground speed was a little over 80mph.
Most of his missions he flew they were able to get to the target and back with out incident.
He did make note of seeing a german fighter, and wondered if support/escort fighters were in the area to assist. The german fighter chose not engage, probably because of flak.
I don't see the Germans sending a handful of interceptors into a swarm of 20 or 30 B-17s. Flak was the preferred defense because of its ability to drape the sky and effectively knock down aircraft, with out risking a loss.

There is also a story of a couple planes that had taken heavy flak and were low on fuel. One chose to land in nuetral Switzerland, while another tried to make it home. Sure enough, the one that tried to make it back to England had to make a water landing in the ocean. As for the guys that landed in Switzerland, they were imprisoned. Although the country had declared itself nuetral, it was still controlled by the German army.

I thought that was an interesting story.

TinyTim
06-21-2009, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
As for the guys that landed in Switzerland, they were imprisoned. Although the country had declared itself nuetral, it was still controlled by the German army.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm... what?

Swiss army was fully mobilized in 1940 to defend against Nazi invasion, Swiss fighters were shooting down German intruders throughout the war, Germans even sent saboteurs to disable Swiss aaa and planes on the ground... Not a single German soldier was stationed in Switzerland. German army was far, far from controling the country.

Yes, they shot down or at least forced to landing Allied intruders too. On a few occasions allied bombers bombed Swiss cities! No wonder the crews of these bombers were imprisonded. Officially bombings were a mistake, well I can imagine missing the target factory, or even the city, but missing the whole country? Some senior allied officials even claimed that Switzerland deserved to be bombed since it was full of Nazi symphatizers, while others claimed Germany itself used captured Allied planes and bombed Switzerland to gain public support by "evilizing" allies. Ultimately, these incidents were considered a mistake, and US apologized for them.

They were simply defending their airspace against all and any intruders. Isn't that what neutrality is?

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 03:48 AM
this is how it was explained to me.

I was surprised to hear they landed in Switzerland, and were subsequently imprisoned.

My idea of neutral, meant that they did not take a side, but evidently they were also very involved in defending themselves.

The story describes it as Nazi controlled, perhaps the writer was misinformed. Also maybe there was no German army there, but Nazis still had some level of control. who knows....

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 05:06 AM
The use of Ki-61s instead of 109s wouldn't have changed much.

The Luftwaffe unerestimated the impact of RADAR on british operatons.
The RAF was able to vector interceptors right in to the bombers and ignoring the fighters most of the time.

Most of the time, RAF fighters would rely on slashing-tactics, instead of staying in the fight and risking getting shot down in large numbers.

That leaves only few time for a fight between fighters.

Then there was the order of staying close to the bombers, not allowing 109s to go down in the weeds and hunt down RAF interceptors.

The RAF wouldn't waste it's ressources to go up and intercept fighters anyway.
So those few "deep penetration" fightersweeps (if ever flown at all) that would have led to actual victories would have been small.

The Luftwaffe didn't have enough fighters to keep such a campaign up anyway.

If anything, the decision to have more, but shorter-legged fighters was a wise one.
But the LW didn't stand out there.
Every european country made exactly the same decision.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> as much a nice reasoning as you are convinced by it. if you feel the need for ironical replies, why shouldn't bremspropeller try the most reduced?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bremspropeller just had a 36hr day and din't fancy to extend it any more, by argueing on some internet forum and tell some guy why he is wrong on a totally minor topic.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been stated since long ago that if Germany had long range bombers then they could have hit the moved
Russian industries and other strategic targets including the railroads. It might have made a difference in
when but Germany was going to lose the war anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The russians aren't stupid.

It's a vast country.
Finding a wisely spread industry somewhere inside that country would have been like searching for a needle in a haystick.
Russia was able to play that game on their own will.
They had enough man-power to shift their prouction to a place wherever they wanted.
Central Siberia?
No problem for Stalin and his friends.

NO country had fighters to play that game with the russians.

They shifted their production to the Ural-mountais because they knew they were safe there.
They could have built their a/c, tanks and other stuff in Irkutsk if they wanted.
Once the logistics-line was established, there is little difference if your stuff is assembled by Dimitry in Ufa or if it's assembled by Svetlana in Irkutsk.

The Wehrmacht didn't lose the eastern campaing because o Stalin's ability to build tanks.
They did because it was an extremely bold and ambitious (read: almost impossible) plan in the first place.
And they did, because France and Britain would not play the appeasement-game any longer.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2009, 05:24 AM
There was nothing neutral about the treatment of Allied internees in Switzerland.

Swiss Industry profited off and contributed to the Axis war effort as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Neutral states are not required to restrict private citizens from selling munitions or equipment that contribute to the war effort of a belligerent nation, however, they cannot restrict commerce to one belligerent and allow it with another. By the passing of exclusive treaties, the Swiss government did effectively restrict nearly all trade with the Allies, while at the same time providing loans, munitions and key industrial components for the Axis. This clearly violated their neutral status, although this decision probably preserved their political sovereignty and territorial integrity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Switzerland certainly violated its neutrality during World War II in several areas, but violations of neutrality do not necessarily cause a nation to loose its neutral status. Many prominent historians have been debating the question of Swiss involvement in World War II over the last few decades, particularly after the revelation of Switzerland’s connections to Nazi Germany- profiteering from the war and the retention of Holocaust victim's assets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://swissinternees.tripod.com/background.html

It must be kept in mind too Switzerland is small, has cultural ties to Germany, and surrounded by Axis Powers at the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Technically, they were not POW; however, some endured far worse treatment at the hands of the Swiss than most American airmen did in Luftwaffe camps.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> USAAF personnel caught attempting escape were punished severely, sometimes well beyond the limits stipulated in the laws of war. The Swiss government’s policy toward neutrality was clearly illustrated by the fact that some USAAF bombers attempting to land in Switzerland were attacked by Swiss fighters and anti-aircraft weapons.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Several “punishment” or concentration camps were also established to house internees undergoing disciplinary punishment, normally for attempting escape. These camps included Straflager Wauwilermoos, Hünenburg, Les Diablerets and Greppen. Wauwilermoos was the most notorious of the punishment camps, due to deplorable camp conditions and a fanatical Swiss Army commander </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://untoldvalor.blogspot.co...men-interned-in.html (http://untoldvalor.blogspot.com/2008/03/remembering-airmen-interned-in.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> DETAILS OF ATROCITIES:

1.
Kind of crime: torture, beatings or other cruelties.
Where it happened: Les Diablerets.
Who was the victim: Sgt. McGee, American, was beaten by Swiss guards at Diablerets Confinement Camp. I saw it myself.

2.
Kind of crime: Imprisonment under improper conditions, and failure to provide Prisoners of War with proper medical care, food or quarters. Where it happened: Les Diablerets
Who was the victim: Food, Sanitary conditions and quarters were very poor. Could only use the ditch we used for a latrine at specified times. Slept on dirty straw, and had only one (1) moth-eaten blanked to cover with in winter. In addition, we could not get wood for stove. The food wasn’t fit for human consumption and there wasn’t enough of it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All those spending the average time in this prison suffered loss of weight, malnutrition and dental deterioration (from which I am still suffering) due to improper diet and extremely low quantity of food. Finally after serving 45 days under the strictest possible discipline constantly enforced by Swiss guards and vicious dogs, under conditions that could only be compared with German and Japanese concentration camps, and without trial of any kind whatsoever, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In view of the known facts that when Germany was winning the war, Switzerland was glad to meet all German demands, even to permitting German fliers to recuperate in Switzerland, it would seem that the United States, when winning the war, could have brought sufficient pressure on Switzerland to secure decent and humane treatment of their troops interned in that country though no fault of theirs. The conditions, etc. in regard to the concentration camp, etc, occurred in October and November of 1944. A large number of Americans escape through the efforts of Consular General Samuel Woods, who took many dangerous chances to assist these men. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> S/Sgt Marconi was a member of a B-17 bomber crew based in England which was forced to land in Switzerland. It was reported to George that Marconi tried to escape from a Swiss Army prison in August 1944, but that he was apprehended. Marconi was then imprisoned at Wauwilermoos, a Swiss Army prison in which prisoners of all nationalities were held. Marconi was kept in solitary confinement in a damp, dirty dungeon. The place of imprisonment was infested with vermin and the left side of Marconi’s body was severely “chewed up” by lice and other vermin that infested the place of his imprisonment. Marconi’s diet consisted of a bowl of thin coup and one potato each day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I talked to several of the fellows that were at Wauwilermoos and they said they just got boiled potatoes with the skins still on and soup and a fourth loaf of black bread a day. That was their ration. Some of the fellows were: T/Sgt Salvatore DeLuca, S/Sgt Carl McDonald (he was only nineteen (19) years old), my bombardier, 2nd Lt. John H. Cosner and another fellow Harry Bellmere. Bellmere and DeLuca were kept in solitary confinement for ten (10) or fifteen (15) days for trying to escape. The fellows at Wauwilermoos used to write us and ask us for food and clothing. They hardly ever got anything to eat. They looked just like skeletons when they got out of there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> DETAILS OF ATROCITIES:

1.
Kind of crime: imprisonment under improper conditions.
Where it happened: Wauwilermoos- Straflager, Switzerland.
Who was the victim: A number of men (military).
State if you saw it yourself. If you did not see it, who told you about it: Men confined to solitary confinement- very small room with cement floor- nothing to lay on- no heat. Men subsisted on water and one quarter loaf of black bread a day- men were in very poor physical condition when they were released from this confinement.

2.
Kind of crime: failure to provide Prisoners of War with proper medical care, food or quarters.
Where it happened: Wauwilermoos- Straflager, Switzerland, Cropettes Prison, Geneva, Switzerland.
Who was the victim: Myself and approximately 100 other men at different times. (Military personnel).
State if you saw it yourself. If you did not see it, who told you about it: Confinement in buildings with no head- straw to sleep on- dirty and filthy- disease ridden. Food- I personally lost 25 lbs, during my confinement. Ferocious dogs used in some instances. In cases of trying to escape firing of rifles and machine guns at men. Medical attention in case of sickness nil. Most all these 100 men either had skin diseases, dysentery, gingivitis at times. Our confinement was with all different types of criminals and prisoners- political refugees, etc.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://swissinternees.tripod.com/

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">DETAILS OF ATROCITIES:

1.
Kind of crime: imprisonment under improper conditions.
Where it happened: Wauwilermoos- Straflager, Switzerland.
Who was the victim: A number of men (military).
State if you saw it yourself. If you did not see it, who told you about it: Men confined to solitary confinement- very small room with cement floor- nothing to lay on- no heat. Men subsisted on water and one quarter loaf of black bread a day- men were in very poor physical condition when they were released from this confinement.

2.
Kind of crime: failure to provide Prisoners of War with proper medical care, food or quarters.
Where it happened: Wauwilermoos- Straflager, Switzerland, Cropettes Prison, Geneva, Switzerland.
Who was the victim: Myself and approximately 100 other men at different times. (Military personnel).
State if you saw it yourself. If you did not see it, who told you about it: Confinement in buildings with no head- straw to sleep on- dirty and filthy- disease ridden. Food- I personally lost 25 lbs, during my confinement. Ferocious dogs used in some instances. In cases of trying to escape firing of rifles and machine guns at men. Medical attention in case of sickness nil. Most all these 100 men either had skin diseases, dysentery, gingivitis at times. Our confinement was with all different types of criminals and prisoners- political refugees, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So?

What did the f*cker expect of what being a POW is like?

Maybe a Hilton suite with cable-TV, room service and a richly filled minibar? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kettenhunde
06-21-2009, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What did the f*cker expect of what being a POW is like?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were not POW's. Switzerland was not at war with the Allies.

The standard of care is outlined in the same document signed in 1929 at Geneva by the Swiss!

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-21-2009, 06:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It has been stated since long ago that if Germany had long range bombers then they could have hit the moved
Russian industries and other strategic targets including the railroads. It might have made a difference in
when but Germany was going to lose the war anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The russians aren't stupid.

It's a vast country.
Finding a wisely spread industry somewhere inside that country would have been like searching for a needle in a haystick.
Russia was able to play that game on their own will.
They had enough man-power to shift their prouction to a place wherever they wanted.
Central Siberia?
No problem for Stalin and his friends.

NO country had fighters to play that game with the russians.

They shifted their production to the Ural-mountais because they knew they were safe there.
They could have built their a/c, tanks and other stuff in Irkutsk if they wanted.
Once the logistics-line was established, there is little difference if your stuff is assembled by Dimitry in Ufa or if it's assembled by Svetlana in Irkutsk.

The Wehrmacht didn't lose the eastern campaing because o Stalin's ability to build tanks.
They did because it was an extremely bold and ambitious (read: almost impossible) plan in the first place.
And they did, because France and Britain would not play the appeasement-game any longer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where and when did I *ever* write that the Russians were stupid? Are you and FF cousins?

Wherever you build your factories you must also:
Build railroads or roads to for resources, people and products. You must provide transport for all of those.
Have water in enough for workers and industry, making and shaping steel requires huge amounts of water.
Have shelter, food and heat for the workers on scale to match the industry.
Have very very much else all in place to run production at a useful pace.

Roads in Russia are no simple thing unless during spring and fall you don't mind pushing through mud. It takes
more than simply flattening a trail across dirt to have usable roads there year around, much more effort, more
people who won't be doing something else right then and need food, water, shelter, tools.

Moving industry around is not child's play, the disruption of the move from west to east delayed production
for how long?

I do understand about the size of Russia being the principal cause of more than one major attempt to defeat it.
But surly the Russian tanks, artillery and infantry all played a major part in keeping the government out of
the hands of the Germans? I seem to keep seeing shows and reading this. It was not snipers alone that saved
Stalingrad, not rifles alone that held Leningrad from siege for all that time? It was not winter or mud all
the time.

Try to imagine Russia stopping the Germans without tanks or without T-34s or equal in large numbers! You think
that Stalingrad would have stood, that the Germans would have been stopped outside until winter? They DID get
there and did have to be held. That Moscow would not have fallen? That the counterattacks that surrounded and
defeated whole German Army Groups would have happened without massed modern Russian armor? That the final drive
to push them out, into Germany and defeat would have been possible without even more modern Russian armor?
Oh no, the tanks were just "extras", it was only size and weather that doomed the invasion? Are you so sure
given the depth of penetration the Germans made even in the face of what it took to stop them? I am wondering.

Big country yes. The biggest by far. Mostly without solid roads or other infrastructure and not easily built
or maintained, I know personally what extremes in temperatures do to roads and buildings. Can be done is not
the same as easy or cheap. The first move which was deep did cost much time, let the Germans penetrate far and
cost Russia much in resources and more than an incredible number of lives. Move and move again? What price?

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They were not POW's. Switzerland was not at war with the Allies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They violated the borders in a USAAF-aircraft.
Thus, they de-facto are POWs.

Call it what you like, if you don't like the "w".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The standard of care is outlined in the same document signed in 1929 at Geneva by the Swiss! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet every country failed to fulfill them.
Your issue is what?

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Where and when did I *ever* write that the Russians were stupid? Are you and FF cousins? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said you said it.
It's a general note as some *other* people seem to think the Russians were easy game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wherever you build your factories you must also:
Build railroads or roads to for resources, people and products. You must provide transport for all of those.
Have water in enough for workers and industry, making and shaping steel requires huge amounts of water.
Have shelter, food and heat for the workers on scale to match the industry.
Have very very much else all in place to run production at a useful pace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know.
Don't forget that Stalin wasn't exactly a friend of humanity anyway.
Need a factory?
Send a couple of POWs or political prisoners.

There has alredy been quite a bit of infrastructure:
You could built lots of factories and forced-labour camps along the Transsiberian Railroad.

Then again the move to the east had been planned in advance of Operation Barbarossa.

Don't forget that much of USSR's initial losses were due to their badly trained officer-corps.
Had they have had their pre'38 officers-cadre, they'd easyly have put up a much better fight in 1941.

squareusr
06-21-2009, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
On the other side, IMHO, the real importance and success of the strategic bombing campaign over Germany has been grossly exaggerated. It was really devastating, but, usually, the results were readily repaired, and shortages were not that severe, specially when compared with the also heavy cost of the whole operation for the Allies. There's much war and post-war Allied propaganda about this, but if you weigh all the factors, the strategic bombing campaign was not a failure, but it was hardly a success, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess it was quite successfull at keeping the skies above the advancing russian and western ground troops more or less free from the remainings of the luftwaffe.

The massed bombings during the last phases of the war contributed little to the military outcome, but so did those who had no choice but trying to fend them off.

ElAurens
06-21-2009, 07:57 AM
The USAAF bombed the Sauer arms plant in Switzerland. Apparently just across a river from Germany. A regrettable, but easy mistake, considering they were supplying the Germans with arms.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2009, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus, they de-facto are POWs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they are not POW, not even to the Swiss. They were treated worse than POW's however in some cases.

That is real issue with the surviving Swiss Internees. Because they were not affored POW status, they do not get any of the benefits afforded them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Concerning your internment as American soldier in Switzerland

Dear Mr. Culler,

I received your account of the experience you made during your interment in Switzerland as a member of the US Armed Forces from the Swiss Embassy in Washington. I read your portrayal with great interest and regret that the memory of your internment in 1944 and, in particular, that of your detention in Wauwilermoos is coloured by such traumatic experience.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yours sincerely



Kaspar Villiger
President of the Swiss Confederation
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://swissinternees.tripod.com/villiger.html

All the best,

Crumpp

robtek1957
06-21-2009, 09:45 AM
What i don´t get is:
How does all this relate to the topic????

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 09:47 AM
They gave a war and he came.
He cut a corner and was gunned down in Switzerland.

Of course the swiss wanted to make him regret his move.

Flying over a neutral country is a hostile act.
Thus I call it POW.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2009, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Flying over a neutral country is a hostile act. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prisoner of War is a lawful combatant captured or who has surrendered to enemy forces.

Switzerland was a neutral country and not a combatant nation during WWII.

No matter how difficult it is to tell the difference in practical terms on the ground, there is a huge difference in legal status.

Kettenhunde
06-21-2009, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This is why commodore Henderson, commander of the 1st Brigade, had no other option than to proceed to the neutral Netherlands.

Here the British troops were interned according to the international rules of law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The British received the right to regularly 'go on leave' to the centre of Groningen - sometimes the inhabitants complained of their alcohol abuse. Even later they received visitation rights allowing them, by word of honour and under certain conditions, to go to England for four weeks (often prolonged to eight weeks). Also more and more contacts with the people of Groningen were established. A lot of 'Tommies' (as they were called by the Dutch people) became regular family friends of families from Groningen and there were courtships and marriages with Dutch girls.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Already at an early stage the interned were asked to become involved in the daily labour process, on a voluntary basis and as much as possible in the area of their original civilian profession. Next to getting out of the rut of military existence, this offered possibilities for more social activities and more pay. For hiring these interned the Dutch government gave out special permits to prevent them from taking up Dutch jobs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl...menvatting/index.htm (http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/englishcamp/samenvatting/index.htm)

Bremspropeller
06-21-2009, 11:52 AM
Well, what exactly - per definition - is a guy that just violated your airspace en-route to or from a bombing-mission then?

To make things easier:
What - per definition - is a guy that has just bombed your (neutral) country?

Bombing a neutral country in itself is a hostile act - an active act of aggressiveness - and thus a (war) crime.

I DO get your point and the definition, but it actually doesn't make sense to not call people prisoners of war, if there's no declaration of such, yet still shots are being fired and acts of hostility are being exchanged.

You could approach it from a different angle, calling stray-bombers partisans and not giving them "POW" rights at all.
That would put the swiss back in the game.

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robtek1957:
What i don´t get is:
How does all this relate to the topic???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for bringing it up, it tied into the part of the discussion as far as how the Germans might've had a use for an escort fighter, and how the Allied bombing runs were viewed as a success.

Then I introduced this story of the pilots and crew aboard a B-17 low on fuel, landing in Switzerland, only to be imprisoned.
Apparently, Switzerland was Nazi controlled although not dominated by the German army.
I'm not sure if that's true, but that's how the story describes their ordeal.

Was Switzerland Nazi controlled, or were they in cooperation with Nazi Germany??? Its sounds like to some degree they were.

When Allies bombed France, they were not seen as enemies, or hostile, even when they missed and hit civilians.

From the history i've read, as well as some information revealed on this post, it sounds as though the Swiss were very close to being at war with the Allies as well.

WTE_Galway
06-21-2009, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robtek1957:
What i don´t get is:
How does all this relate to the topic???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry for bringing it up, it tied into the part of the discussion as far as how the Germans might've had a use for an escort fighter, and how the Allied bombing runs were viewed as a success.

Then I introduced this story of the pilots and crew aboard a B-17 low on fuel, landing in Switzerland, only to be imprisoned.
Apparently, Switzerland was Nazi controlled although not dominated by the German army.
I'm not sure if that's true, but that's how the story describes their ordeal.

Was Switzerland Nazi controlled, or were they in cooperation with Nazi Germany??? Its sounds like to some degree they were.

When Allies bombed France, they were not seen as enemies, or hostile, even when they missed and hit civilians.

From the history i've read, as well as some information revealed on this post, it sounds as though the Swiss were very close to being at war with the Allies as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Swiss played both sides. When a German aircraft fitted with secret navigation gear force landed in Switzerland the German's had to give them a squadron of 109's to get it back.

Needless to say with German forces within a few meters of the Swiss border and Hitler getting more and more irrational they were a lot more careful about upsetting the Third Reich than the Allies.

deepo_HP
06-21-2009, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Sorry for bringing it up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well, why do you then repeat the sama again, iof you were sorry?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
Apparently, Switzerland was Nazi controlled although not dominated by the German army.
I'm not sure if that's true, but that's how the story describes their ordeal.

Was Switzerland Nazi controlled, or were they in cooperation with Nazi Germany??? Its sounds like to some degree they were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
suisse was noz 'nazi'-controlled, pretty much a strange story. as well as kettenhunde's prisoner camps!

suisse has several different cultural relations. the cantons speak french, italian, german and ratoromanic. the german speaking parts are the most populated, and there was a group organised, which strongly supported nazi-ideas. this group however was very small and had no political influence.

suisse maintained a so-called armed neutrality, as it obviously was surrounded by war.
there were highly questionable policies and probably several founded accusations concerning suisse foreign relations. so they refused to give asylum to jewish, so on passing the border they had to proof that they would only transit. this was clearly to please the germans. however, there had been much green-border help as well, circumventing official reports thereby. it seemed a disagreement between suisse government and parts of the population on this topic. so suisse gave asylum for at all 100.000 jews, many kept illegal and mostly in geneve, and it had to be expected legal prosecution, if not covered by cantonal laws.
however, the federal treatment of jewish asylum seeking is at least still a matter of questionable attitude.

most of nazi-money has been transferred through suisse banks and was good for big profit. then again, the same has been done by everyone and still is.

with all this might be true, it still got involved least in the european war!
during the war, they kept the principle of direct democracy up all time, even had several referendums and they banned the death penalty during war and stayed with it after.

suisse mobilised the army on start of war and wouldn't have allowed anyone to cross the borders. nevertheless, the most concern was the possibility of a german occupation - which had been discussed several times by germans. suisse took into account to gardually step back into the mountains in that case and built resevoirs in distinctive retreat lines. they made fields out of sportyards and eventually had setup a secure refuge and food for two thirds of the population.

and sure, to remain in a neutral status, the allies had to kept out as well.
there was military action against air-intruders and the first were 10 german 109s. after few early airfights, order was not to engage for lack of modern equipment.
on several occasions americans bombed suisse factories and railroads, causing 50 deaths, even basel and zurich were targeted. although claiming it was mistakingly, it was taken sceptical and believed for threatening purpose. still suisse regarded as accident in official, and kept to warn the us, that they will force fighters down and intercept formations from then on. danaged aircraft would be allowed to land.
i don't know, if you were relating to the following event, but in 44 a b-17 was escorted by p-51 into suisse. on sight of suisse fighters, both p-51s opened fire without warning and shot down 2 suisse pilots, another heavily injured. the b-17 landed later in suisse.


for the claim of bad treatment of interned soldiers is no reliable source!
kettenhunde is right, the status of prisoner of war is well defined, and those interned were not. if they have committed a crime by suisse laws, they will be treated as suisse laws say.
most of the interned soldiers haven't bombed anyone though but still it is very disputable, what these obscure reports have to say. considering, that surrounded suisse had quite a problem to get enough ressources, and with a population of not 4mio there were 500.000 interned refugees and soldiers, it was a logistic problem already. it might be, that they received no friendly cup of tea in the morning and perhaps they had to sleep on concrete - lots of suisse have done it as well.
still there has never been any official debating on the treatment of interned people.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
When Allies bombed France, they were not seen as enemies, or hostile, even when they missed and hit civilians. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so who told you that?
i mean, is this another 'story' you heard?

france is a big enough country to very probably bear a wide variety of opinions that time, going from collaborateurs to resistance. a lot have german relatives, many a lot consider them as archenemies.

so i would think, that the population very well had divided views on getting bombed. do you honestly think, there is friendly, allied feeling, if the flesh is lying around by american bombs?

half of france was not occuppied, half of it was. so which one do you mean?

you also remember, that france had been attacked pretty early and was in war with germany and allied with the allies? so germans were seen hostile and allies not.

you still have in mind, that suisse was armed and neutral? as in officially not bothering about the war? by convention they had any international right to get intruders down.
which kind of attitude do you think, suisse had to show against intruders, which also bomb them?

Viper2005_
06-21-2009, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zxwings:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige (his signature):

"The FW-190 is a small aircraft period. It flys like its huge, It hits like its huge but in dimensions its tiny. Goering didnt call it his deadly horse fly for nothing" -Me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In fact the FW190A is not tiny - it's simply neither big nor small.

Difference between the size of the FW190A and that of the Bf109 is negligible: the wingspan of the Bf109 (F, G, K) is 10.6m and the wingspan of the FW190 10.52m, so the diference here is less than 1%.

And, with regard to wingspan, these two aircraft, of the same size, are LARGER than the La5 (including La5F and La5FN) and La7 and the Yak by about half a meter, but smaller than the Spitfire also by approximately half a metre. The FW190-D9, in addition, is longer than the Spitfire, again by half a metre or so.

So, while the La and the Yak may look a bit small, the FW190 is not a small aircraft at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before this gets locked I would like to point out that this is all relative.

As a glider pilot I generally fly aeroplanes with a 15 m wingspan, and so for me that's normal. From time to time I've flown 18 m gliders. They feel quite big, as you'd expect.

When I fly powered aeroplanes they're obviously somewhat smaller.

A Cessna 150 actually has a 10.2 m wingspan; a Pa-38 has a 10.36 m wingspan. The Cessna has an alleged 100 bhp flat out, the Pa-38 112 a claimed 112. A late model 190 puts out what? Seventeen or Eighteen times that?

The Spitfire has a span of 11.23 m and about the same power as the 190 (Mark IX). The P-51 has a span of 11.28 m and the same power as the Spitfire.

So the 190 is much smaller than the gliders I fly, much smaller in terms of span/power than the light aeroplanes I fly on my PPL, and indeed it's smaller on the same criterion than the Spitfire or the Mustang.

Throw in the fact that it generally carried a heavier armament than both (please don't bring up the fact that the light aircraft I fly from time to time lack armament; it has on occasion been something of a sore point after some hooligan has cut me up in the circuit...), and I think it's really fair to say that it was a small aeroplane.

IMO as an engineer, small is beautiful. Size is a good surrogate for cost (really what I'm saying is that mass is a good surrogate for cost, and size is a good surrogate for mass) when you're analysing an aeroplane, and so if you get competitive performance from a smaller package then the chances are that you've won on a cost/benefit basis.

BTW, the Wright Flyer had a wingspan of 12.29 m...

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 10:07 PM
A good read i can recommend to those who are interested is Half a Wing, Three Engines and a Prayer. Relating to the B-17s stories i've mentioned.

I'm skirting any political discussions about the war, because it seems that people can be quite passionate about their views.

There is more depth on the subject of Switzerland and its 'neutrality' but this is probably not the place to discuss it under this post.

Is the 190 small......yes.



have a nice day.