PDA

View Full Version : The Hawker Tempest is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII



XyZspineZyX
06-08-2002, 11:55 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this plane is a Bad *********
I was faster than the P 51D and P 47D (I think it was better)
and had a brutal acelleration
and a good arnament
excellent as a groundattack plane
and it looks really good
It´s my favorite plane



does anybody know if any Tempests were used on the eastern front?



Message Edited on 06/09/0208:57AM by SmokeJaguar

XyZspineZyX
06-08-2002, 11:55 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this plane is a Bad *********
I was faster than the P 51D and P 47D (I think it was better)
and had a brutal acelleration
and a good arnament
excellent as a groundattack plane
and it looks really good
It´s my favorite plane



does anybody know if any Tempests were used on the eastern front?



Message Edited on 06/09/0208:57AM by SmokeJaguar

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:04 AM
Tempest rocked at low to med altitudes.


Rergards, John Waters

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes bullets & bombs, damn I love this job." Duke Nukem


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:10 AM
If anybody have some cool pics of Tempest plees post them.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:21 AM
>> The Hawker Tempest is absolutely one of the best
>> fighters of WWII

Fully agree !

So what ?

The Hawker Hurricane is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII.

The Messerschmitt Me109 is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII.

The Yakolev Yak-3 is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII.

The Lockheed P-38 is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII.

And of course....

The Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 is absolutely one of the best fighters of WWII.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Now this board is getting philosophical. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Dora-9

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:23 AM
Totally agree. That was far and away my favorite airplane in European Air War, which is the only sim I've ever had that modelled it. It had some lethal cannons in that game.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:27 AM
OK, wat if I say, It was the best fighter in WWII?
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





Message Edited on 06/08/0211:28PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:33 AM
One thing you forget about it's achille's heel is poor climb ability. It is like cat can outrun dog but with claw clipped off, it is hopeless when cat's staina fall off as can not climb tree to escape. (just certain variant that saw in combat most time) also they label as attack aircraft most time.

http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/graphics/tempest-main.jpg




Message Edited on 06/08/0206:46PM by WereSnowleopard

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:39 AM
Klondiked wrote:
- Totally agree. That was far and away my favorite
- airplane in European Air War, which is the only sim
- I've ever had that modelled it. It had some lethal
- cannons in that game.
-
-

Yes,and it´s sad that this plane is so often forgotten. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Nobody seems to give it any notice.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:41 AM
Raw power:
http://flightsimmers.net/airbase/sburling/Tempest%20jpg.jpg

One of the few WW2 fighters with a genuine 2000hp engine (ie one that ran at this rating for more than just 10 minutes)

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:42 AM
But not for IL2

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:45 AM
The Tempests climb rate was dependent on its altitude Ie, in British test the Tempest V could out climb the P-51B upto 10,000ft, with the Tempest & P-51B haveing the same climb rate from 10,000ft - 25.000ft. The P-51B had an advantage in climb rate over 25,000ft. Which meant the Tempest could out climb the Fw 190 upto 10,000ft & was even with it upto 22,000ft as well.

Regards, John Waters


"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Bullets, Babes, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:47 AM
I remember flying it around in EAW. IIRC, it was really uber! Fast, lots of firepower.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:53 AM
WereSnowleopard wrote:
- One thing you forget about it's achille's heel is
- poor climb ability. It is like cat can outrun dog
- but with claw clipped off, it is hopeless when cat's
- staina fall off as can not climb tree to escape.
-
<img
- src="http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/graphics/tempe
- st-main.jpg">
-
-
-
-

The plane on the picture belonged to a great french pilot named Pierre Closterman
who scored 37 kills. flying for RAF.
He wrote a book about his life as a fighterpilot during the war,
I warmly recommend this book,it is with out a doubt the best book I ever red about
a WWII pilot./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 01:33 AM
Saw "combat" the last 2 weeks in ETO, the F.21. Surely the best prop-driven fighter.

http://www.vflintham.demon.co.uk/aircraft/spit/spit23.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 01:36 AM
no this was./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ....just missed the war. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

http://www.aviation.nmstc.ca/Eng/Collection/image/sd069a.jpg

Hawker Sea Fury


aka Crop-Duster on Hyperlobby
http://crop-duster.freewebspace.com/images/rcafpost.jpg



Message Edited on 06/09/0212:38AM by AlphaMikeFxtrt

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 01:39 AM
I love the Tempest, it and the Typhoon. But in a dogfight all I have to say is I hope I have a wingman with me.


http://flightsimmers.net/airbase/jg1jasta4/Flugelsig2.gif


"Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible."
--Capt. Edward "Eddie" Rickenbacker

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 02:19 AM
No this was- the Martin Baker MB5. Throttled at birth by jealous rivals.
http://flightsimmers.net/airbase/sburling/mb5.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 04:01 AM
How's this?
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Panther

http://www.rendersworld.com/Tempest/intoglory.jpg

http://www.rendersworld.com/Tempest/TheChase.jpg

http://www.rendersworld.com/Tempest/guntest.jpg

http://www.rendersworld.com/Tempest/breaknow.jpg


http://www.ebonywings.com/ewgraphics/fpgraphics/aircraftmarkings/p51early99thfs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 04:13 AM
Is there such thing as an ugly WWII fighter?

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/AAA_SkyChimp_sig.jpg

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/index.html

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 04:56 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Is there such thing as an ugly WWII fighter?
-

Oh, yes sir! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Boomerang!

Hehehehehe...

S!

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 04:59 AM
Oh yeah. And the Blackburn ROC comes to mind as well.

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/AAA_SkyChimp_sig.jpg

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/index.html

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:26 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Oh yeah. And the Blackburn ROC comes to mind as
- well.
-

Ouch!
Now *that's* hitting below the belt! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

(Always thought the MC200 was ugly as well - all those valve covers! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Amazing that it was the progenitor of two real beauties, the 202 & 205...)

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:32 AM
Like the Typhoon wasn't it outperformed in turn radius by a rather large amount making it a bit of target practice for the Luftwaffe Fw-190 and Bf-109? Sure it had excellent armament but if you can't get in for the kill then you will get killed, i mean climb and all is good but then you would have to only rely on strafing passes to engage in air-combat, hence it was relegated to the tank-buster/ground attack role, excellent power at low altitude and armed with enough fire power to make a panzer crews life miserable, also regained some maneuveurability at lower levels too. Not quite sure though.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:39 AM
If we are going to talk about greatest planes of WWII and include a few that didn't quite serve, my money is on the Grumman Bearcat.

It had a huge engine, 4 20 mm guns and a phenomenal roll and climb rate. It's too bad it wasn't 3 years earlier (like most of the late WWII planes).

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:49 AM
Nige_Reconman wrote:
- Like the Typhoon wasn't it outperformed in turn
- radius by a rather large amount making it a bit of
- target practice for the Luftwaffe Fw-190 and
- Bf-109? Sure it had excellent armament but if you
- can't get in for the kill then you will get killed,
- i mean climb and all is good but then you would have
- to only rely on strafing passes to engage in
- air-combat, hence it was relegated to the
- tank-buster/ground attack role, excellent power at
- low altitude and armed with enough fire power to
- make a panzer crews life miserable, also regained
- some maneuveurability at lower levels too. Not
- quite sure though.


The Typhie was the main reason the low altitude Fw 190 jabo raids were stopped on England. Prior to the Typhie Fw's were able to engage & disengage at will with Spitfire IXs etc, because the IX couldn't catch the A-4 at low altitude. After the Typhie Fw losses sky rocketed. That IMHO says eneough about the Typhoons capability as an LL interceptor.


Regards, John Waters



"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 06:14 AM
http://www.clasohm.com/aviation/big/97-09-40_Corsair.jpg


http://www.medio.mh.se/~carolus/pictures/grail/knightof.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 06:49 AM
I don't know if it will be flyable, but I've seen several screenshots of the Tempest for CFS3.



Message Edited on 06/09/0205:50AM by Jeabus

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 07:00 AM
What flight sim(s) were those pictures of the Temp and spit that Panther posted from? Looks really good..

Agent

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 08:45 AM
SE_Agent_006_9 wrote:
- What flight sim(s) were those pictures of the Temp
- and spit that Panther posted from? Looks really
- good...
-
- Agent

http://www.rendersworld.com/

Message Edited on 06/09/0207:46AM by AlphaMikeFxtrt

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 09:04 AM
No sim...Just 3D renderings. Also, I have an Osprey book that says the Tempest could "just barely" turn inside the P-51D. (just for comparison)

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Panther


http://www.ebonywings.com/ewgraphics/fpgraphics/aircraftmarkings/p51early99thfs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 09:39 AM
don't belive everything u read. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

aka Crop-Duster on Hyperlobby
http://crop-duster.freewebspace.com/images/rcafpost.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 09:42 AM
Stewby sad that MB.5 never entered production lines. I'm not sure yet, but I guess the prototyp crashed, while Churchil was witness of that.

The MB.3 had a an incredible armament of 6x20mm and that in 1940./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , but I don't about the fate of that construction.

Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 12:01 PM
the tiff was a great plane and the tempest evolution, it is a good thing that they cured the tendancy to lose the tail at times for no reason, if you lood on early tiff's they have what look like giant staples holding their tails on.

btw is there anyone who dosent agree the Johnnie Johnson was the best allied fighter pilot of WWII, not a damn yank!
highest scoring brit, only once fired on a two(or more) engine aircraft(Me110) all the rest were fighter kills, and only hit by an enemy aircraft once, a FW190 put a cannon through the wing root on his spit

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" Whinny Churchill

"He must of been talking about out bar bills" an RAF Pilot


btw the boomerang wasnt ugly just uniquly australian

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 02:58 PM
Kimura,
The Griffon- powered MB5 was noted for superb handling characteristics. The contra- prop meant there was no torque reaction to contend with throughout flight and the large control surfaces gave fantastic response to input. The 2000hp engine gave it a high rate of climb and the sloping nose and high- perched cockpit gave an ideal view on takeoff/landing- and for gunnery.
It was engineered from the outset for field maintenance (like the 190) and all vital components were easily accesssible thanks to large removable panels along the fuselage sides. The cockpit layout was similar to that of a 190, with floor and side consoles. Stability on the ground was excellent thanks to the wide, inwards- retracting undercarriage. In general layout it resembled the Mustang but was larger in every dimemsion. It incorporated all the lessons learned over the preceeding three years.
Those pilots who got to fly it universally praised it (including Eric Brown) and it has never been satisfactorily explained why it did not enter production (could have been in service in 1944). The official explanation was that Supermarine and Hawker had fighters of adequate performance and the Air Ministry did not want a third company to get involved in series production of fighters. It is suspected, however, that those two companies lobbied hard for this decision to be taken to preserve their position (and lucrative contracts).
The MB5 did not crash and in fact was used as an instructional airframe for technical staff up until 1955.
There was correspondence in Aeroplane magazine a couple of years ago between readers and directors of Martin Baker Ltd trying to track down what happened to it. The company had looked for the machine in the 'fifties with a view to preserving it but although various ex- servicemen remembered seeing it at this base or that, it was never located and the trail ran cold. Most probably it ended its days on a firing range.
It was the MB3 that crashed on a test flight killing the eponymous Mr Martin. The MB3 was another deeply impressive fighter designed by Martin Baker- this time powered by a Napier Sabre. It was also a private venture and without official backing the company could not afford to keep it under development. Another wasted opportunity.



Message Edited on 06/10/0201:29AM by Stewbie

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 03:50 PM
"deeply impressive fighter "
How deep?

The Hawker Tempest and Fury were everything the Typhoon'
was supposed to be but failed at.

It was an excellent fighter and performed well as long
as it's overly complicated and un reliable Napier Sabre
would run properly. 24 cylinders and sleeve valve the sabre was a monstrosity.

With the far superior Bristol Centaurus 18 cylinder sleeve valve
radial it was a world beater. Speed is life and the Fury was
very fast. I feel it was twice the fighter than any Spit.

Vinnie

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:26 PM
Vinnie_Gumbatz wrote:
- "deeply impressive fighter "
- How deep?
-
- The Hawker Tempest and Fury were everything the
- Typhoon'
-
- was supposed to be but failed at.
-
- It was an excellent fighter and performed well as
- long as it's overly complicated and un reliable Napier
- Sabre would run properly. 24 cylinders and sleeve valve
- the sabre was a monstrosity.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A little unfair to Napier I feel.
By 1944 early problems with the Sabre's sleeve valves had been cured and it was a reliable engine. Its early reputation for unreliability was due to the fact that it had been rushed into service in 1941, before it was mature, and still, in effect, experimental.
It eventually gave up to 3055hp at 3850 rpm for a weight of 2540 lb.
I would point out that the Germans tried to develop a 24 cylinder liquid- cooled radial called the Jumo 222- and failed completely because of the technical difficulties.

I don't disagree about the Tempest and Fury though. Sir Sidney Camm got it wrong with the Typhoon's thick wing- as he later acknowledged.

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:33 PM
Vinnie_Gumbatz wrote:
- "deeply impressive fighter "
- How deep?
-
- The Hawker Tempest and Fury were everything the
- Typhoon'
-
- was supposed to be but failed at.
-
- It was an excellent fighter and performed well as
- long
-
- as it's overly complicated and un reliable Napier
- Sabre
- would run properly. 24 cylinders and sleeve valve
- the sabre was a monstrosity.
-
- With the far superior Bristol Centaurus 18
- cylinder sleeve valve
-
- radial it was a world beater. Speed is life and the
- Fury was
- very fast. I feel it was twice the fighter than any
- Spit.
-
- Vinnie
-
-
-
-
-
I totally agree with you.
and it was one of only a few planes that could hadle speeds around 1000km/h without any problems./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:45 PM
Almost evrywere you read about the tempest and its speed
it says the maximum speed is either 697km/h or 704km/h
but i have red books were pilots who flew tempest said it was mutch faster
and if you used the emergency power of the engine it did around 800km/h
with over 3000 ! horsepowers./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-09-2002, 05:50 PM
Kittychan wrote:

- btw is there anyone who dosent agree the Johnnie
- Johnson was the best allied fighter pilot of WWII,
- not a damn yank!
- highest scoring brit, only once fired on a two(or
- more) engine aircraft(Me110) all the rest were
- fighter kills, and only hit by an enemy aircraft
- once, a FW190 put a cannon through the wing root on
- his spit
-
The accolade of top scoring RAF pilot should go to South African born Marmaduke St John Pattle whose score was at least 41 (some say it was close to 60 but records confirming this were lost). The Hurricane ace was killed in action in 1941 during the desperate fighting in the Meditteranean.

XyZspineZyX
06-10-2002, 04:42 PM
Hi Guys! One of the problems we have when making comparisons is the 'apples with apples' syndrome. What I mean is, we don't all have the same criteria when we are trying to decide what the best fighters of WW2 are (or the best fighters of any war, for that matter). In my book, its not just a matter of performance specs as stated on paper. We can start by looking as what the people who flew and fought in these machines have got to say. Better still, let's consider what their ENEMIES thought. A fighter that gains the respect of one's adversary, and retains that respect for the duration of the conflict, has to be a candidate for 'one of the best fighters' title. Another angle that we should consider, in my opinion, is the relative importance of a particular type. Did it serve for the entire conflict or just a portion of it? If it served for the whole conflict, was it still a viable 1st line fighter by the end? What quantities was it produced in? How many theatres of operation did it serve in? Experimental prototypes, types that served only for the last few weeks or months, types that appeared too late altogether? They are very interesting and no doubt many had an impact on subsequent developments after WW2, but surely they are hardly relevant when considering the 'best fighters of WW2' issue.
Just a thought. Regards, panther3485.

XyZspineZyX
06-10-2002, 04:53 PM
i thought the tempest had oil cooler problems?



"The views expressed herein may not necessarily be those of the author."

XyZspineZyX
06-10-2002, 04:54 PM
THE TEMPEST:

In an effort to correct problems with compressibility encountered with the wing design of the Hawker Typhoon, extensive changes were made in the design. These included a new wing cross section that became much thinner and spitfire like. The engine was also changed and the cannon were buried within the wing. This radically altered design was used as the template for the Typhoon II specification but it was eventually decided that the design was so different that a new designation was warranted. In this manner the Tempest was born.

The Tempest proved to be quite adept at downing V-1 flying bombs, accounting for over 1/3 of those shot down in 1944. Eventually the Mark II (developed after Mk. V & VI) entered service in November 1945 with production being handled by Gloster, then Bristol before reverting back to Hawker(also a high number of ME-262 kills).

The Mark II was redesignated the F.2 and served until 1953. 89 of these were then passed on to India and an additional 24 new airframes were manufactured for Pakistan. A few Mk V & VI (redesignatedpost-war as F.5 and F.6) continued to serve after wars end as target tugs.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 10:14 AM
I heard someone said something about Typhoons in Russia
were there any?

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 11:09 AM
the tempest is ugly. bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 11:55 AM
KGB_RUSSIA wrote:
- the tempest is ugly. bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
-
-
SO ARE YOU!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 12:13 PM
the air intake on it looks like a massive wart.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 12:17 PM
Like on your nose!/i/smilies/16x16_man-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 12:33 PM
ever looked in the mirror lately? no? i dont thinks so coz every time you do it shatters.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 12:52 PM
HA HA HA !

by the way

TEMPEST RULES.

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 12:59 PM
Notes on the Sabre:

- Bristol objected to manufacuring sleeves for the Sabre even though the bore was the same as their Taurus engine. (Napier used Taurus sleeves when testing materials, tools and manufacturig techniques for the Sabre)

- the centerless ginders (6 Sundstrand) needed for sleeve production came from the USA, the P&W plant in Kansas City (R-2800C motors) - P&W was not happy.

- the Sabre VII used ADI (English version of MW50). Test runs produced 4000hp (with ADI) though was normally 3500hp @ 70.6" of Hg.

- the 4 barrel SU carb replaced with the Hobson-RAE single point fuel injection unit in 1942.

- coolant flow was 367gal/min; oil flow was 41 gal/min

- the Coffman starter developed a monetary 25hp
- if the engine did not start with the 5 supplied cartridges, a lenthy maintenance procedure was required.

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 02:34 PM
- A little unfair to Napier I feel.
- By 1944 early problems with the Sabre's sleeve
- valves had been cured and it was a reliable engine.
- Its early reputation for unreliability was due to
- the fact that it had been rushed into service in
- 1941, before it was mature, and still, in effect,
- experimental.

The Sabre was an unrelaible enigne all the times. It imporved, but never reached the relaiabilty of simple 12 cylinders. On the top of that, it was relaitivelylow powered for it`s weight and darg, I would say a normal radial was dfar much better than it, being more relaible, lighter, and inducing less drag.

Best examples of this are the Typhonn with the mostre HP vs. the Fw 190 with a small radial. Same speed, without comlplciations.


- It eventually gave up to 3055hp at 3850 rpm for a
- weight of 2540 lb.
- I would point out that the Germans tried to develop
- a 24 cylinder liquid- cooled radial called the Jumo
- 222- and failed completely because of the technical
- difficulties.


I would like to popint out that you are totally wrong. First the Jumo did not failed but was still udner development. Second, linked enignes they already had, the 3100 HP 24 cylnder DB 610 was in wirdescale production already, and was become a reliable powerplant by 1944, if handled according to instructions.



http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/me109/me109_02lg.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság,
K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)



May the MK 108 be with you!

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 04:36 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- I would like to popint out that you are totally
- wrong. First the Jumo did not failed but was still
- udner development. Second, linked enignes they
- already had, the 3100 HP 24 cylnder DB 610 was in
- wirdescale production already, and was become a
- reliable powerplant by 1944, if handled according to
- instructions.
-
-


What large scale production a/c was the DB610 used in beside the He 177 (not really large scale production) which never really cured its engine problems?

Also what were the production numbers for the "wirdescale production" DB610 engine?

The "ultimate" radial was the Lycoming XR-7755 for the B-36 until 'politics' killed it.


**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 04:52 PM
the 190d came out to late in the war.to make any or very little change.IN my minds eye,Germany should of waited until late 1943 to start their world conquest.IM not a nazi but believe in tactics.If they waited until the me262 came out.Then allied bombers would of had no chance.Many blunders on the nazi parts.

But yes by far the me262 and the fw190-d along with the spitfire and the p-51 are by far very sexy looking planes

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 06:05 PM
Boomerang ugly? No - just weird Aussie stuff like the weird machine gun they used with the mag on top, and that weird stuff they eat that looks like a copy of Marmite, but tastes like sh@!

If you want 'ugly' just look at anything French from WW2 - MS406 - what a fat bellied porker that was! yechhh! and anything that Potez made is gauranteed to either make you laugh or sick. The Dewotine 502 (520?) wasn't toooo ugly I suppose - just plain crap like their football team (hell, I bet even the yanks could beat them!)

TeeHee

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 07:12 PM
panther3485 wrote:
- Hi Guys! One of the problems we have when making
- comparisons is the 'apples with apples' syndrome.
- What I mean is, we don't all have the same criteria
- when we are trying to decide what the best fighters
- of WW2 are (or the best fighters of any war, for
- that matter). In my book, its not just a matter of
- performance specs as stated on paper. We can start
- by looking as what the people who flew and fought in
- these machines have got to say. Better still, let's
- consider what their ENEMIES thought. A fighter that
- gains the respect of one's adversary, and retains
- that respect for the duration of the conflict, has
- to be a candidate for 'one of the best fighters'
- title. Another angle that we should consider, in my
- opinion, is the relative importance of a particular
- type. Did it serve for the entire conflict or just
- a portion of it? If it served for the whole
- conflict, was it still a viable 1st line fighter by
- the end? What quantities was it produced in? How
- many theatres of operation did it serve in?
- Experimental prototypes, types that served only for
- the last few weeks or months, types that appeared
- too late altogether? They are very interesting and
- no doubt many had an impact on subsequent
- developments after WW2, but surely they are hardly
- relevant when considering the 'best fighters of WW2'
- issue.
- Just a thought. Regards, panther3485.
-
-
-
Using this rationale, the Supermarine Spitfire was the best fighter of the war.

People who flew it said "to turn left, you look left" and "you became a part of it", the pilots certainly liked them.

It served from 1939-1945, the entire conflict britain was involved in.

It was so respected by the germans that during the battle of britain Adolf Galland told Goering to give him a squadron of them.

It was a 1st line fighter throughout the conflict..

It served with all allied nations and in all theatres of the war.

20,351 (plus 2,556 Seafires) were produced making it the most produced british fighter

because of its elegant wing design it could handle much higher speeds close to the speed of sound (0.92 mach)

it was used until 1954 as a front line fighter.

and to top it all off it matched or surpassed the performance of all its contemporaries.

thats why they should be in IL2!, better than my usual rants huh?




http://w1bble.d2g.com/ah/il2/spits/img/spit5s.jpg


Happy hunting all, see you in the air.
(SPITFIRES!!!!!)

XyZspineZyX
06-11-2002, 09:25 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- I would like to popint out that you are totally
- wrong. First the Jumo did not failed but was still
- udner development. Second, linked enignes they
- already had, the 3100 HP 24 cylnder DB 610 was in
- wirdescale production already, and was become a
- reliable powerplant by 1944, if handled according to
- instructions.

-You really think so, Isegrim? The Jumo 222 was under development from 1940 to 1945- a long time- and was never ready for series production. Because of Junker's failure to deliver a production- ready engine, development of the Junkers 288 was held back and the Bomber B programme ultimately cancelled.
The engine was also intended for the He 219, Do 335 and Ta 152 at various times- but because of continued problems was only ever fitted on a trial basis in a few prototypes. This is not surprising when you consider the difficulties of producing a 2500 hp liquid- cooled aero engine under wartime pressures. Napier had similar problems with the Sabre but it is to their credit that they finally got their engine to work with reasonable reliability before the end of the war in a production machine- they, however, started to develop their design in the late 30s so they had a head start.

Don't get me wrong- I admire the Germans' engineering achievements during the war as much as anybody but it should be recognised that they had their share of technical troubles (Jumo 222, Me 210, He177, DB 606 and 610)- not just a long list of triumphs.

Incidentally, Ernst Heinkel did not share your view of the DB 610!



Message Edited on 06/12/0205:28AM by Stewbie

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 02:15 AM
The "siameised" DB-610 had potential but by comparison
made the Sabre look reliable. The He-177 was powered
by it and was simply a poor aircraft powered by a worse engine.

As to super powerplants look at the "siameised" Allison
V-3420. At 2,800 to 3,000HP it had great potential and
proved reliable. But for no good reason never got beyond
powering a couple of prototypes and one very bad airplane.
The Fisher P-75A.

There were a couple of MONSTERS built in the USA.

The Prat&Whitney R-4360, 4 rows of 7 cylinders for 28 total.
Rated between 3,000HP and later up to 3,800HP. This engine
saw widespread service with the USAF and to a lesser extent
in civil airline service.

The Lycoming R-7755. 4 rows of 9 cylinders for a total of
36 cylinders. Liquid cooling, over head cams, and a host
of other inovations. Rated at 5,000HP it was HUGE. None
ever flew despite it's passing it's tests at Wright field.

In addition to the Allison V-3420 there was a follow up
at 6,840CID and 6,000HP. I don't think they ever got
passed the mock up stage. 48 cylinders.

Then there's the "Turbo coumpounded" engines. The Wright
R-3350TCW's were developed to produce up to 3,800HP but
typically were rated between 3,250-3,500HP. This is the
only turbo coumpounded aircraft engine to see widespread use that I am aware of.

Allison developed a turbo coumpounded V-1710 rated at
2,900HP (!!!!). It was test flown but never used in service.
It was supposed to be installed in a version of the P-63.

Prat&Whitney developed a monster. A turbo coumpounded version
of the R-4360. The R-4360VTC was rated at 4,400HP.
It was extensivly tested but never saw service.

Turbo coumpounding is simply the routing of exaust gasses
through a turbine geared to the crank shaft. As can be seen
the power recovered can be substantial. Up to 25% of the rated power.

Vinnie

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 12:19 PM
panther3485 wrote:
- Hi Guys! One of the problems we have when making
- comparisons is the 'apples with apples' syndrome.
- What I mean is, we don't all have the same criteria
- when we are trying to decide what the best fighters
- of WW2 are (or the best fighters of any war, for
- that matter). In my book, its not just a matter of
- performance specs as stated on paper. We can start
- by looking as what the people who flew and fought in
- these machines have got to say. Better still, let's
- consider what their ENEMIES thought. A fighter that
- gains the respect of one's adversary, and retains
- that respect for the duration of the conflict, has
- to be a candidate for 'one of the best fighters'
- title. Another angle that we should consider, in my
- opinion, is the relative importance of a particular
- type. Did it serve for the entire conflict or just
- a portion of it? If it served for the whole
- conflict, was it still a viable 1st line fighter by
- the end? What quantities was it produced in? How
- many theatres of operation did it serve in?
- Experimental prototypes, types that served only for
- the last few weeks or months, types that appeared
- too late altogether? They are very interesting and
- no doubt many had an impact on subsequent
- developments after WW2, but surely they are hardly
- relevant when considering the 'best fighters of WW2'
- issue.
- Just a thought. Regards, panther3485.
-
-
-
-

in regards to to what enimes thought, this is just off the top of my head as to exactly whom said what, but it was said! (or in the context anyways)

goring said"what do u need to protect the bombers)

to which adolf galland (and if u need to know who he was shoot yourself) replied "give me squadron of spitfires)

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 04:47 PM
Hi Guys! Continuing from where I left off, firstly thanks to AH Solid Snake and Kittychan for their feedback on the Spitfire. Whilst I would definitely agree that the Supermarine fighter has to be one of the finalists for the title of 'Best WW2 Fighter', to pick the outright winner becomes a little more difficult. To be sure, the Spitfire meets fairly well the criteria put forward in my previous post. My reason for suggesting these criteria was to add balance to some of the considerations. I would not insist that these are the only criteria, but they are important ones, that I believe should be weighed in the balance. If memory of my references serves me, something like 30,000 Bf109's were built, and they served from the start of the conflict to the end, in every theatre that the Germans were involved. During the first 12-18 months of WW2 (September 1939 to the end of 1940 and perhaps the first few months of 1941) the Messerschmitt fighter was, arguably, the World's best. The Spitfire came VERY close as a contender, but until the carburation problem was solved, it was a pig to dive. This often placed it at a disadvantage against the 109 in these early months of the War. To be sure, it could out-maneuver the 109 in a turning dogfight but the German pilots of that time, who were generally more experienced than their British counterparts, usually tried to avoid such situations. But then, Goerings ill-considered 'Stick closer to the bombers' order during the Battle of Britain forced the Bf109 pilots into situations that better suited the Hurricanes and Spitfires (they lost their freedom to 'Zoom and Boom'). It is this that led to Adolf Galland's often misunderstood comment. Galland was effectively telling Goering that if he wanted the German fighters to use close-in, slower speed dogfighting tactics - which they would have to if they were tied to the bombers - then an aircraft with the Spitfire's characteristics would be better suited to this task. Yes indeed, the German fighter pilots did have a lot of respect for the Spitfire, but they did NOT consider it superior to their Bf109. What they did have was a very accurate appreciation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two types.
Some time after the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire's poor diving behaviour was fixed, first by the temporary expedient of fitting a restrictor orifice in the carburettor and later, more permanently, by re-design. From that point on, the Spitfire could hold its own in just about any situation against the 109 but then along came the Fw190. For almost a year, from about September 1941 to around August of 1942, the Spitfire Mk V struggled against the Focke-Wulf. After the appearance of the Spitfire Mk IX, the Supermarine fighter again enjoyed at least parity with the German machines. From then to the end of the War, it stayed pretty much at the top of the tree, at least as a dogfighter.
Swinging the argument to the American side of the fence, the P-51 Mustang also deserves to be considered a contender, because it was the only single-engine fighter type on the Allied side that could go all the way with the bombers. The USAAF came within a camel's hair of abandoning their daylight offensive but the P-51 saved their bacon. The strategic value of this cannot be overstated. OK, it didn't serve for the whole of WW2 but its contribution was enormous. Again, we must weigh carefully all the important factors.
I like all these planes, and others! I think it's damned hard to pick an outright winner!
Regards,
panther3485.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 05:52 PM
panther3485 wrote:
During the first 12-18 months of WW2
- (September 1939 to the end of 1940 and perhaps the
- first few months of 1941) the Messerschmitt fighter
- was, arguably, the World's best. The Spitfire came
- VERY close as a contender, but until the carburation
- problem was solved, it was a pig to dive. This
- often placed it at a disadvantage against the 109 in
- these early months of the War

This is probably true, and William Green's definitive "Aircraft of the Battle of Britain" describes the Bf109E as "perhaps the best fighter extant" during that conflict. However the diving characteristics of both planes are often overlooked. The Bf109 became nose heavy in a dive whilst the Spitfire had a tendancy to tail-heaviness. What that meant was that if a Spitfire pilot blacked out during a dive his plane would pull out on its own accord (assuming sufficient altitude), whereas the 109 pilot would continue straight into the ground. There appear to be a number of BOB combat reports and eye witness accounts that support this.

It should also be borne in mind that German evaluation reports of a captured Spitfire I documented it as very easy and forgiving to fly whereas the 109E was unforgiving of any inattention. Whilst experienced luftwaffe pilots would never trade for a Spitfire, the 109 was not an easy mount for a pilot of average skill. Adolf Galland also described the Spitfire as "dangerous" and as a "superb shotgun" (Strike From the Sky - McKee). He referred to its gun arrangement as being far better suited for a individual of average gunnery skills, which probably accounted for the majority of a squadron's pilots.

I thought Galland's remark to G¶ring about Spitfires was said just to p*ss him off!

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 06:36 PM
If I remember correctly:

The Hawker Tempest was the fastest piston-engined fighter >>OF WWII<<.

And only one can be the fastest.

I really only would like to see this Allied plane flying in IL2. Why? Because it would be the best opponent for the Me262, since this one doesn't exactly have the tightest turn abilities of all planes in Il2 either and the Tempest could really make it's life miserable with it's abundant speed and heavy armament. Should be a beautiful match those two.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 08:01 PM
--You really think so, Isegrim? The Jumo 222 was under development from 1940 to 1945- a long time- and was never ready for series production. Because of Junker's failure to deliver a production- ready engine, development of the Junkers 288 was held back and the Bomber B programme ultimately cancelled.
-

About 250 Jumo 222 were produced, and quite few were successfully tested in planes, one beign the He 219.


-
- Incidentally, Ernst Heinkel did not share your view
- of the DB 610!


That`s why he built around 800 He-177s with the those DB 610s? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regarding the He-177 was a crap, then why was only 4 (four) lost to British AAA and fighters during Operation Steinbock 1944, which lasted about 5 months, and in which He-177 took part?

The He-177 A-5 was an excellent plane by any standarss, but it had relabilty problems.

Just like Yaks, P-38s, Typhoons, Tempests etc.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/me109/me109_02lg.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság,
K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)



May the MK 108 be with you!

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 09:08 PM
Feb. 13, 1944

2 and 3 staffel, KG100 flying He177

13 a/c took off, one burst a tire and 8 returned to base with over heating or burning engines. Of the remaining 5 a/c only 4 reached their target of London, the Gruppen Kommandeur had turned back and dropped his bombs in the sea. Of the 4 that found London, 1 was shot down by a night fighter. Yes a very successful mission, NOT!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (77% failure rate) Shortly afterwards, "Operation Stienbock" was called off.

The He177 was also powered by the DB606 engine, not just the DB610.



****
Junkers Jumo 222
Twentyfour Cylinder multibanked,
six bank radial,
petrol engine,
four strokes,
liquid cooled,
286 built

Construction of the Jumo 222 began in 1937. On April, 24th 1939 the first static test run was performed The first inflight test took place on November, 3rd 1940 oboard a Ju 52. Initial production series Jumo 222A-1 and B-1 were only built in few numbers A- and B-series differ in the airscrew ratio.

The production of the series I was stopped due to technical problems. The series II got a larger capacity and a modified ignition system As the problems still remained, the production of Jumo 222A-2 and B-2 again was stopped in late 1941. Jumo 222 A-3 and B-3 were designed as special high altitude engines, but only a few were built and installed in a Junkers Ju288V9.

The Jumo 222C and D-series again got a larger capacity and higher r.p.m. rates in summer 1942. These series were installed for trials in several aircraft types (i.e. Ju288 and He219) But technical inefficiency remained, so only a few engines of these series were built.

Jumo 222E and F-series were designed for high altitude flights since 1944. Both types represented a Jumo 222A/B with a two-stage supercharger and aftercooler. Due to the still remaining technical problems and the intensive bombings of Dessau the development of these types was very slow.

The final series Jumo 222G and H were fitted with an exhaust driven turbo supercharger.
Only a few test engines were built before the end of WWII.

Finally the Jumo 222 did not reach a real production status. Technical problems remained until the end of WWII. A total of 289 engines were built until the end of the war. The Jumo 222 was the standard engine of the Bomber B program of the RLM. Due to the intensive development problems of this engine, finally the complete Bomber B program came to an unsuccessfull end.


**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 09:30 PM
Concerning the He 177 in Steinbock it was an dismal failure to put it lightly. of the 550 bombers assigned to Steinbock only 35 He 177A-5s, operateing with 1./KG 40 & 3./KG 100 participated. After 3 missions, 1./KG 40 had to wthdrawn from operations due to a lack of serviceble aircraft, & was replaced by 2./KG 40 which had just attained operational status. As Milo has already recounted the incident on Feb 13, Generalmajor Petz witnessed, theirs no reason to recount it here.

He 177s did attain some success by climbing to 23,000 feet over Germany, and then useing a shallow dive to reach speeds of 430mph to deliver their ordinance over London, but the fact is very few He 177s made it to London due to engine fires etc.

Regards, John Waters

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
06-12-2002, 11:49 PM
OYes, they always quote this particularmission.. I wonder why? Does a single mission tell you that much? Choose one total catastrophe to judge plane qualities?

Choose Ploiesti to prove to B-24 was a complete POS.

Choose the P-38 tangling with the IAR 80s over Ruman8ia, 99 P-38 were lost (it was ment to be surpirse attack on enemy airfileds!), to show the P-38 was a crap.

Choose Nurmberg, 140 + RAF bombers were lsot on one night, you see, they were complete crap, too.


This is omly for "historians" who wat to write a dramatic story instead of carefully researching the facts, and every aspect of them.

And some sidenotes.

1, Op. Steinbock WAS NOT a single attack in February, but a series of attacks on GB that lasted 5 months in early 1944. It is a complete misleading to say the Op. failed after Febr. 13, just because some planes had trouble.

2, The vast majority of the He-177 had DB 610 engines. All A-5s and all but 15 A-3s had the DB 610, that`s around 85% of the total built.

It is not "fact" *very few He 177s made it to London due to engine fires etc*. He-177 were continously in action, and judging for 5 months of their operation based on a SINGLE sortie is quite ridiculus.

I just wonder why Milo did not start with that one...

"
In November 1943, off the coast of North Africa in the Mediterranean Sea, the crew of the USS Pioneer saved the lives of hundreds of men from the bombed troopship Rohna.


Quartermaster 1st Class Ron Wright took the wheel on the USS Pioneer bridge on Nov. 26, 1943, expecting another humdrum day in the Mediterranean screening for transports.

The minesweeper had joined the 27-ship, India-bound convoy KMF-26 the day before on Thanksgiving Day at Oran, Algeria. There, American soldiers boarded three British and one French transport headed east for Suez and Bombay.

At 4:40 p.m., the Pioneer sailed 37.06 North, 05.56 East, in the Gulf of Bougie, 15 miles off North Africa, guarding P Sector on the convoy's port beam.

Suddenly, three Luftwaffe squadrons roared out of the sun without warning. Heinkel 111s and 117s, Dornier 217s, Junkers 88s and Focke-Wulfs swung wide of the convoy, concentrating fire on the escorts.

Several aircraft carried highly secret rocket-propelled, remote-controlled Henschel Hs-293 glide bombs. Winged like planes, the air-to-surface missiles packed 1,100 pounds of explosives.

Bombs fell as Pioneer gun crews sprinted to battle stations.

Scrambling from North Africa bases, RAF Squadron 153, USAAF 350th Fighter Group and the Free French 1st Fighter Group engaged the Germans.

Pioneer Capt. LeRoy "Cowboy" Rogers directed action from the flying bridge. Gunners sent up a blistering barrage from port and starboard 20 and 40mm guns, and from the 3-inch/.50-caliber gun on the bow.

Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Wayne Dana, gun captain on a 40mm gun, "was ready to fire on what looked like a small plane, but somebody said, 'don't fire, it's a bomb.' It's a good thing I didn't fire, because it would have burst in air. It jarred the ship, and three men in our crew were hit, but recovered."

The 3-incher crew, Coxswain Harrell Jones in charge, filled the air with lead.

The War Diary reported the ship fired 59 rounds of 3-inch shells, 222 rounds of 40mm, 950 rounds of 20mm and 150 rounds of .30-caliber machine gun fire.


Close by, the British transport Rohna, with almost 2,000 American soldiers aboard, ran out of luck.

A Heinkel 177 bombardier targeted Rohna with a secret missile -Hs-293. The bomb fell behind the mother plane, overtaking it as its rocket ignited. The nose glowed red; fire blasted from the tail. Moving the joy stick, the bombardier swerved the bomb into Rohna's port side. It exploded in the engine room, gouging a truck-sized hole on both sides of the ship.

Rohna lost all power, caught fire and began listing heavily to starboard. Hun-dreds died instantly. The 853rd Engineer Aviation Bn. lost 67% of its force. By nightfall, 1,015 GIs had died, the greatest loss at sea of U.S. Army personnel in WWII. Three American Red Cross men, five Rohna officers and 115 native crewmen died also."


Message Edited on 06/12/0204:00PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 12:19 AM
Another fine example of your math skills,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Operation Steinbock ran from Jan. 21, 1944 to May 29 1944 - thats is 4 months, 1 week not your "new math" 5 months.

The raids (1944)
21/22 January

447 sorties of which only some 200 inland penetrations; 40 or so reached Greater London (500 tons of bombs 268 of which fell on land). 16 aircraft believed destroyed. 14 dead, 74 injured.

29/30 January

285 sorties, 130 penetrated, 30 reaching Greater London (158 tonnes of bombs on land). 51 killed, 124 injured.
The first two raids cost 57 aircraft and crews.

3/4 February

240 sorties, 167 tonnes of bombs. 33 killed and 34 injured.

13/14 February

230 sorties, 161 tonnes of bombs on land.

18/19 February

200 sorties, 120 aircraft plotted over UK. 185 tonnes of bombs on land, 139 of them on London. Most bombing confined to one attack lasting 30 minutes; 480 fires in London, 24 in surrounding areas. 180 killed, 463 seriously injured. Nine aircraft lost. Units definitely involved were 2/KG2, 6/KG6, 9/KG6, 3/KG54, 6/KG54, 1/KG66, 2/KG66, 2 and 3/KG100. Dense clouds covered London and target marking must have been by flares rather than marker bombs. There is a view that raids were more accurate when the crews bombed against flares rather than when the ground could be seen. 35 aircraft from the Netherlands joined 45 from France 30 miles east of Harwich at 0030 hrs between 12,500 and 25,000 ft. 120 more entered the UK between Winterton and the Thames to be attacked by 1,487 rounds of 3.7 AA fire. These were the aircraft which attacked Greater London, together with about half the east coast force, returning home via the South Coast. The Country was clear by 0150 hrs.

200 sorties, 160 tonnes of bombs, 118 on London. Government buildings in central London known to be targets. 216 killed and 417 seriously injured.

22/23 February

185 sorties, 167 tonnes, 75 on London. 29 killed, 78 seriously injured. 9 aircaft claimed destroyed.23/24 February

161 sorties, 114 tonnes, 49 on London. 160 killed, 53 missing, 348 seriously injured.
24/25 February

170 sorties, 128 tonnes, 89 on London. 74 killed, 1 missing, 183 seriously injured. 13 aircraft claimed destroyed.

1/2 March

165 sorties, 166 tonnes, 65 on London. 34 killed, 1 missing, 89 seriously injured.

Eleven raids were mounted mainly against London from 21/22 January to mid-March then the target changed to Hull. By 20 March there were only 252 aircraft available to the Luftwaffe. By the end of May when the offensive petered out 4,251 sorties had been flown carrying 2,812 tonnes of bombs, 27% of which hit any targets. The loss rate was 7.7% of sorties.

Monthly Luftwaffe losses were:

January 57

February 72

March 75

April 75

May 50

Total 329 (71% of initial serviceable aircraft)

Units added during the course of the operation included Stab/KG30 Ju 88A-4 Bretigny, III/KG30 Ju 88 Orly, III/KG100 Do 217K-3 with Fritz-X radio guided bombs. Operation Steinbock was, for the Germans, not a success. Indeed the bomber force was so depleted that it was of very little value in countering the Normandy invasions in June 1944.

Now BarbI if you would like to quote facts and figures for BC during the same time period, please do. BC will not have the miserable stats "Operation Steinbock" has.

*******

BarbI, what wrong with picking on John as well. He also said un-complemetary statements about the He177 and Operation Steinbock./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"Concerning the He 177 in Steinbock it was an dismal failure to put it lightly. of the 550 bombers assigned to Steinbock only 35 He 177A-5s, operateing with 1./KG 40 & 3./KG 100 participated. After 3 missions, 1./KG 40 had to wthdrawn from operations due to a lack of serviceble aircraft, & was replaced by 2./KG 40 which had just attained operational status."

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

Message Edited on 06/12/02 08:30PM by MiloMorai

Message Edited on 06/12/0208:34PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 04:49 AM
quote from BarbI

>>>"In November 1943, off the coast of North Africa in the Mediterranean Sea, the crew of the USS Pioneer saved the lives of hundreds of men from the bombed troopship Rohna.


Quartermaster 1st Class Ron Wright took the wheel on the USS Pioneer bridge on Nov. 26, 1943, expecting another humdrum day in the Mediterranean screening for transports.

The minesweeper had joined the 27-ship, India-bound convoy KMF-26 the day before on Thanksgiving Day at Oran, Algeria. There, American soldiers boarded three British and one French transport headed east for Suez and Bombay.

At 4:40 p.m., the Pioneer sailed 37.06 North, 05.56 East, in the Gulf of Bougie, 15 miles off North Africa, guarding P Sector on the convoy?s port beam.

Suddenly, three Luftwaffe squadrons roared out of the sun without warning. Heinkel 111s and 117s, Dornier 217s, Junkers 88s and Focke-Wulfs swung wide of the convoy, concentrating fire on the escorts.

Several aircraft carried highly secret rocket-propelled, remote-controlled Henschel Hs-293 glide bombs. Winged like planes, the air-to-surface missiles packed 1,100 pounds of explosives.

Bombs fell as Pioneer gun crews sprinted to battle stations.

Scrambling from North Africa bases, RAF Squadron 153, USAAF 350th Fighter Group and the Free French 1st Fighter Group engaged the Germans.

Pioneer Capt. LeRoy "Cowboy" Rogers directed action from the flying bridge. Gunners sent up a blistering barrage from port and starboard 20 and 40mm guns, and from the 3-inch/.50-caliber gun on the bow.

Boatswain?s Mate 2nd Class Wayne Dana, gun captain on a 40mm gun, "was ready to fire on what looked like a small plane, but somebody said, ?don?t fire, it?s a bomb.? It?s a good thing I didn?t fire, because it would have burst in air. It jarred the ship, and three men in our crew were hit, but recovered."

The 3-incher crew, Coxswain Harrell Jones in charge, filled the air with lead.

The War Diary reported the ship fired 59 rounds of 3-inch shells, 222 rounds of 40mm, 950 rounds of 20mm and 150 rounds of .30-caliber machine gun fire.


Close by, the British transport Rohna, with almost 2,000 American soldiers aboard, ran out of luck.

A Heinkel 177 bombardier targeted Rohna with a secret missile -Hs-293. The bomb fell behind the mother plane, overtaking it as its rocket ignited. The nose glowed red; fire blasted from the tail. Moving the joy stick, the bombardier swerved the bomb into Rohna?s port side. It exploded in the engine room, gouging a truck-sized hole on both sides of the ship.

Rohna lost all power, caught fire and began listing heavily to starboard. Hun-dreds died instantly. The 853rd Engineer Aviation Bn. lost 67% of its force. By nightfall, 1,015 GIs had died, the greatest loss at sea of U.S. Army personnel in WWII. Three American Red Cross men, five Rohna officers and 115 native crewmen died also."<<<

What is the relevance of this little story BarbI? Is it to show how good German bombing was? One ship of 27 hit by one bomb from 3 attacking squadrons of German bombers, holy macarone, that is some accuracy.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Henschel Hs 293
This was the first guided missile that entered service in large numbers. The Hs 293 was a glide bomb of aeroplane configuration, with a underslung rocket engine. It was carried by bombers like the He 111, He 177, Do 217 or Fw 200. A radio command link was standard, and a flare in the tail burned to help the operator sighting. There were also versions with wire guidance, and the experimental Hs 293D had TV guidance. The sloop HMS Egret, on 27 August 1943, had the dubious honour of being the first ship sunk by a guided missile. Many other victims followed, including five destroyers. Over 2300 Hs 293 missiles were fired

If over 2300 Hs292s were fire, please tell this forum what the hit percentage was.

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

Message Edited on 06/13/0212:05AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 04:52 AM
Good god Milo don't bring me into your running fued /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .....

Regards, John Waters

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 05:09 AM
What John, you don't want to be a member of BarbI's Bridiot Club with Greg(newest member), Hop and myself?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 06:03 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- What John, you don't want to be a member of BarbI's
- Bridiot Club with Greg(newest member), Hop and
- myself?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- **beware the charge of the rhinos**


ROFLMAO....

Regards, John Waters

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 07:06 AM
for 1939 the 520 was a sleek looking aircraft

http://www.nroling46.btinternet.co.uk/Fighters/109-2a.JPG


"To a Newyorker like you a hero is somekinda wierd sandwhich...not some nut who takes on 3 tigers!!"

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2002, 12:16 PM
Hi Guys! Deadly Dog - thanks for the feedback and additional info. Yes, I believe the differences in dive characteristics (nose heaviness vs. tail heaviness) are probably correct as quoted by you. Nevertheless, the carburetion problems suffered by the early Spitfires meant that if you were chasing a 109 and he chose to dive away, he could 'bunt' straight over but you would have to do a half roll and pull back on the stick to follow him. If you tried to nose over, your engine would falter or possibly even cut out completely. Either way, you would lose a vital half second or so, which could make all the difference in a dogfight. In my view, this was the only significant disadvantage that made these early Spits NOT QUITE up to par. As for Galland's comment, yes he also wanted to p*ss Goering off, as you put it. Goering's general mismanagement of the battle, and sometimes irrational decision-making, was getting up everybody's nose. His contribution to the German failure was considerable. The main problem with Galland's remark is that is has often been misunderstood as an admission that the Spitfire was superior to the 109. There was no such admission and, in 1940 at least, no real reason for the Luftwaffe pilots to think of the Spitfire as superior. Your other points about the handling of the 109 are fair enough as far as they go, but we should remember that most of its handling problems were associated with landing and taking off (admittedly critical times) and it was a real handful for the novice. Once in the air, however, it was not nearly so bad. Indeed, as far as stall characteristics are concerned, it was probably somewhat less of a handful than the Spitfire. Having said all that, your comments are perfectly valid and I appreciate your input. Thanks.
Regards to all, panther3485.

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2002, 06:41 PM
Airborn_ wrote:
- If I remember correctly:
-
- The Hawker Tempest was the fastest piston-engined
- fighter >>OF WWII<<.
-
- And only one can be the fastest.
-
- I really only would like to see this Allied plane
- flying in IL2. Why? Because it would be the best
- opponent for the Me262, since this one doesn't
- exactly have the tightest turn abilities of all
- planes in Il2 either and the Tempest could really
- make it's life miserable with it's abundant speed
- and heavy armament. Should be a beautiful match
- those two.
-
-

HOOAAH!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2002, 06:50 PM
Airborn_ wrote:
- If I remember correctly:
-
- The Hawker Tempest was the fastest piston-engined
- fighter >>OF WWII<<.

The fastest piston engined plane deployed to any unit in WWII was the P-51H at 487 mph.

The fastest piston plane to see combat was the P-47M at 475 mph.

The fastest piston engined plane of WWII was the P-47J at 504 mph. It was experimental.

However, it is likely the P-72 Superbolt (likely to have been named the P-47Q) with it's 28 cylinder Double Wasp engine and its shaft driven, five feet in diameter supercharger, was expected to exceed eclipse them all at 500mph in regular military power and approaching 540 in WEP.





Regards,
SkyChimp
http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/AAA_P-72_SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2002, 07:00 PM
Is all American manufacturer's "advertizing" lies, Chimp./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


SkyChimp wrote:
-
- The fastest piston engined plane deployed to any
- unit in WWII was the P-51H at 487 mph.
-
-
- The fastest piston plane to see combat was the P-47M
- at 475 mph.
-
-
- The fastest piston engined plane of WWII was the
- P-47J at 504 mph. It was experimental.
-
-
- However, it is likely the P-72 Superbolt (likely to
- have been named the P-47Q) with it's 28 cylinder
- Double Wasp engine and its shaft driven, five feet
- in diameter supercharger, was expected to exceed
- eclipse them all at 500mph in regular military power
- and approaching 540 in WEP.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
- SkyChimp
<img
- src="http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/AAA_
- P-72_SkyChimp.jpg"> -
-



**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-24-2002, 07:13 PM
"Now BarbI if you would like to quote facts and figures for BC during the same time period, please do. BC will not have the miserable stats "Operation Steinbock" has."

ROFLOL - You mean the miserable failure of "Sir" Harris with his stubborn idea of wining the war by bombing Berlin, simple the greates failure of the war, which has to be ended forever after loss of 1444 British heavy bombers and their crews, ibetween Nov. 1943 Marhc 1944? BC was so hevily suffered that it made no more bomb attacks on Berlin with heavy bombers, all they did afterwards were nusisance raids. Despite bombings, production increased even further in Berlin.


The British lost 3 times as many a/c in their raids durign the same period as the LW with Steinbock. The crown to the BC`s falure was put on at their raid against Nurnberg, resulting in by far the greatest losses of the BC on one day over 140 British heavy bombers shot down on a single night.



http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:03 AM
Hey Alpha Mike,
I used to instruct at a flight school in High River, AB. I met a guy out there who's grandfather was restoring a Sea Fury to original. He had a guy working on it full time and it was gonna take, from what i remember, about 3 to 5 years.(i saw it at the very beginning of the restoration and i remember it being huge and quite intimidating, especially if you didn't have much air time) THis was around 1996. Unfortanetly, the guys grandfather passed a few years later and i'm not sure if he ever got to see the finished restoration and i'm also not sure what happened with the sea fury. Hopefully they kept it in the family and Brad, the grandson who's working for Air Canada Jazz, will get to fly it in memorial of his grandfather and keep the dream alive.
Cheers,
Mani

"An excellent weapon and luck had been on my side. To be successfful, the best fighter pilot needs both"
Adolph Galland

Message Edited on 06/25/0202:25PM by Manicoti

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 05:48 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- "Now BarbI if you would like to quote facts and
- figures for BC during the same time period, please
- do. BC will not have the miserable stats "Operation
- Steinbock" has."

Well a comparison to Steinbock is rather pointless as it was never on on the scale of te RAF raids.
-
- ROFLOL - You mean the miserable failure of "Sir"
- Harris with his stubborn idea of wining the war by
- bombing Berlin, simple the greates failure of the
- war, which has to be ended forever after loss of
- 1444 British heavy bombers and their crews, ibetween
- Nov. 1943 Marhc 1944? BC was so hevily suffered that
- it made no more bomb attacks on Berlin with heavy
- bombers, all they did afterwards were nusisance
- raids. Despite bombings, production increased even
- further in Berlin.

By the end of December 1943 RAF Bomber command had flown 4,000 sorties against Berlin losses were 184 aircraft 4.5% of the total sorties flown. German civilian casualties were around 5,600 KIA. By March 1944 the RAF made 8 more attacks on Berlin & 13 major attacks on other cities. From November 1943 - March 1944 the RAF lost 466 bombers in attacks on Berlin.

Their are two sides to the Berlin attacks argument:

1). Harris claimed the attacks on Berlin would win the war, they didn't so it was a defeat. Which is incorrect as all this proves is Harris made one of his typical overstatements.

2). When one looks at the the statistics Ie, damage to industrial centers, & war related production , and effect on German morale, vs RAF losses, then the raids were an victory.


Problem is their are elements of truth in both arguments, what is clear is the Bomber Command was not yet ready despite Gee, Oboe, H2S, or Pathfinders to destroy anything but short range targets with any accuracy.


- The British lost 3 times as many a/c in their raids
- durign the same period as the LW with Steinbock. The
- crown to the BC`s falure was put on at their raid
- against Nurnberg, resulting in by far the greatest
- losses of the BC on one day over 140 British heavy
- bombers shot down on a single night.


And the Germans had a total force of 550 bombers for Steinbock compared tohow many RAF machines?. The RAF had carried large scale night bombing out for 4.5 years, compared to how long for the Germans? of course RAF losses were much larger; all one has to do is compare sortie rates. to see why. If you want a comparison I'd sugest trying one that compares %s of inflicted damage over the an equal time period.

If your interested in why the attacks on Berlin ceased I'd sugest researching what Bomber command was doing from April to June 1944. Ie, direct support for preporations for Overlord.



Regards, John Waters

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.


Message Edited on 06/25/0206:40AM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 06:28 AM
as a matter of interest was teh tempest actually regarded as a fighter? i was always under the impression itwas an anti-shipping and beneral ground attack aircraft

and one with a reputaton of being a monster to taxi and take off

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 10:23 AM
There were two distinct Tempest aircraft. Paradoxically the first in service was the Tempest V with the Napier Sabre engine. The Tempest II had the Bristol Centaurus radial. Both were developed out of the Tempest I which was only ever a prototype series. The design was an evolution of the Typhoon and like the Typhoon, the Tempest V was a disappointing machine for higher altitude opperations. Like the Typhoon it was an excellent low level attack aircraft. It was developed for the RAF to replace the Typhoon which was used solely for low level operations. The Tempest II saw no active service in WWII.

So if the title of the thread is to be taken seriously, the answer is that the Tempest(V) was not "absolutely" one of the best fighters in WWII. It may have been one of the most proficient ground attack fighter bombers and low level intercepters but to be judged against all fighter operational requirements it can only excel at its specialised capability.

Why do these strings always ramble on about "the best". Who cares? WWII was not a beauty contest or a football match. Such judgements can only really be made by considering the number of human beings which its use killed, maimed or rendered incapable of continuing to be viable war fighting units. What sort of ghoul wants to do that? I suspect much of this beauty show attitude revolves around the fun world of combat flight sims and has nothing to do with any appreciation of the realities of air warfare which was not supposed to be fun and bloody well wasn't!

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 12:18 PM
PzKpfw wrote:


- Well a comparison to Steinbock is rather pointless
- as it was never on on the scale of te RAF raids.

They are comparebale in time, they are comparable in nubmer of sorties. BTW, it was not me that wanted a comparison, but I was asked to do one. So I did one.


- By the end of December 1943 RAF Bomber command had
- flown 4,000 sorties against Berlin losses were 184
- aircraft 4.5% of the total sorties flown. German
- civilian casualties were around 5,600 KIA. By March
- 1944 the RAF made 8 more attacks on Berlin & 13
- major attacks on other cities. From November 1943 -
- March 1944 the RAF lost 466 bombers in attacks on
- Berlin.

Yes, as usual, carefully selected and altered numbers to make the total defeat into a victory. Only losses at Belrin, and only the more successful raids. Fact remainast that ANY attack doen by the RAF BC costed 50-70 shot down eavy bombers every night. Their success varied - sometiems they hit the tagret, soemtimes only one bomb fell onto the city from many hundred bobmer formations.

According the Peter Hinchcliffe, RAF-BC losses from Nov. 1943 - March 1944 for BC operations were over 8000 KIA.

Olaf Groehler says that the RAF flew 9111 sorties in the Belrin Battle, loosing 1444 bombers total (492 shot down, 952 damaged, crash landed or written off).

That means that with everey sortie the RAF BC lost 15.85 % of the planes. That was unacceptable and the BC cannot bear it.

Maybe you know as well that the USAAF doctrine was to call off a bombing operation if the losses exceeded 15%.

-
- Their are two sides to the Berlin attacks argument:


- 2). When one looks at the the statistics Ie, damage
- to industrial centers, & war related production ,
- and effect on German morale, vs RAF losses, then the
- raids were an victory.

LOL, Victory? Yes, according to some totally biased British histroian maybe. But for them, even Dunkirk was a victory.

Damage to industrial centers: negligable
Effect on War production: negligable
Effect on Germna moral: totally ZERO, what worse, it made them even more determined

"... from the operational sense, the Battle for Berlin was not only a failure. It was plainly a defeat."

-Sir Charles Webster and dr. Noble Frankalnd (DFC, former navigator of RAF-BC)



- If your interested in why the attacks on Berlin
- ceased I'd sugest researching what Bomber command
- was doing from April to June 1944. Ie, direct
- support for preporations for Overlord.


Yes, that`s how they make excuses for their defeat. Fact was that with these losses, the RAF COULD NOT continue the raids. Funny thing that for soem strange reason, the last raid was on Nurnberg, ending up with total catastrophe.

On the night of March 30-31, a total of 908 RAF bombers took off, escorted by 80 Mosquito Night fighters.

The mission became a total failure before it even began.

93 RAF bombers were shot down over Germany. Further 53 crashed when trying to return to Enlgand, damaged by the Nachtjagd, or the FlaK. 70 RAF bombers were further damaged.

The RAF lost 149 bombers and their crews on a single night, 16.2 % of the total force. If the damaged are included, as the British lvoe to do with their "statistics" on German losses, than the loss rate was a staggering 23.79%.

The RAF could neither sustain the personell losses. 745 aircew died or received heavy wounds that made the munfit for further duty. Over 2000 crewmembers were injured. 159 crewmemebers become POWs.

German losses were 5 nightfighters, 8 damaged.

German loss in life, total for the Nachtjagd, Flak, and civillian losses, incuding dead, missing and injured totalled 129.

As a summary:

219 RAF aircraft for 13 German (1 : 16.8)
~2900 RAF crewmemebr for 129 German loss in human life (1: 23)

This raid was the final nail in the coffin of the Battle for Berlin, and RAF operations ceased immidiately. Some can make up stories about that it was because of Overlord, but the truth remains that the RAF simply cannot bomb Germany with these losses occruing, proven by the fact that the raid on Nurnberg, resulting in extremly high losses of menpower and hardware was, probably by a coincident, the last raid doen by the RAF BC in the Berlin operations.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 12:34 PM
PzKpfw I can only second Isegrims last post (though I have my problems with his harsh language http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ). What you posted was the official statistics published by the BC in order to keep morale on an appropriate level. In fact the production rate in Germany wasn´t hampered at all by those night raids (just look at the numbers for fighter planes produced in the different months of late 43/ early 44). And the bombings had absolutely NO effect on civilian morale. There was a joke among the inhabitants of Berlin at that time:

"It´s your own fault if you are still alive as there have been enough bombings for you to die." (excuse the rough translation).

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 12:39 PM
One question Thor, what would have been the German output, if there was no bombing?


csThor wrote:
-In fact the production rate in
- Germany wasn´t hampered at all by those night raids
- (just look at the numbers for fighter planes
- produced in the different months of late 43/ early
- 44).


**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 12:44 PM
I really don´t wanna know. I´m happy as the history went.

But in fact Speer sent teams to the factories in order to inspect the effects of the bombings on the industry and he ordered detailed morale reports from the Gestapo.

Speer was far more frightened of the US day attacks as they were aimed for specific industrial targets and had a good precision. Something that the british "watering can" attacks totally lacked.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 12:46 PM
I think the main purpose of the RAF strategic bombing ampiagn was psychological, after the Blitz the British people wanted the war taken back to the Germans, and it was, the Germans bombed Coventry with 500 medium bombers, Britian bombed Dresden with 1000 heavy bombers.

the factiod that german production increased during 1942 is only really a reflection upon the fact that Germany did not move to a full war economy until that date, and that Albert Speer was a very clever man.

The Germans invested a huge amount of scarce resources into resisting the raids, secondly the the impact on the Germans POL (Petrol Oil Lubricant) production caused by the bombing was decisive.

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 12:57 PM
csThor wrote:
-
- Speer was far more frightened of the US day attacks
- as they were aimed for specific industrial targets
- and had a good precision. Something that the british
- "watering can" attacks totally lacked.
-


Totally agree with that. I just don`t understand how could people think that the BC`s bombing capampaign had as significant effect on the industry as US daylight bombings. The RAF dropped about as much the 8th and 15th dropped.
the "only" difference being is that the USAF dropped the bobms AIMED at a certain factory in 99% of the cases. Even then small percantage hit, but given the large numbers, that was often enough. The RAF dropped them blidnly in practice, if they hit a factory, that was simply by luck, as even in 1944 the RAF-BC could even hit entire cities sometimes - how could they hope that there was serious effect on the industry?

I also find rather funny why the BC tried the same strategy, what they had first hnad experience that it the exact opposite effect, as was in 1940.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 01:38 PM
How about this Barbi - how many 88mm guns were used in the AA role that could have been better used by the Germans killing Soviet T-34 tanks? How about the men and women that could have been better used in other facits of German war production or fighting at the fronts. How about the men and women cleaning up, rebuilding after BC raids, that could they have been put to better use?

Oh yes, the Eigth AF gave up on precision bombing and went to area bombing with a lead bomber telling the rest of the Group when to drop.



**beware the charge of the rhinos**

Message Edited on 06/25/0208:39AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 01:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- How about this Barbi - how many 88mm guns were used
- in the AA role that could have been better used by
- the Germans killing Soviet T-34 tanks?

Maybe it`s news for you Milo, but 88mm AA guns were built for AA role, not tank hunting. Given the fact the Germany had over 50 000 AT guns built, handling tanks were not much of a problem. AA guns weren not well suited for that, because of the much higher costs and higher silhoutte. Cheaper, smaller guns of greater quantity could do that jsut as well, and AA guns would be needed anyway to fight US bombers.

The rest of your "points" are simply hopeless - the UK, with less industrial capacity and less population had to focus it`s entyire economy and menpower on the senseless night raids, which didn`t yield any success, just losses.
Thre raids cost the UK far more than to Germany.


- Oh yes, the Eigth AF gave up on precision bombing
- and went to area bombing with a lead bomber telling
- the rest of the Group when to drop.

That`s what called precison bombing, obviosuly not the same thing as a RAF bomber dropping a big bomb *somewhere over Germany*.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 01:54 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- How about this Barbi - how many 88mm guns were used
-- in the AA role that could have been better used by
-- the Germans killing Soviet T-34 tanks?
-
- Maybe it`s news for you Milo, but 88mm AA guns were
- built for AA role, not tank hunting. Given the fact
- the Germany had over 50 000 AT guns built, handling
- tanks were not much of a problem. AA guns weren not
- well suited for that, because of the much higher
- costs and higher silhoutte. Cheaper, smaller guns of
- greater quantity could do that jsut as well, and AA
- guns would be needed anyway to fight US bombers.
-
- The rest of your "points" are simply hopeless - the
- UK, with less industrial capacity and less
- population had to focus it`s entyire economy and
- menpower on the senseless night raids, which didn`t
- yield any success, just losses.
- Thre raids cost the UK far more than to Germany.
-
-
-- Oh yes, the Eigth AF gave up on precision bombing
-- and went to area bombing with a lead bomber telling
-- the rest of the Group when to drop.
-
- That`s what called precison bombing, obviosuly not
- the same thing as a RAF bomber dropping a big bomb
- *somewhere over Germany*.
-
- http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!
-
- (Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the
- 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)



I agree about the tank gun argument, but as to the British
night raids being more costly to the Brits than the damage
inflicted.......What planet are you from?

Remember Hamburg, or Dresden? Or perhaps Cologne?

The Brits were taxed to the brink, There is no doubt.
But not so the master race? (Germans). Seems the Master Race
lost the whole thing and became subservient to the Russian
Slavs and the Allied mixed races.

I love this revisionist history.

Vinnie

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:09 PM
-
- I agree about the tank gun argument, but as to the
- British
-
- night raids being more costly to the Brits than the
- damage
- inflicted.......What planet are you from?
-
- Remember Hamburg, or Dresden? Or perhaps Cologne?

To be precise, the raids required mre of the British resouces than of the Germans. It hardly mattered how many civilians the British mass murdered, because that only broguht hatred, but did not effected German war efforts.

The much vaunted Cologne raid was insignificant, the RAF had neither the technolgy, number of planes to make it significant, it was rather a propaganda raid. Hamburg and Dresden were made possible by the weather, not by RAf efforts. In those two, around 200 000 men died, but what was the result? Nothing. Did German production suffered? No. Did Gemrnay surrendered as a result? No. But these were the expectations of Harris. Even in Hamburg, the majority of the factories did not suffer too much damage, and production was back on line on 100% in two weeks. And this was an exceptionnally heavy raid.

On the cotnrary, practically the whole UK aviation industry was concerned with buildign very expensive heavy bobmers, which consumed enourmous amount of fuel. If you comapre how much percantage of war production of the UK was wasted on the raids, and how much these raids lowered German production, you will see that they didn`t worth it. Messacring of Germna civillians didn`t help them at all as the messacring of jews didn`t help Hitler at all.

So compare of war production lost in the UK to produce and train and replace heavy bombers and their crew, with the amount of damage they casued in German prodcution.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:13 PM
I got news for you Barbi, the 88mm Flak 18 and Flak 37 was a high profile gun(2.418m) and used in the AT role.(N. Africa for an example of use)

The AA 88 as also the basis for other 88s.


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-
- Maybe it`s news for you Milo, but 88mm AA guns were
- built for AA role, not tank hunting. Given the fact
- the Germany had over 50 000 AT guns built, handling
- tanks were not much of a problem.

No problem? And whose tanks were driving down the streets of Berlin in May 1945? Not German but Soviet, so a "few" more AT guns than the Pak 35, 36 38, 40 AT guns were required./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


AA guns weren not
- well suited for that, because of the much higher
- costs and higher silhoutte. Cheaper, smaller guns of
- greater quantity could do that jsut as well, and AA
- guns would be needed anyway to fight US bombers.

What gun was in the panzers?

-
- The rest of your "points" are simply hopeless - the
- UK, with less industrial capacity and less
- population had to focus it`s entyire economy and
- menpower on the senseless night raids, which didn`t
- yield any success, just losses.
- Thre raids cost the UK far more than to Germany.
-
-
-- Oh yes, the Eigth AF gave up on precision bombing
-- and went to area bombing with a lead bomber telling
-- the rest of the Group when to drop.
-
- That`s what called precison bombing, obviosuly not
- the same thing as a RAF bomber dropping a big bomb
- *somewhere over Germany*.
-

A 'precision' of carpet bombing, LOL Barbi you are something else./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:18 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- I got news for you Barbi, the 88mm Flak 18 and Flak
- 37 was a high profile gun(2.418m) and used in the AT
- role.(N. Africa for an example of use)

So was 150mm howitzer, but that doesn`t mean the 150mm is and ideal wepaon for AT role.

BTW, no single Wehrmacht infantry division had 88mm AA guns.

-
- The AA 88 as also the basis for other 88s.

Wrong.

-
- What gun was in the panzers?
-

Hint: Not the FlaK 36. Not even in the Tiger I. Read, read a lot.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:43 PM
from http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm.htm

"German 88mm gun is probably the best known artillery piece of World War II. First time 88mm saw combat was in Spain during the Civil War in 1936, where it proved itself to be not only excellent anti-aircraft gun but also ideal tank killer due to its high muzzle velocity and efficient heavy projectile. It again proved to be an excellent anti-tank gun in France in 1940, especially against heavily armored French Char B1-bis heavy tanks and British Mk.II Matilda infantry tanks. By the time when it arrived in North Africa it was a feared tank killer, which could knock any Allied tank at distances well over 1000 meters. It again proved its reputation in Russia, where it was the only gun capable of dealing with Soviet T-34/76 medium tanks and KW-1 heavy tanks, before the arrival of heavier German tanks. 88mm Flak guns were also used as field artillery - e.g. during the Battle of the Bulge. The only problem with 88mm Flak series was its height and weight, which forced it in action to rely on its power and range rather than concealment."

And this from your favourite site Barbi.

**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:48 PM
LOL, probably "my favourite site" can tell you the following:

Difference between FlaK 18, 36, 37, 41, PaK 43, PaK 43/4, KwK 36 and KwK 43 designs.



It`s rather funny how hard you try to escape that your twisted views were wrong again, and continiue to evade and go on new topics: first it was the He-177, then it was Steingbock, then it was the Battle of Berlin, no the 8.8cm Flak, backed up my some short quote for ma awebsite with little informative value, LOL.



http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Message Edited on 06/25/0203:51PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 02:59 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Difference between FlaK 18, 36, 37, 41, PaK 43, PaK
- 43/4, KwK 36 and KwK 43 designs.
-
-

Why don't you educate us all on the differences Barbi instead of your usual un-informative rants.



- It`s rather funny how hard you try to escape that
- your twisted views were wrong again, and continiue
- to evade and go on new topics


Me evading? Barbi ROFLOL, more like you for here is a reputable internet site that state the the AA 88 was use in ground combat, proving your statement WRONG.


**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 03:06 PM
MiloMorai wrote:


- Me evading? Barbi ROFLOL, more like you for here is
- a reputable internet site that state the the AA 88
- was use in ground combat, proving your statement
- WRONG.

Usual reading comprehension, eh? I stated that the 88mm AA was not as efficient and effective for AT role as the standard AT guns of the Wehrmacht, neither as widespread as those.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 03:27 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-
-
-- Me evading? Barbi ROFLOL, more like you for here is
-- a reputable internet site that state the the AA 88
-- was use in ground combat, proving your statement
-- WRONG.
-
- Usual reading comprehension, eh? I stated that the
- 88mm AA was not as efficient and effective for AT
- role as the standard AT guns of the Wehrmacht,
- neither as widespread as those.
-

quote by Barbi

"Maybe it`s news for you Milo, but 88mm AA guns were built for AA role, not tank hunting."

This statement is mighty hard not to understand./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif No see "efficient" or "effective" mentioned./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Memeory fading Barbi?


Another quote by Barbi in a thread asking about mounting the Flak 18 on a pz IV

"Flak 18 towed by a Zugkraftwagen was almost the same thing. They could ready it up in minute or so."

"Mybe one reason it was not used is the fact it was an AA gun. Flak batteries needed the gun tube as well."
**beware the charge of the rhinos**

Message Edited on 06/25/0211:03AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 05:52 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- They are comparebale in time, they are comparable in
- nubmer of sorties. BTW, it was not me that wanted a
- comparison, but I was asked to do one. So I did one.

Not realy but whatever.


-
- Yes, as usual, carefully selected and altered
- numbers to make the total defeat into a victory.
- Only losses at Belrin, and only the more successful
- raids. Fact remainast that ANY attack doen by the
- RAF BC costed 50-70 shot down eavy bombers every
- night. Their success varied - sometiems they hit the
- tagret, soemtimes only one bomb fell onto the city
- from many hundred bobmer formations.
-
- According the Peter Hinchcliffe, RAF-BC losses from
- Nov. 1943 - March 1944 for BC operations were over
- 8000 KIA.


Interesting summary on me using 'carefully selected and altered numbers to make the total defeat into a victory"
as my data on RAF aircraft losses from Nov 1943 - March 1944 is from: Hinchcliffe, Peter "The Other Battle". p.257.


-
- LOL, Victory? Yes, according to some totally biased
- British histroian maybe. But for them, even Dunkirk
- was a victory.

And you can tell me what historian is not biased?.


- "... from the operational sense, the Battle for
- Berlin was not only a failure. It was plainly a
- defeat."
-
--Sir Charles Webster and dr. Noble Frankalnd (DFC, former navigator of RAF-BC)


*"The suggestion that the Berlin campaign was a failure is not supported by the facts. An examination of the results reveals not failure but success..."

*Group Captian Dudley Saward OBE.

As I said their are 2 sides to the Berlin atgument & both have an element of truth.



-
- On the night of March 30-31, a total of 908 RAF
- bombers took off, escorted by 80 Mosquito Night
- fighters.

The Nuremburg force consisted of a little over *800 bombers, 6 Squadrons from No. 8(Pathfinder) Group, 41 main force squadrons, 20 Mosquitos of No. 100 Group flew seprate missions, & 32 Mosquitos from No.2 Group flew intruder missions. 50+ RAF Bombers mined South of Heligoland in a diversionary raid.

See: Hinchcliffe, Peter "The Other Battle". pp. 252 - 253.

-
- This raid was the final nail in the coffin of the
- Battle for Berlin, and RAF operations ceased
- immidiately. Some can make up stories about that it
- was because of Overlord, but the truth remains that
- the RAF simply cannot bomb Germany with these losses
- occruing, proven by the fact that the raid on
- Nurnberg, resulting in extremly high losses of
- menpower and hardware was, probably by a
- coincident, the last raid doen by the RAF BC in the
- Berlin operations.

Here we will agree to disagree as ontrol of BC operations passed to SHAEF during this time period.


Regards, John Waters

"The pilot who sees the other first, already has half the victory".

Erich Hartmann.

http://www.brooksart.com/Eyesofeagles.jpg


'P-51 Mustangs of the 363rd Squadron, 357th Fighter Group, set out for another bomber escort mission. In fifteen months of combat flying, the 357th destroyed an impressive 609 enemy aircraft shot down, and a further 106 destroyed on the ground. No other group shot down more Me262 jets or created more Aces.'

-----

"Babes, Bullets, & Bombs, damn I love this job."

Duke Nukem.


-------------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.



Message Edited on 06/25/0207:51PM by PzKpfw

XyZspineZyX
06-25-2002, 11:04 PM
What is it about Isegrim that whatever thread he joins becomes a vicious knock down drag out battle. Without fail.

Points picked from previous postings in this thread.

The Sabre was an inline liquid cooled engine and the copious postings about German radials was irrelevant. The chin cooler and side exhaust stacks on the Tempest V are there because the engine was not a radial. The radial engined Tempest was the II which did not see WWII action.

The Tempest certainly was a fighter by any definition even if it operated better at low altitudes and was efficient at destroying armour and V1 flying bombs.

The one and only MB-5 prototype was flying up to 1947.

Leaving aside the war winning debate over BC night raids, it must be remembered that every piece of damage inflicted on the German state and its population had to be defended against and repaired. The military value of RAF area bombing is not as relevant as the strategic contribution that kept vast numbers of military personnel and civilians away from doing other things which the Germans would have preferred they did to further their war effort.

I couldn't ethically justify the civilian death toll of Dresden et al but the German people cannot claim that they were innocent bystanders in a bestial war which was of their making and was supported enthusiastically by them. Bomber Harris said that the Germans had "sewn the wind and would now reap the whirlwind" The citizens of Britain needed to know that the nation which had brought them and the rest of Europe untold misery and death, were now receiving their retribution. Perhaps Isegrim is right that Bomber Commands activities were held to be of no importance to the Germans but they were very important to the British. They made the war worth fighting until the second front could be launched to wipe away the Nazi cancer from Europe. Every piece of the puzzle fits to form the finished picture and the RAF bombing campaign was yet another thorn in the side of the German people which added to their defeat.

Later in the war the commander of the 8th Airforce when asked to compare British area bombing with American precision bombing remarked that "While the RAF area bombed with precision the USAAF precision bombed vast areas" Neither force actually performed as well as they would have wished but at the end of the day it was the Germans who were on the receiving end and it was the Germans who lost the war. I don't believe that even Isegrim can find a reference source to refute that.

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2002, 12:27 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- To be precise, the raids required mre of the British
- resouces than of the Germans. It hardly mattered how
- many civilians the British mass murdered, because
- that only broguht hatred, but did not effected
- German war efforts.
-
The bomber offensive consumed 7% of he British war effort, according to a former air chief marshall, and prof. Richard Overy. Germany devoted approx 9% of her economy to combatting it, irrespectie of any damage done.
By 1944, 30% of he electronics and optics industries were producing equipment to stop night raids.


- The much vaunted Cologne raid was insignificant, the
- RAF had neither the technolgy, number of planes to
- make it significant, it was rather a propaganda
- raid. Hamburg and Dresden were made possible by the
- weather, not by RAf efforts. In those two, around
- 200 000 men died, but what was the result? Nothing.
- Did German production suffered? No. Did Gemrnay
- surrendered as a result? No. But these were the
- expectations of Harris. Even in Hamburg, the
- majority of the factories did not suffer too much
- damage, and production was back on line on 100% in
- two weeks. And this was an exceptionnally heavy
- raid.
Hamburg and Dresden killed about 75,000 Germans, not 200,000.

The Hamburg raid destroyed, according to German sources, over 100 major factories, approx 4,000 minor factories. Lost production at the shipyards cost 25 submarines.

The shipyards weren't even hit, but a month after the raids, only 50% of their workers were in work. 20% of the skilled workers never went back to work at all.

The average absentee rate for the months of July, August and September was close to 50%.

Production in Hamburg was 80% of it's pre-raid level 5 months afterwards. It took more than 7 months for production to reach the level it had been before the raid.

Total lost production amounted to 2 months output from Hamburg.

Stats from Overy, Middlebrook, and even Irving.


- On the cotnrary, practically the whole UK aviation
- industry was concerned with buildign very expensive
- heavy bobmers, which consumed enourmous amount of
- fuel. If you comapre how much percantage of war
- production of the UK was wasted on the raids, and
- how much these raids lowered German production, you
- will see that they didn`t worth it. Messacring of
- Germna civillians didn`t help them at all as the
- messacring of jews didn`t help Hitler at all.
-
Britain produced over 110,000 aircraft during the war.Less than 20% were heavy bombers.

Bomber Command had less than half the manpower of the RAF, which in turn had less than 20% of total British manpower.


- So compare of war production lost in the UK to
- produce and train and replace heavy bombers and
- their crew, with the amount of damage they casued in
- German prodcution.
-
Even if there had been no damage in German production, the Germans devoted more resources to sopping Bomber Command than Britain spent on creating Bomber Command.

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2002, 12:38 AM
Same as the Dambusters raid as although not necesserily a dent in the German production it did have a moral boosting effect in blighty and over 10'000 troops were utilisd to defend dams across German occupied territory!

I think we can argue the fact till the cows come home but this debate is irrelevant when the war has been won..By whatever means! Murder he cried..is not all war murder??

It is very easy to argue about what our predecessors did. At the time I think choices were very limited!!



KISS MY CHUDDIES!

KISS MY CHUDDIES!

KISS MY CHUDDIES!

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2002, 12:50 AM
http://crop-duster.freewebspace.com/images/rcafpost.jpg


I agree with you CD. Seafury..one of the pinnacles of proppeller driven AC. It may or may not have been the best but damnnnn it sure was sexy /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif

'blur'ski

XyZspineZyX
06-26-2002, 04:09 AM
We're very lucky here in Australia that there is at least one Sea Fury, perhaps more, in flying condition.
I think there is also one in NZ
The UK does not have any more in the air - as I understand it.

There is one in particular that is/was a regular showpony at almost all of South Australia's air shows - An FB11.

http://users.chariot.net.au/~theburfs/seafurypage2.html

Unfortunately, I think the owner listed for that aircraft was killed in an accident (different plane). I'm not sure.

Whataplane! Love the sound of that engine.

It is done up in Australian service colors - as they served on the light-fleet carriers HMAS Sydney and Melbourne during the Korean war.

Now, If only there were a few flying Fireflies and Sea Hornets around...

Sigh.

michapma
06-27-2002, 09:29 AM
Does anybody recognize this plane? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/interviews/cfs3/Typhoon_mk1B_radical_maneuver.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 09:48 AM
BigClaw wrote:
- Boomerang ugly? No - just weird Aussie stuff like
- the weird machine gun they used with the mag on top,
- and that weird stuff they eat that looks like a copy
- of Marmite, but tastes like sh@!


Vegemite?...yummmm The trick is not to put it on like an american with peanut buttter!

The Owen gun?...that SMG was a campaign winner. Perfect for jungle fighting. The designers then went on to interview thousands of SMG users post-war, and designed the F1, again with a top loading magazine, and only 4 moving parts. You can teach a recruit to strip and reassemble one in the dark in under 30 seconds, they're solid, more reliable than an AK47(which takes some doing) cheap to manufacture, and most importantly, you can shoot one prone (lying down) without the magazine getting in the bl@@dy way!

The boomerang? No-one ever said it was beautiful! Great little a/c though. (Australia actually made a/c before we manufactured cars!)

cheers,
Tony

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 05:01 PM
hop2002 wrote:

- The bomber offensive consumed 7% of he British war
- effort, according to a former air chief marshall,
- and prof. Richard Overy. Germany devoted approx 9%
- of her economy to combatting it, irrespectie of any
- damage done.

Don`t come of this "facts" of yours, which were laready proven wrong. Last time you were saying "over 50 000 Flak guns and 10 000 Night Fighters".

Even when the TOTAL production of Flak guns were udner 20 000, and even if the Nachtjagd had 600 night fighters in total in avarage during the war.

The bobming offensive cost the RAF slightly over 55 000 traiend aircrews lives... for the Germans... a few hundred trained pilots maybe.


- By 1944, 30% of he electronics and optics industries
- were producing equipment to stop night raids.

How surprising that tanks didn`t need airborne radars at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Compared to that, 100% of the Britihs electrical industry was working to equip the RAF BC with radar equipmebnt to blidn bomb German cities.

- Hamburg and Dresden killed about 75,000 Germans, not
- 200,000.

You are Dresden denier, but we laready know that.

Deathtoll in Hamburg was over 40 000. And only the IDENTIFIED Dresden population deattoll was 50 000. Total number of deaths were estimated 135 000 by Hans Voigt, who was in charge in beruing the dead in Dresden.


-
- The Hamburg raid destroyed, according to German
- sources, over 100 major factories, approx 4,000
- minor factories. Lost production at the shipyards
- cost 25 submarines.

100 "major factories" in Hamburg, LOL. "4000 minor factories", ROFLOL. That incuded the shoemaker`s shop on the corner, right? Vital for war effort!

What are your "German sources"? Name them.


Albert Speer was on a very differnet opinion, as your unnamed "German sources".


- Britain produced over 110,000 aircraft during the
- war.Less than 20% were heavy bombers.

And those 20% needed over half the engine production of the UK, 25 000 Merlins for the Lancasters alone, without replacment engines.

In other words, the only the Lancasters costed the RAF 25 000 Spitfires.

The pointless raids of Harris deprived the the Coastal Command of every high performance, long range bombers and the high-tech radar equipment to fight the U-boots on the Atlantic, which, according to Chruchill, were the major threat to the UK war efforts. It was because of the bobmer offensive that the U-boots by 1942 sank more British shippign than the British could replace.



-
- Bomber Command had less than half the manpower of
- the RAF, which in turn had less than 20% of total
- British manpower.

Nice playing with numbers. The RAF BC alone lost over 55 000 men, which coutned as much as 15% of the toal British losses.

The Bobmer Command was total failure, that cost the UK over 55 000 men and over 10 000 bobmers alone. Results approached zero, other than some distgusting war crimes such as the firebobming of cities, a wanton mass murer of civillian population.


http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 05:14 PM
Isegrim, where were you yesterday? We definately missed you! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Regards,
SkyChimp
http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/AAA_P-72_SkyChimp.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 08:26 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- The Bobmer Command was total failure, that cost the
- UK over 55 000 men and over 10 000 bobmers alone.
- Results approached zero, other than some distgusting
- war crimes such as the firebobming of cities, a
- wanton mass murer of civillian population.

-
By the same sweeping logic the Luftwaffe was a total failure because Germany lost the war.
Have you forgotten Guernica and Coventry which occurred some time before Dresden?
How many bombs did the Hungarian Airforce drop on Nazi Germany, Isegrim?
They did fight for democracy and freedom didn't they?
Didn't they?

-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 08:52 PM
Some interesting info on the U-boats

from

http://www.kriegsmarine.net/uboats.htm


" According to Professor Jürgen Rowher, who has made exhaustive studies of the subject, 1,156 U-boats were constructed during the Second World War (this takes no account of 14 captured foreign submarines). Of these only 863 were in operational use. The remainder were either undergoing final fitting, in training or some form of transit to an active U-boat flotilla.

From the total number of U-boats the following statistics have been drawn regarding their fates.
663 lost in combat - 266 by enemy aircraft; 243 by enemy naval units; 46 by combined air and sea attacks; 28 for unknown reasons; 24 by enemy submarines; 18 by mines; 12 scuttled as a direct result of combat damage; 10 scuttled due to the impossibility of regaining a friendly port; 9 sunk by collision; 6 captured for some length of time; 1 sunk by Italian Torpedoboat by mistake.

142 lost (not through combat) - 53 destroyed by bombing in Germany; 34 decommissioned in port before the war's end; 19 scuttled in France or Norway; 16 lost to training accidents; 9 to "friendly" mines; 7 in friendly waters through accidents; 2 handed over to the Japanese; 2 interned in Spain.

Total percentage of U-boats lost: 65% of all boats lost while 77% of operational boats were lost in combat.

365 remaining on date of surrender 8th May 1945 - 201 scuttled in or near friendly port; 114 anchored in friendly port; 30 still at sea, made way to Allied port; 10 at sea returned to Germany; 4 scuttled at sea; 4 in Japanese ports; 2 sailed to Argentina and were interned.

Further to these figures are the interesting observations made by Jak-Mallmann Showell in his book "U-boats under the Swastika" (again based on Rohwer's statistics) that:

* 25 boats attacked and at least damaged 20 or more ships
* 36 boats attacked and at least damaged between 11 and 19 ships
* 70 boats attacked and at least damaged between 6 and 10 ships
* 190 boats attacked and at least damaged between 1 and 5 ships.

Given these figures, 73% of U-boats constructed during the Second World War (including all 1 170 U-boats - whether frontline or training machines) achieved no success against the enemy."


more from (remember this Barbi?)

http://www.onwar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001483-2.html



"Here are the CORRECT facts

Merchant shipping losses
5,150 ships totalling 21,570,720 Gross Registered tons were sunk, of this total 2,714 ships of 11,455,906 tons were British, the remainder were allied and neutral
In 1939 the British Merchant navy consisted of 9,488 ships of 21,215,261 tons. thus 28.6 per cent of the original total of ships and 54.4 per cent of the original tonnage were sunk.

of the total Allied losses:
2828 ships of 14,687,231 tons were sunk by submarine

820 ships of 2,889,883 tons were sunk by aircraft

534 ships of 1,406,307 tons were sunk by mine

104 ships of 498,447 tons were sunk by warship raider

133 ships of 829,644 tons were sunk by merchant raider

99 ships of 229,676 tons were sunk by E-boat

632 ships of 1,029,802 tons were sunk by other causes

U-boat losses
of the 1,162 U-boats built and commissioned during the war 785(U-31 was sunk twice) were lost in the war, 156 surrendered and the remainder were scuttled at the end of the war

British forces ( including Commonweath and Allied forces operating under British control) are credited with sinking 514, US forces sank 166 and 12 were shared between British and US forces

figures from, The Navy at War 1939-45 by Stephen Roskill"

now bay rich from the same thread:

"So, overall, the most successful year for the U-Boats was 1940, before the expansion of the force allowed for an increase of more than about a dozen patrols sailing per month, and well prior to the entry of the US and its shipbuilding capacity into the war. Worse, the performance of the U-Boat force in 1941 and 1942 never exceeded its performance in the first months of the war. And, after 1943 the U-Boat campaign became ever less relevent to the outcome of the war."

and

"Hmm, as usual you enjoy playing with your numbers. We've already coverd your lumping of all Allied merchant ships to all causes under your rubric of 'British losses to U-Boats.' now let me try to address the rest of this.

The operational U-Boat force from 1943-1945 never approached a "steady 400-500 boat[s]." Rather, during 1942 the peak strength of boats assigned to combat flotillas (including those under repair for combat-damage and breakdowns, but excluding those assigned to school flotillas, experimental projects, or otherwise retired from combat) was 202, during November. The low in 1942 was 89 in January. The average monthly strength during 1942 was 143.83. The strength of the force peaked in May 1943 at 237. It had declined to a low of 159 by November. Average monthly strength during 1943 was 197.58. The peak strength during 1944 was 168 in February, the low was 146 in November. Average monthly strength in 1944 was 157.83. The peak strength in 1945 was April with 165, the low was May with 134, prior to the surrender.

At that, these were much better than 1939 (average of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly) and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost per ship sunk (see my previous reply).

No, actually the UK was never 'losing' the U-Boat war, it just took them a while to realize that they were winning it."





**beware the charge of the rhinos**

Message Edited on 06/27/0203:59PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 09:04 PM
continue:

by Rich in reply to a post by Barbi, from the same thread

and

"Dear me, but you really do appear to be both intellectually and emotionally challenged.

The spike in sinkings during 1942 was caused by a confluence of a number of different events. One was the surprise entry of the US into World War II. Another was the loss of German Naval ENIGMA, which occured almost simultaneously. Third, the US Army Air Force and Navy entered the war in the midst of a serious disagreement as to the allocation and tactical use of ASW aircraft. Fourth, just as the year began the Germans had discovered and corrected the last serios flaw in their torpedo design, increasing its effectivenes by probably 20 to 25%. And finally, in 1940 and 1941 the US had turned over 60 DDs and large Coast Guard vessels to the British and Canadians, seriously depleting the number of escorts immediately available for the US Atlantic coast.

This combination dispersed the Allied naval effort at a critical time. It was unknown to ULTRA that the U-Boats were concentrating on the US Atlantic coast until it was too late. Some transfers were of necessity made for the Atlantic to the Pacific by both Britain and the US, at a time when escorts were still in desperately short supply.

The result was a blood-bath that cannot be laid directly at the door of the Royal Navy. From January through August 1942 569 ships of 2,583,336 GRT were lost to German U-Boat patrols in American waters. During the same period, only 72 ships of 315,404 GRT were lost on the North Atlantic convoy routes.

In effect, the U-Boat force, which was already close to defeat by the British, was given a new lease on life simply because they were able to deploy in an area where there was a lot of shipping that was traveling unconvoyed and without viable air or naval escort.

Yes, American aide in the form of shipbuilding eventually was critical in maintaining the Allied merchant fleets. But it was not critical as the Allied nations entered 1942. Rather, it was the extremes of losses that were suffered as a result of US entry into the war that made that contribution critical, after 1942. Prior to that the strength of the British merchant marine and shipbuilding capacity were sufficient to sustain the attacks of the U-Boats.

To look at it another way, through December 1941 135 U-Boats were lost, an average of 4.8 a month, but that was to a force that only averaged 31.2 boats operational per month, which is a 15% monthly loss rate. During 1942 that average operational strength increased to 143.8 boats per month, and losses averaged 17.25 per month, which meant that the monthly loss rate was 12%. So the losses remained virtually unchanged, while the sinkings they inflicted on the Allies increased, but only in the Americas, they actually decreased in the vital North Atlantic shipping lanes. Which meant that Britian was not threatened with starvation, which in turn meant that the German campaign had little actual long-term result. Given that the residual American ship-building capacity existed, it was simply impossible for the German campaign to have any result by the simple sinking of ships, the sinkings had to have a concrete result(in effect, this is simply another facet of the major German failure in the war, the lack of objectivity in pursuing tactical as opposed to operational or strategic goals)."



**beware the charge of the rhinos**

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2002, 11:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- The bomber offensive consumed 7% of he British war
-- effort, according to a former air chief marshall,
-- and prof. Richard Overy. Germany devoted approx 9%
-- of her economy to combatting it, irrespectie of any
-- damage done.
-
- Don`t come of this "facts" of yours, which were
- laready proven wrong. Last time you were saying
- "over 50 000 Flak guns and 10 000 Night Fighters".
-
- Even when the TOTAL production of Flak guns were
- udner 20 000, and even if the Nachtjagd had 600
- night fighters in total in avarage during the war.
-
Total production of Flak guns 88mm and larger was over 20,000. It was similar to the numbers of 105mm field guns produced by Germany, and close to the total number of field artillery they produced. That's not counting light flak.


- The bobming offensive cost the RAF slightly over 55
- 000 traiend aircrews lives... for the Germans... a
- few hundred trained pilots maybe.
-
And tens of thousands of trained factory workers, railway men, shipyard workers, firemen etc.

-
-- By 1944, 30% of he electronics and optics industries
-- were producing equipment to stop night raids.
-
- How surprising that tanks didn`t need airborne
- radars at all. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, but they need radios, and the fighters need radios, and reflector sights, and the air to air missiles Germany was developing needed lots of electronics.

-
- Compared to that, 100% of the Britihs electrical
- industry was working to equip the RAF BC with radar
- equipmebnt to blidn bomb German cities.
-
How did Feranti manage to develop the reflector sight, and how did Britain build computers to crack the Enigma code? The British electronics industry produced a whole host of things during the war.

-- Hamburg and Dresden killed about 75,000 Germans, not
-- 200,000.
-
- You are Dresden denier, but we laready know that.
-
- Deathtoll in Hamburg was over 40 000. And only the
- IDENTIFIED Dresden population deattoll was 50 000.
- Total number of deaths were estimated 135 000 by
- Hans Voigt, who was in charge in beruing the dead in
- Dresden.
-
-
Theo Miller, who catalogued all the dead in Dresden, said he accounted for under 30,000 bodies. He said the absolute maximum possible was 50,000.

The Dresden archivist did a study, including all the burial records etc, and came up with the figure of 25,000.

The police reports from the Dresden and Berlin police both said around 20,000 bodies recovered, with up to 6,000 more missing.

There are numerous respected authors who support a figure of 25-30,000. There are a few neo-nazis and cranks who support the higher figures.

--
-- The Hamburg raid destroyed, according to German
-- sources, over 100 major factories, approx 4,000
-- minor factories. Lost production at the shipyards
-- cost 25 submarines.
-
- 100 "major factories" in Hamburg, LOL. "4000 minor
- factories", ROFLOL. That incuded the shoemaker`s
- shop on the corner, right? Vital for war effort!
-
How far does an army get without boots?


- What are your "German sources"? Name them.
-
-
- Albert Speer was on a very differnet opinion, as
- your unnamed "German sources".
-
Speer described Dresden as a catastrophe, and said another 6 raids of the same scale would have ended the war.


-
-- Britain produced over 110,000 aircraft during the
-- war.Less than 20% were heavy bombers.
-
- And those 20% needed over half the engine production
- of the UK, 25 000 Merlins for the Lancasters alone,
- without replacment engines.
-
Merli production in the UK was over 110,000 engines.

- In other words, the only the Lancasters costed the
- RAF 25 000 Spitfires.
-
The RAF never ran short of Spitfires. Another 25,000 Spits would have sat in storage.


- The pointless raids of Harris deprived the the
- Coastal Command of every high performance, long
- range bombers and the high-tech radar equipment to
- fight the U-boots on the Atlantic, which, according
- to Chruchill, were the major threat to the UK war
- efforts. It was because of the bobmer offensive that
- the U-boots by 1942 sank more British shippign than
- the British could replace.
-
-
The heavy bomber program didn't fully gear up until 1943. By that time the U boats were alreay well beaten.
Costal command managed to sink 195 U boas with the aircraft they did ge, so they weren't all that hard pressed.

-- Bomber Command had less than half the manpower of
-- the RAF, which in turn had less than 20% of total
-- British manpower.
-
- Nice playing with numbers. The RAF BC alone lost
- over 55 000 men, which coutned as much as 15% of the
- toal British losses.
-
- The Bobmer Command was total failure, that cost the
- UK over 55 000 men and over 10 000 bobmers alone.
- Results approached zero, other than some distgusting
- war crimes such as the firebobming of cities, a
- wanton mass murer of civillian population.
-
To quote Harris "The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a dozen other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

michapma
06-28-2002, 07:56 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Some interesting info on the U-boats
-
- from
-
- <a href="http://www.kriegsmarine.net/uboats.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.kriegsmarine.net/uboats.h
- tm</a>

[snip]

- Given these figures, 73% of U-boats constructed
- during the Second World War (including all 1 170
- U-boats - whether frontline or training machines)
- achieved no success against the enemy."

Mm-hmm. Remember "Das Boot"? I can understand why. But the perceived effect of U-boats was probably something quite different (I'm no expert).

- At that, these were much better than 1939 (average
- of 19.5 monthly), 1940 (average of 18.75 monthly)
- and 1941 (average of 47.5 monthly). OTOH, the 'bang
- for their buck' was probably highest in 1940, which
- was also arguably the U-Boats most 'successful' year
- in terms of ships sunk per patrol and U-Boats lost
- per ship sunk (see my previous reply).

Of course, in the opening months of the war ships were not travelling in convoys and didn't have protection, plus after the merchant and navy ships started moving in convoys it took a while to get the experience to really counter the subs.

- No, actually the UK was never 'losing' the U-Boat
- war, it just took them a while to realize that they
- were winning it."

Brilliant, isn't it.
Mike

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 12:03 PM
My 2 cent's worth:

The RAF relied on 2 Coastal Cammand aircraft to nail the U-Boat threat. The Short Sunderl;anf flying boat, which used Pegasus or P&W engines and the B-24 Liberator using P&W engines. These two aircraft had the endurance and range to hunt down surfaced U-boats,and sink them from the air.

The inverted aircraft pictured in an earlier posting is a Hawker Typhoon.

If Isegrim does not think that RAF Bomber Command, the US 8th Airforce, the use of Mustang long range fighters etc etc did not defeat the German Nazi state. Perhaps he would like to give us an insiders view as to what the allies actually did right that defeated Hitler's military machine. I'd really like to know which factor he feels brought down the unspeakable regime and ground it's face in the dust. Or perhaps he does not accept that the Germans lost the war? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 04:06 PM
The battle for the Atlantic was far more difficult as it can be mentioned in statistics..

The statistics are misleading, because Germany built more U-boats in the last two war years then in the others together. But in the last two years the conventional U-boats did not have many successes, because the breaking into Enigma, surface radar, homing torpedoes, no experienced crews and many other causes.
The new type XXI, the first real U-boat, which had not to surface to reload the batteries and was able to make 20 knots submerged (the conventional type VII made only 7 knots submerged) came too late to had effect on the battle for the Atlantic.

Remember that the Kriegsmarine began WWII with about 60 U-boats and they were very successful in the early war years.
From 1939 to 1941 they lost only two U-boats to aircraft attacks, because the Bomber Command refused to use bombers with long range for ASW patrols, so the Coastal Command was forced to use flying-boats (which were to slow to catch an U-boat with good lookouts) and aircraft which were no useable for the Bomber Command (for example Anson and Hudson) and they did not drop depth charges until mid 1940, so a direct hit with a bomb was needed..
When four-mot bombers were available (Lancaster and Halifax), the CC recieved old bombers like Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens.

Britain was close to loose the battle for the Atlantic at least three times.. first End 1940 and then again when U-boats massacred the shipping along the US East coast.
In Early 1943 the U-boats almost succeeded in cutting the convoy routes in the big convoy battles (for example SC-122)

But after May 1943, the conventional U-boats did not have a chance to attack convoys, after horrendous losses due to the causes I mentioned above.

For further informations read this website:
http://www.uboat.net

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 04:29 PM
If the allied bombing was not effective, why did the Germans spend so much money, valuable fuel, and lives and of their pilots to stop it?

Was that a tactical error on their part?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 04:48 PM
judexdrap wrote:
- If the allied bombing was not effective, why did the
- Germans spend so much money, valuable fuel, and
- lives and of their pilots to stop it?
-
- Was that a tactical error on their part?
-
-

It is not about hte Alleid bombing, jsut about the RAF`s night raids, that didn`t caused any serious loss to the German indusrty, just killed civillians. Harris hoped to knock out Germany out of the war by bombing and destroying Berlin. Berlin was not destryoed and Germany did not surrendered after the RAF raids, which ended in the end of Marhc 1944. The RAF`s night offensive was thus a complete failure and waste of resources, as well it was a war crime.

http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!

(Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 05:19 PM
The laws of war prohibit the specific targetting of noncombattants. As long as the bombing raids were designed to destroy combattants, they were technically legal. No matter how indescriminate they were. Hence the legality of the A-bombs against Japan.

Making attackers harder to detect would seem to be a legitimate military excuse for use of night bombing raids, in spite of the increased probability of noncombattant casualties. Now, if one could show that the night raids did not help the attackers evade defenses, and really were designed to increase noncombattant casualties, there would be a case for violation of the laws of war.

The fact that mostly noncombattants or only noncombattants were killed in a bombing raid does not prove that the attack was not originally designed to attack combattants.

No doubt Germany also accidentally killed noncombattants during the war while attempting to hit enemy combattants.

That being said, it would be more interesting to discuss whether targetting munition or military equipment factories at all was technically legal. People in munition factories do not appear to fit the traditional definition of uniform combattants. Well, it seems a lot of things done in WW2 were not technically legal, but were accepted as normal war fighting behavior. That is not to say that all violations of the laws of war whould go unpunished.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 05:26 PM
judexdrap wrote:
-
- No doubt Germany also accidentally killed
- noncombattants during the war while attempting to
- hit enemy combattants.

Boy, that's the understatement of the year ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,
SkyChimp
http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/AAA_SkyChimp_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2002, 05:43 PM
Yes, no doubt.

But don't confuse Crimes Against Humanity with violations of the laws of war. Laws of War are much more defined and generally apply to signatories of certain treaties or conventions. Crimes Against Humanity apply universally.

Mass extermination of people such as the Jews and other minorities in WW2 was not a violation of the Laws of War. The Laws of War were designed to control how nations' uniformed armies behaved toward each other.

michapma
07-01-2002, 07:59 AM
Just out of curiosity, are you citing modern international laws of war or the laws established before 1939?

I don't know if they've changed, but maybe it's worth considering.

Mike

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2002, 08:23 AM
The Tempest was a very good fighter. One of the strange things about it was that as it got faster it's manuverabilty increased, thats why it was perefct for going after V-1 rockets. and four 20mm cannons really get the job done fast.

http://deadman.co.nz/sigs2/sigbig1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2002, 08:34 AM
I would prefer the Spit XIVe anytime/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kimura

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2002, 07:06 PM
Vegemite? How can it taste so awful when it has similar ingrdients to Marmite? It's a mystery.

The Owen gun - sounds very effective - how did it compare to the Sten?

The Boomarang was indeed a technical and development miracle - shows that Aussies can move REAL fast when they have to!

BigClaw

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 01:57 PM
hello!!i'from italy an you???? you speak italian??help no ehengli

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 01:58 PM
hello!!i'from italy an you???? you speak italian??help no english?




Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- How about this Barbi - how many 88mm guns were used
-- in the AA role that could have been better used by
-- the Germans killing Soviet T-34 tanks?
-
- Maybe it`s news for you Milo, but 88mm AA guns were
- built for AA role, not tank hunting. Given the fact
- the Germany had over 50 000 AT guns built, handling
- tanks were not much of a problem. AA guns weren not
- well suited for that, because of the much higher
- costs and higher silhoutte. Cheaper, smaller guns of
- greater quantity could do that jsut as well, and AA
- guns would be needed anyway to fight US bombers.
-
- The rest of your "points" are simply hopeless - the
- UK, with less industrial capacity and less
- population had to focus it`s entyire economy and
- menpower on the senseless night raids, which didn`t
- yield any success, just losses.
- Thre raids cost the UK far more than to Germany.
-
-
-- Oh yes, the Eigth AF gave up on precision bombing
-- and went to area bombing with a lead bomber telling
-- the rest of the Group when to drop.
-
- That`s what called precison bombing, obviosuly not
- the same thing as a RAF bomber dropping a big bomb
- *somewhere over Germany*.
-
- http://www.extra.hu/BarbarossaI/VO101PUMA.jpg
-
-
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérünk a Szerencse!
-
- (Courage leads us, Luck escorts us! - motto of the
- 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 02:10 PM
It was indeed a great plane...thats why you cant say which was "the best" period....because there were so many good ones... It would be easier to classify the best as the best from country XXX than to say "the best"... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif otherwise it ois like you said ....one of the best../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

RichardI
06-27-2003, 03:16 PM
The hawker Tempest was witout a doubt the very best fighter of WWII. It could outclimb, out turn, out dive, out run, and out gun any other plane. Too bad it came along so late in the war.

Do a search on "The Hawker Tempest Page". Great stuff.

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 03:23 PM
The hawker Tempest was witout a doubt the very best fighter of WWII.

- It could outclimb
No

- out turn
I heard the Tempest needed a full year for a 360? turn./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- out run
at low level yes

- and out gun any other plane.
4x20mm was RAF&LW standard by 1944.



http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 03:59 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Is there such thing as an ugly WWII fighter?

Dunno, but the Blackburn Roc tries its best.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 04:35 PM
Panther_99FS wrote:
- No sim...Just 3D renderings. Also, I have an Osprey
- book that says the Tempest could "just barely" turn
- inside the P-51D.

The RAF in its tests with a P51B concluded that
it couldn't turn inside a P51 at all! Still a great
plane - just not a turner.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 04:39 PM
Vinnie_Gumbatz wrote:
- With the far superior Bristol Centaurus 18
- cylinder sleeve valve
-
- radial it was a world beater. Speed is life and the
- Fury was
- very fast. I feel it was twice the fighter than any
- Spit.

The forunner to the Fury, the Tempest II (also
with the Centaurus) could also do well at altitude,
getting to 460mph at 30,000 feet - close to the
P47Ms official 470mph. Down low it did 406mph,
rather above the official P47M speed of about 360ish.

I did see a Sea Fury at a display about 3 or so
years ago. Sounded amazing. Sadly it crashed a couple
of weeks later killing the pilot.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:01 PM
- Down low it did 406mph,
- rather above the official P47M speed of about
- 360ish.

Neil Sterling got some official figures out of the PRO.

With 100/150 octane fuel and MW50 injection, the Tempest II developed 2950hp at sea level, with a max speed of 426mph at sea level, rising to 451mph at 6,000ft.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:06 PM
michapma wrote:
-
- Just out of curiosity, are you citing modern
- international laws of war or the laws established
- before 1939?
-
- I don't know if they've changed, but maybe it's
- worth considering.

To a certain extent, both. Conventions on the
treatment of your own populace are mostly
advisory, rather than automatically invoking
sanctions. (The UN can seek to apply sanctions
by vote, of course).

In the 1930s the way you treated your own population
was even less covered. However, there were various
restrictions on the use of various weapons, and
the Hague Convention covering the use of air power,
and its effect on civilians (that being the most
relevant one here).

Also there wasn't just one Geneva Convention - there
were a whole number, and the last one (or Geneva
Protocol) that I know of is from 1977, which
details acceptable targeting policies, when it
is acceptable to target power installations that
supply both military and civilian needs, attacks
on water supplies and sanitation, chemical plants
in built up areas, etc.

Some of the Geneva Conventions in the late 1940s
(I think there were two, from memory, but I could
be wrong) cover mundane things like the design of
badges to be worn by non-combatant press correspondents.

Even then, there are sometimes opt outs available
(the UK opted out of some of the restrictions of
the 1977 protocol, AFAIK the USA didn't).

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:26 PM
Tatsfield wrote:

- What is it about Isegrim that whatever thread he
- joins becomes a vicious knock down drag out battle.
- Without fail.
-



not only isegrim is participating in those threads /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif





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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 05:29 PM
"One thing you forget about it's achille's heel is poor climb ability. It is like cat can outrun dog but with claw clipped off, it is hopeless when cat's staina fall off as can not climb tree to escape. (just certain variant that saw in combat most time) also they label as attack aircraft most time."



hello there, it hade better zoom climb then any other plane and thats all you need in combat

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:30 PM
Too true NuFoerki.

And that's a shame as some interesting discussion becomes lost beneath a 'my historian's bigger than yours' contest.

Just an observation on some ill tempered, very selectively argued discussions I have seen on these boards.

Tempest anyone?

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 06:57 PM
The first thing I thought when I saw the Tempest, it looks alot like a D9-fw190 (later version). A rip off?

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:26 PM
when tempest comes to IL-2, lets fight instead of takling, but for now on you can try me in Aces high, I kick your *** in my tempest!!!!!!

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:37 PM
http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/pilot.jpg


http://www.nwc.net.au/~lso/images/whale.jpg


Message Edited on 06/27/0306:38PM by pdog1

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:45 PM
this animal is not that dangerous. the tempest was another category i guess /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 07:50 PM
the Tempest was actually ment to be a fighter aircraft but it was too bad for that, and coz of the heavy cannons it provd to be great at ground attacking.

But if it didn't have these heavy cannons, well, then maybe they woulda crapped the Tempest project or how I should say it!

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 08:02 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-
- Neil Sterling got some official figures out of the
- PRO.
-
- With 100/150 octane fuel and MW50 injection, the
- Tempest II developed 2950hp at sea level, with a max
- speed of 426mph at sea level, rising to 451mph at
- 6,000ft.
-

Too bad it`s just another stripped, half loaded prototype that never saw WW2 combat, Hop. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

A certain 109 developed 469mph at SL at 2770 PS long, long time before that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Still, the ordinary WW2 Tempest V will be a very capable boom and zoomer plane, as soon as it gets to il2.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/27/0309:04PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:03 PM
- Too bad it`s just another stripped, half loaded
- prototype that never saw WW2 combat, Hop.

What makes you think it's stripped and half loaded?

It gives performance figures for the Tempest II at various ratings with various fuels. It's dated March 1945.

The prototypes first flew in 1942 and 1943, production machines first flew in Oct 44, so the tests in March 45 would have been of production planes, to production standards.

The Tempest II was a fighter. Why would they test it without guns and radios and armour etc? No other British combat aircraft were tested that way.

- A certain 109 developed 469mph at SL at 2770 PS
- long, long time before that.

Do you mean the 109R? A dedicated speed record plane, with no armament, or even provision for armament, fuel for only a few minutes, and a cooling system that evaporated the coolant, so could last for a max of a few minutes.

As far as I know, the fastest military version of the 109 could do approx 380 mph on the deck, about 50 mph slower than the Tempest II.

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:20 PM
The Typhoon/Tornado was designed to be an interceptor but its high altitude performance was lacking so it went into ground attack role. The program was considered being scrapped at one time but it was kept alive to counter the FW-190, specifically its low altitude incursions into England. Due to its heavy armament and excellent speed it succeeded in this role. So essentially it became a low-altitude interceptor and also performed ground attack missions. This can be seen in the development of the Tempest as well as it performed EXTREMELY well at low altitude and continued the interception role, as evidenced by the numerous V-1 rockets it shot down. If it weren't for the numerous engine problems the Typhoon would have been more prominent. The Tempest was the best Allied fighter at low altitude IMHO, and that's why it should be pretty damn good in FB when it arrives. 392 mph at sea level with the power (4x20mm Hispano cannons) to do some serious hit and run. Outstanding climb rate, tough airframe, great visibility, strong in a dive, good maneuverability, not much to dislike about this aircraft. It's only real problem was an unreliable engine and initial problems with tail breaking away from fuesalage. I guess you can tell by now it is my favorite plane of all time along with Spitfire.

PS. How did this old thread get brought up?

Another PS. Nobody fly this plane unless you truly love it, don't fly it to score points. It deserves better than that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg


Message Edited on 06/27/0309:23PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:24 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- Too bad it`s just another stripped, half loaded
- prototype that never saw WW2 combat, Hop.
- A certain 109 developed 469mph at SL at 2770 PS
- long, long time before that.
- Still, the ordinary WW2 Tempest V will be a very
- capable boom and zoomer plane, as soon as it gets to
- il2.
-
-
-

And what 109 was that?

Certainly you do not mean that special built a/c from 1939 which used the designation '09 for propaganda purposes that could not even be converted into a fighter.

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/Me209-5s.jpg




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:32 PM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Too bad it`s just another stripped, half loaded
-- prototype that never saw WW2 combat, Hop.
-
- What makes you think it's stripped and half loaded?

All British speed tests I have seen refer to 95% load. That`s half fuel load, and this is no exception. That`s several hundreds of pounds taken from the plane, it`s stripped for me. The British loved to make these small tricks in their speed specs it seems.


And I am glad you don`t deny it`s a SINGLE PROTOTYPE ONLY. At least in the way that it does not represent the standard aircrafts in squadron service.


-
- It gives performance figures for the Tempest II at
- various ratings with various fuels. It's dated March
- 1945.

Correct. It gives for 150 grade+methanol injection, which was NEVER used in service, not to mention WW2.

-
- The prototypes first flew in 1942 and 1943,
- production machines first flew in Oct 44, so the
- tests in March 45 would have been of production
- planes, to production standards.


"Would". Lots of speculation here.

Do I have to remind you again that the Tempest II saw no WW2 combat in either theatres, and it didn`t run in service under the conditions you gave?

Why the fantasy a/c all the time, Hoppy? Normal Brit a/c not competative enough? It seems they are not.


-
- The Tempest II was a fighter.
-

But not in WW2, and not at +16lbs boost.


-
- Why would they test it
- without guns and radios and armour etc? No other
- British combat aircraft were tested that way.
-

Oh, don`t be silly. The Spitfire XIV test, which you love to show so much, was done on a half loaded, cleaned up, repainted, stripped plane (aerial, wingtips removed etc.) running on a boost that was not cleared in squadron service ....

Still, like the Tempest II, it is referred to as it was a "standard" plane by Hop all the times, to confuse others.

You are never honest enough to mention these "small details" about it.


-
-- A certain 109 developed 469mph at SL at 2770 PS
-- long, long time before that.
-
- Do you mean the 109R? A dedicated speed record
- plane, with no armament, or even provision for
- armament, fuel for only a few minutes, and a cooling
- system that evaporated the coolant, so could last
- for a max of a few minutes.


It`s entirely fair to compare it with a half loaden, non-standard engine, non-standard boost test aircraft that does not represent squadron a/c at all.



- As far as I know, the fastest military version of
- the 109 could do approx 380 mph on the deck, about
- 50 mph slower than the Tempest II.

ad1, There was no "military version" of the Tempest II in WW2. Simply because there was no Tempest II in WW2.

ad2, Military versions of Tempest II (=in service) never runned on the boost you refer to.

Even on 150 octane, +10lbs, the Tempest II could run no faster than 412mph on the deck.

On the normal 100grade fuel, the max. speed it could attain was 392mph. Not that impressive, when we have the very poor high altitude performance in mind.

So forget your fantasy figures, or accept the comparisons with similiar "standard" 109s, like the 109 that developed 469mph under "standard" conditions.



Or face the reality. Official British specs for the Standard Tempest II with Centaurus V. engine (not the Cent VI as with Hop`s prototype a/c...).

http://www.pbase.com/image/5283541

But again, Tempest II didn`t see any service in WW2.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 10:57 PM
"Normal British a/c not competitive enough? Seems not."

I really hope you are kidding. With this one statement you could ruin any credibility you have. Please tell me you are joking.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:08 PM
I am joking of course, and try to get Hop behave in a more honest way. It`s really boring when he comes up with stripped test aircrafts all the time like they would be representative of real squadron a/c.

Oh, ad for Tempest V. performance, here`s a curve I made based on real life flight tests of serial planes. The one for the Tempest V. can be viewed here:

http://home.epix.net/~cap14/tp.html


And here`s the graph:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Tempest%20vs%20La7%20K4%20D9.jpg



Looking at this graph, I am puzzled why I should be that much impressed. It`s speed is among the best WW2 fighters for sure, but it`s nothing that special, really.

Climb ditto:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/TempestV%20vs%20LA-7%20K4%20D9%20CLIMB.jpg




http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/28/03 12:11AM by Vo101_Isegrim

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:29AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:48 PM
<img src=http://warsite.freeservers.com/images/hawker_tempest.gif>

<img src=http://frenchaces.free.fr/avions/raf/tempest_ph.jpg>

===============================
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.-Abraham Lincoln

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.- Robert E. Lee

Scotland Rules!!!
<img src=http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/projects/globalclassroom/courses/classes/3843f01/group2/Images/ww2_usrecruit2.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:49 PM
- Correct. It gives for 150 grade+methanol injection,
- which was NEVER used in service, not to mention WW2.


Have you got a source for that? Because from now on I'm going to use the same standards as you. I've got this chart showing 16lbs boost, 426 mph at sea level, and if you haven't got any proof otherwise, I'm going to take it that's normal.

-- The Tempest II was a fighter.
--
-
- But not in WW2, and not at +16lbs boost.

It certainly was a fighter in WW2, even if it didn't see any combat. It eqipped 2 RAF squadrons before the end of the war.

And if you haven't got proof 16lbs wasn't used, then all we are left with is a primary document showing 16lbs.

- Oh, don`t be silly. The Spitfire XIV test, which you
- love to show so much, was done on a half loaded,
- cleaned up, repainted, stripped plane (aerial,
- wingtips removed etc.) running on a boost that was
- not cleared in squadron service ....

Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal Spit figures.

Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire.

It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed, but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a pretty common configuration.

It shows a Spit with the mirror removed, but that wasn't exactly uncommon either.

The total speed gain attributed to cleaning up in the report is about 8 - 10mph, which is on the low side for the mirror and wingtips, so certainly doesn't count removing aerials etc. In fact, the report details all the aerials and masts, but it doesn't metion removing them anywhere in the report.

As to cleared in squadron serivce, where is your proof it wasn't?

Early Griffon 65s were certainly barred from running at 25lbs, but the same report says they will be modified. Some other Griffons, like the 64, were cleared to use 25lbs boost, and I've seen some sources claiming Griffon 64s were fitted to some Spit XIVs for this very reason.

Incidentally Isegrim, how do you interpret a source saying "these engines are at present limited to 21lbs boost, although they will be capable of operation at n the future" as "running on a boost that was not cleared in squadron service"?

- Still, like the Tempest II, it is referred to as it
- was a "standard" plane by Hop all the times, to
- confuse others.

Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was representative of Spits in squadron service. Oh, I forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums, which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed to post the picture to a text only forum I still haven't been able to work out, let alone how I posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left OnWar before that was posted on the web.

- You are never honest enough to mention these "small
- details" about it.

Like when you post specs on the 109K with Db605L, without mentioning it was at most a prototype, and may never have flow at all? Or like your speed and climb charts for the 109K4, which always show the performance with C3 and MW50, whereas the only evidence available suggests the 109K4s had to run on B4 and MW50, for a lot less power?

-- Do you mean the 109R? A dedicated speed record
-- plane, with no armament, or even provision for
-- armament, fuel for only a few minutes, and a cooling
-- system that evaporated the coolant, so could last
-- for a max of a few minutes.
-
-
- It`s entirely fair to compare it with a half loaden,
- non-standard engine, non-standard boost test
- aircraft that does not represent squadron a/c at
- all.

It's fair to compare a one off racer, that was incapable of carrying any weapons, flying for more than 20 mins, or being fitted with radios, iff etc, to a production warplane running on an engine rating it was certified for?

- ad1, There was no "military version" of the Tempest
- II in WW2. Simply because there was no Tempest II in
- WW2.

Yes there was. Prototype first flew in 42, production models were delivered to the RAF in 1944, two squadrons had converted before the end of the war.

- ad2, Military versions of Tempest II (=in service)
- never runned on the boost you refer to.

Got evidence of that? I've got a chart showing that, so you'll need to provide evidence it wasn't done.

- Even on 150 octane, +10lbs, the Tempest II could run
- no faster than 412mph on the deck.

Which is still more than 30mph faster than any military 109.

- On the normal 100grade fuel, the max. speed it could
- attain was 392mph. Not that impressive, when we have
- the very poor high altitude performance in mind.

No, on 100 grade fuel it could do 412 mph on the deck.

- So forget your fantasy figures, or accept the
- comparisons with similiar "standard" 109s, like the
- 109 that developed 469mph under "standard"
- conditions.

Compare a production warplane to a one off racer? Can I compare Thrust SSC, the British car that broke the sound barrier at 763 mph, to a production Porsche?

XyZspineZyX
06-27-2003, 11:51 PM
- I am joking of course, and try to get Hop behave in
- a more honest way. It`s really boring when he comes
- up with stripped test aircrafts all the time like
- they would be representative of real squadron a/c.
-
- Oh, ad for Tempest V. performance, here`s a curve I
- made based on real life flight tests of serial
- planes. The one for the Tempest V. can be viewed
- here:

Honest?

You have justed compared a Tempest V on 9lbs boost, when by late 1944 they were running at least 11lbs boost, to a 109K4 with C3 and MW50, when in reality they were restricted to B4 and MW50, for approx 200hp less.

RichardI
06-28-2003, 12:06 AM
Wow! Isegrim doesn't think the Tempest was any good? Now there's a shocker.
Isegrim you need to get away from those charts you seem to put so much emphasis on. They don't mean $hit. They don't translate into real life. If they did, the Nazi's would have never been shot down, and would have won every one-on-one encounter with enemy aircraft.
I think if you check the record, you'll find that's not the way it happened. Got a chart for that?
I'm bettin' you chart your bowel movements./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rich /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<Center>http://www.ghosts.com/images/postimages/THUNDERBOLT.jpg <Center>I've got 140 109's cornered over Berlin!

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:07 AM
Metallicaner wrote:
- the Tempest was actually ment to be a fighter
- aircraft but it was too bad for that, and coz of the
- heavy cannons it provd to be great at ground
- attacking.
-
- But if it didn't have these heavy cannons, well,
- then maybe they woulda crapped the Tempest project
- or how I should say it!

The cannons weren't particularly heavy - probably
about the same weight as 6 .50s, more or less, and
were a pretty standard armament for RAF planes (or
the basis of the standard armament) - e.g. Hurricane
IIc, Whirlind, Mosquito, Beaufighter, Typhoon 1b,
Tempest, Meteor, and some Spitfires, and also immediately
post war aircraft until the 4 30mm Aden armament
became the standard with the Hunter (later reduced to two
in the Lightning).

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:10 AM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Too bad it`s just another stripped, half loaded
-- prototype that never saw WW2 combat, Hop.
-
- What makes you think it's stripped and half loaded?
-
- It gives performance figures for the Tempest II at
- various ratings with various fuels. It's dated March
- 1945.

426 is well above the normally quoted Tempest II
speed at sea level of 406, though, or at least the
one I've seen. Is this at a different octane fuel,
in which case what is the octane for the Tempest V
(392mph)?



Message Edited on 06/27/0311:15PM by AaronGT

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:17 AM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Down low it did 406mph,
-- rather above the official P47M speed of about
-- 360ish.
-
- Neil Sterling got some official figures out of the
- PRO.
-
- With 100/150 octane fuel and MW50 injection, the
- Tempest II developed 2950hp at sea level, with a max
- speed of 426mph at sea level, rising to 451mph at
- 6,000ft.

How does that look compared to the P51H and P47J at
higher altitudes (or the P51H and J at those same
altitudes?)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:39 AM
hop2002 wrote:
-- Correct. It gives for 150 grade+methanol injection,
-- which was NEVER used in service, not to mention WW2.
-
-
- Have you got a source for that? Because from now on
- I'm going to use the same standards as you. I've got
- this chart showing 16lbs boost, 426 mph at sea
- level, and if you haven't got any proof otherwise,
- I'm going to take it that's normal.


OK Hop, you are going to take it as normal. But WTF cares, if you don`t mind my straigtforwardness?

-
- Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
- Spit figures.

Just about half a dozen times you did.

-
- Secondly, it doesn't show a stripped Spitfire.

Half fuel load, mirrors removed, wingtips removed, aerials removed, brand new paintwork, Brown refers to it as a "crash program"... sure, no stripped Spit.

-
- It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total, so was a
- pretty common configuration.


Given that some 900 Spit14s were built, I find it somewhat amusing that they removed wingtips from some "5000+". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



- As to cleared in squadron serivce, where is your
- proof it wasn't?


The test was a result of desperation when the V-1s attacks started, and the Brits couldn`t stop them. So they made some desperate measures with stripped aircraft running on ultra boosts, otherwise not accepted for squadron service.

Eric Brown:

"About mid-June a crash programme was initated to improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire, Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give abnormally high power for strictly short bursts. The engine attrition rate would of course be high, but the urgency of the situation demanded drastic measures.
I was very involved in these exhilarating trials requiring high speed runs at ground level, during which the Spitfire XIV with its Griffon boosted to +19 lb reached 365 mph, the Tempest V with its Sabre boosted to +10 1/2 lb hit 405 mph, and the Mustang with its Merlin boosted to +25 lb actually attained 420 mph."

etc. The same aircraft you were talking about. In the rest Brown tells how the overboosted engien of the Tempest failed, burned, and he had to bail out.



There`s also evidence to that no Spit14s with Griffon65s could run on higher than +21lbs boosts:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg



Finally, there`s a Spit21 with Griffon61 (which had similiar limits as 65) tests dated July 1945, well after the war ended in ETO.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit21.html

AND THEY STILL TEST IT WITH +21LBS ONLY.

Why, if it would be cleared for +25lbs? (Which most likely never happened).



-
- Early Griffon 65s were certainly barred from running
- at 25lbs, but the same report says they will be
- modified.
-

Yep, in the future.

A Messerscmitt document, written in 1944, also states some 12 000 109Ks will be produced in the future.

So I guess those 12 000 were actually produced.


- Some other Griffons, like the 64, were
- cleared to use 25lbs boost, and I've seen some
- sources claiming Griffon 64s were fitted to some
- Spit XIVs for this very reason.


Uh, "some sources". Very, very mysterious, Hop.

There`s no single credible evidence that Griffon 64s were ever built into a Spit XIV, you have just made that up on the spot.



- Incidentally Isegrim, how do you interpret a source
- saying "these engines are at present limited to
- 21lbs boost, although they will be capable of
- operation at n the future" as "running on a boost
- that was not cleared in squadron service"?


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Griffon%20limits%20of%2021lbs.jpg


Simply as they are: NO SINGLE GRIFFON 65 is cleared for more than +21lbs at present. And it`s true until an opposite doc is shown. But given that even Neil Sterling failed in finding that, even if he`s convinced that even motorcycles were running on 150 grade fuel at the time, I am led to believe that such doc is nonexistent, otherwise he would have already showed it.


-
- Show me one instance hwere I have claimed that was
- representative of Spits in squadron service. Oh, I
- forgot, I posted the picture to the OnWar forums,
- which are dead, so you can't prove it. How I managed
- to post the picture to a text only forum I still
- haven't been able to work out, let alone how I
- posted it before I'd even seen it, because I left
- OnWar before that was posted on the web.



Of course, you had not seen it, you deny it, of course, Hop, of course, Onwar of course could take pics, it`s just didn`t show them, but their URL.. but of course the desperate denying of yours tells more about it than anything else.



-
-- You are never honest enough to mention these "small
-- details" about it.
-
- Like when you post specs on the 109K with Db605L,
- without mentioning it was at most a prototype, and
- may never have flow at all?

May never flown at all? Funny Hop, I have GLC charts that list 109K-14 along with the K-4, and there`s evidence that there were prototype K-14s up and running, some sources also state they saw combat service (which personally I doubt). But the K-14s is rather irrevelant here, even if it humilated any Spitfire at high altitude.



- Or like your speed and
- climb charts for the 109K4, which always show the
- performance with C3 and MW50, whereas the only
- evidence available suggests the 109K4s had to run on
- B4 and MW50, for a lot less power?


"Only evidence"? What self-dillusion is that Hop? K-4s could run on both C3 and B4. There`s loads of evidence to that. DB605D datasheets, etc.

As for the "evidence" that would suggest it had to run on B-4... where is it? You mean the tiny excerpt that shows fuel type B4 given for a SIGNLE Gruppe in a SINGLE month, and you would like to claim that this proves that for all the rest 8 months and EVERY 3-4 Gruppes in EVERY Jagdgescwader save but 3, which employed K-4s, B-4 was the only way to go? You don`t even have a slightest clue on what percentage C-3 production was compared to B-4, yet you claim it wasn`t used.

Fine, but if we use this logic, we can also say that no single Spitfire ever used 150 grade because in September 1944 Squadron no. 402 didn`t use an ounce of 150 grade at all, so the same is valid for ALL Spitfire squadrons for the WHOLE timeframe.

Silly isn`t it?


-
- It's fair to compare a one off racer, that was
- incapable of carrying any weapons, flying for more
- than 20 mins, or being fitted with radios, iff etc,
- to a production warplane running on an engine rating
- it was certified for?
-

Where`s the proof it was certified for such boosts? Where`s the proof any British aircraft EVER used methanol injection in squadron service?


-
- Yes there was. Prototype first flew in 42,
- production models were delivered to the RAF in 1944,
- two squadrons had converted before the end of the
- war.
-

Great. And how many become operational, Hop? ZERO. That`s why they didn`t see any action or combat, not even in PTO..



-
-- ad2, Military versions of Tempest II (=in service)
-- never runned on the boost you refer to.
-
- Got evidence of that? I've got a chart showing that,
- so you'll need to provide evidence it wasn't done.


Sure.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Centaurus%20limits.jpg


+8 1/2 lbs the maximum. Not +16lbs.

You see, I have plentyful evidence - unlike you.



-
-- Even on 150 octane, +10lbs, the Tempest II could run
-- no faster than 412mph on the deck.
-
- Which is still more than 30mph faster than any
- military 109.


A single postwar aircraft vs. one that saw combat in hundreds, and was, btw, not really a low altitude fighter? How`s the Tempest II doing at 40 000 ft, Hop?



-
- Compare a production warplane to a one off racer?
- Can I compare Thrust SSC, the British car that broke
- the sound barrier at 763 mph, to a production
- Porsche?
-


Why not? Do it. I sit back and let myself entertained. Especially when half of the British car industry is brought up by German firms at the same time, and the other half is bancrupt or brought up by the Japanese, who sold it to the Germans, who sold it again to the Americans... Volkswagen OWNS Rollce-Rollyce, literrally. The "people`s car", LOL, taking over R-R. Maybe their priorities were a bit wrong. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Until then, save in your piggy bank for this:

http://www.countymercedes-benz.co.uk/images/cars/brabus/273_1.jpg


It`s a mere 145 000 pounds.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:46 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- Honest?
-
- You have justed compared a Tempest V on 9lbs boost,
- when by late 1944 they were running at least 11lbs
- boost,

The site only has detailed info on +9lbs boost SERIAL Tempest V. So I used that. It`s better than stripped, single test flight a/c.

Of course, there`s no single evidence that would show Tempests of 2ndTAF ever running on 150 grade, which was neccesary for them to run on higher than +9lbs boost. Neils doc only shows Spit squadrons receiving modifications to run at higher boost levels. They don`t mention a single Tempest squadron.



-
- to a 109K4 with C3 and MW50, when in reality
- they were restricted to B4 and MW50, for approx
- 200hp less.
-

Restricted? In reality? Your "reality" perhaps...Now that`s more crap, Hop. No single 109K-4 was ever restricted to use B-4 only, give us any documentantation that would show such thing. The DB605DB/DC could run on either type of fuel, with trivial modifications, ie. setting a valve with a screwdriver.


But what can I do? The K-4 flattened out Hop`s beloved Spit 14, and there were 3 times as many on the fronts... that just hurts him SOOO MUCH.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:58 AM
Issy, WW2 did not end until Japan officially surrendered on August 14, 1945 and August 15 was declared VJ Day. On September 2,1945 the Japanese signed surrender documents on USS Missouri.


Issy, methanol was required in the water to stop it from freezing. Methanol was the anti-freeze, not the power boost enhancer, which was the water.

American and British ADI had methanol mixed with the water.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:59 AM
- 426 is well above the normally quoted Tempest II
- speed at sea level of 406, though, or at least the
- one I've seen. Is this at a different octane fuel,
- in which case what is the octane for the Tempest V
- (392mph)?

426 mph at sea level required 150 octane fuel and water methanol injection.

412 was possible with either 150 octane fuel or water methanol injection

The Tempest V could do approx 394 mph at 10.5 lbs boost, but that's for a Tempest V series I aircraft. The Tempest V series II was the major production variant, and had improved aerodynamics, so 392 would probably have been possible on 10 lbs boost.

9lbs required only 100 octane. I have seen 1 source that claims 11lbs required 150 octane, and another that says 11lbs required 100 octane.

Later in the war, the Tempest V ran at up to 13lbs boost, although that definately did require 150 octane.

The figures Isegrim gives in his chart show a Tempest series I running at 9lbs boost.

So as a rough guide, 380 mph would be 9lbs boost, 390 10lbs boost, 400 11lbs boost.

11 lbs may or may not have required 150 octane, 9 lbs definately did not, 12lbs+ definately did.

-- With 100/150 octane fuel and MW50 injection, the
-- Tempest II developed 2950hp at sea level, with a max
-- speed of 426mph at sea level, rising to 451mph at
-- 6,000ft.
-
- How does that look compared to the P51H and P47J at
- higher altitudes (or the P51H and J at those same
- altitudes?)

The Tempest was not particularly fast at high altitudes, but I'd be fairly sure it would beat the Mustang below 6000ft, although not by that much.

The P-47J would probably not have come close. The P-47M and N both had very good top speeds, but attained them at high altitude, down low both were still fairly slow.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:04 AM
MiloMorai wrote:


- Issy, methanol was required in the water to stop it
- from freezing. Methanol was the anti-freeze, not the
- power boost enhancer, which was the water.


Milly, it`s so strange to read you emphasizing that, after having seen you arguing for PAGES long about how "methanol scarcity" prevented use of MW50 in late German planes. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And now you say methanol was of tertiary importance for the mixture...

It changes every time, right?

-
- American and British ADI had methanol mixed with the
- water.
-

British ADI? What British aircraft used ADI in service? I can think of none - save of course American LL planes.


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/28/0302:07AM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:38 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- Milly, it`s so strange to read you emphasizing that,
- after having seen you arguing for PAGES long about
- how "methanol scarcity" prevented use of MW50 in
- late German planes.
- And now you say methanol was of tertiary importance
- for the mixture...
-
- It changes every time, right?
-

For pages, LOL Barbi, how you like to exagerate./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Tertiary? How does one "pump" frozen water? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/images/ussbs/fig12.gif


http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/ussbsint.html

It should be noted that methanol was required in explosive manufacturing.

-
- British ADI? What British aircraft used ADI in
- service? I can think of none - save of course
- American LL planes.
-
-

Did I say they were British built a/c?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:58 AM
-- Firstly, I've never claimed that test shows normal
-- Spit figures.
-
- Just about half a dozen times you did.

And yet you can't find a single one.

- Half fuel load, mirrors removed, wingtips removed,
- aerials removed, brand new paintwork, Brown refers
- to it as a "crash program"... sure, no stripped
- Spit.

Aerials weren't removed, no matter how many times you repeat it. It doesn't even say half fuel load, that's just another of your guesses, although I'm prepared to accept that one.

The wing leading edges were repainted, the rest of the plane was not.

- Given that some 900 Spit14s were built, I find it
- somewhat amusing that they removed wingtips from
- some "5000+"

I didn't say Spit XIVs, I said:

-- It probably shows a Spit with the wingtips removed,
-- but that was done on 5000+ Spits in total,

- "About mid-June a crash programme was initated to
- improve the low-level performance of the Spitfire,
- Tempest V, and Mustang III by using a specially
- developed 150 octane aromatic fuel to give
- abnormally high power for strictly short bursts.

Brown obviously doesn't know everything, then.

The biggest users of 150 octane were Spit IX squadrons, and they weren't used much in anti V-1 duties, because the Spit XIV and Tempest were better.

Secondly, 150 octane was developed long before the V-1 threat, and most Spit IXs in Britain converted in Spring 44, long before the V-1s started.

- There`s also evidence to that no Spit14s with
- Griffon65s could run on higher than +21lbs boosts:

Can you read the part where it says they will run 25lbs boost later?

- Finally, there`s a Spit21 with Griffon61 (which had
- similiar limits as 65) tests dated July 1945, well
- after the war ended in ETO.

- AND THEY STILL TEST IT WITH +21LBS ONLY.

After the war all ratings were lowered. 150 octane was discontinued altogether, because it was expensive and a health hazard.

Comabt ratings are just that, for combat. You don't want pilots in peacetime running their engines that hard. For example, post war RAF manuals limit Merlin Spits to 18lbs again, and the Mustang the same, yet they both ran 25lbs during the war.

- A Messerscmitt document, written in 1944, also
- states some 12 000 109Ks will be produced in the
- future.

Yes, but Germany collapsed before that happened. There's a huge difference in modifying a Griffon 65 to Griffon 64 standard than committing to produce 12,000 planes when you are being bombed and overrun.

- There`s no single credible evidence that Griffon 64s
- were ever built into a Spit XIV, you have just made
- that up on the spot.

No, I've seen part of a pilot's account, from a man who flew Spit XIVs on anti V-1 patrols, which tells of waiting for his new Spit with Griffon 64, because it could go much faster. I didn't understand why at the time, because I thought the Griffon 64 was the same as the Griffon 65, I didn't know one had a higher rating than the other.

- Of course, you had not seen it, you deny it, of
- course, Hop, of course, Onwar of course could take
- pics, it`s just didn`t show them, but their URL..
- but of course the desperate denying of yours tells
- more about it than anything else.

You've now claimed I have repeated that claim "half a dozen times". You still haven't found one of them, though, have you? Shall I claim you claimed the 109 could do 420 mph on the deck, on some board that's convieniently gone?

- May never flown at all? Funny Hop, I have GLC charts
- that list 109K-14 along with the K-4, and there`s
- evidence that there were prototype K-14s up and
- running,

And I have charts that show the Tempest II along with the Tempest V, and theres evidence that hundreds were built, yet you don't want to consider the Tempest II. Double standards?

- "Only evidence"? What self-dillusion is that Hop?
- K-4s could run on both C3 and B4. There`s loads of
- evidence to that. DB605D datasheets, etc.

they could run on C3 if it was in the tanks, but the only evidence I've seen on fuel usage says they only had B4 in the tanks. You have yet to come up with any evidence to the contrary.

- As for the "evidence" that would suggest it had to
- run on B-4... where is it? You mean the tiny excerpt
- that shows fuel type B4 given for a SIGNLE Gruppe in
- a SINGLE month,

Give the evidence showing K4s running on C3 for a single group for a single month.

- and you would like to claim that
- this proves that for all the rest 8 months and EVERY
- 3-4 Gruppes in EVERY Jagdgescwader save but 3, which
- employed K-4s, B-4 was the only way to go? You don`t
- even have a slightest clue on what percentage C-3
- production was compared to B-4, yet you claim it
- wasn`t used.

The only evidence I have seen is a chart showing B4 in 109s, C3 in 190s, and Butch's assertion that that was standard practice.

I also jnow that the Luftwaffe had a huge fuel shortage, and the 190As could only use C3, so if the Luftwaffe was faced with a choice of fly 10 109K4s at 2000ps, or 10 109K4s at 1800ps AND 10 190A9s, I think they'd choose the latter.

Butch says they did, and came up with a chart. You say they didn't, yet you can't come up with a chart.

- Fine, but if we use this logic, we can also say that
- no single Spitfire ever used 150 grade because in
- September 1944 Squadron no. 402 didn`t use an ounce
- of 150 grade at all, so the same is valid for ALL
- Spitfire squadrons for the WHOLE timeframe.
-
- Silly isn`t it?


No, because we have documents showing Spitfire's did use 150 grade.

- Where`s the proof it was certified for such boosts?
- Where`s the proof any British aircraft EVER used
- methanol injection in squadron service?

Where's the proof they didn't? So far, there's a document showing the Tempest at 16lbs boost, and nothing showing it wasn't used.

I remeber when we had this argument over 150 octane, with you claiming it was only made in small quatities, and only used for chasing V-1s. Then Neil Sterling found the documents showing tens of thousands of tons were produced and used.

- Great. And how many become operational, Hop? ZERO.

Squadron service is operational service.

They didn't see combat because Germany had been defeated, and they didn't reach Japan in time before they were defeated.

--- ad2, Military versions of Tempest II (=in service)
--- never runned on the boost you refer to.
--
-- Got evidence of that? I've got a chart showing that,
-- so you'll need to provide evidence it wasn't done.
-
-
- Sure.

Got a date for that?

In fact, have you got the document Neil Sterling posted in the same thread over at Butch's board? The one dated September 44 that says as a result of tests the Centaurus V is now rated for 10lbs boost on 100 octane fuel with water methanol, or 12lbs boost with 150 octane fuel. It says the life of the engine will be when 5 hours have been accumulated at that boost, irrespective of time at lower ratings.

In fact, as it was posted by Neil Sterling at the same time as the one you are selectively quoting from above, and you replied to the thread below it, I'm sure you must have it. Bit dishonest not to quote from that as well, isn't it?

- A single postwar aircraft vs. one that saw combat in
- hundreds, and was, btw, not really a low altitude
- fighter?

How is March 45 postwar? Even the Germans were still struguling on at that point.

- Why not? Do it. I sit back and let myself
- entertained.

Ok. British cars can go at 3 times the speed of German cars. Silly, isn't it?

- Especially when half of the British car
- industry is brought up by German firms at the same
- time, and the other half is bancrupt or brought up
- by the Japanese, who sold it to the Germans, who
- sold it again to the Americans... Volkswagen OWNS
- Rollce-Rollyce, literrally.

And what of the vaunted German aero engine industry? BMW owned by Rolls Royce, a British company (not the cars, Rolls Royce engines), and Daimler a minor player.

- Volkswagen OWNS
- Rollce-Rollyce, literrally.

That's what they though. Volkswagen (who incidentally were given back to Germany by the British occupation authorities, which owned them for a time), bought Rolls Royce cars. However, the name Rolls Royce is owned by Rolls Royce Plc, who make jet engines. They licenced the name for cars to BMW, so from this year Rolls Royce cars will be made by BMW. Volkswagen bought a small specialist car maker for far too much, without realising they weren't getting the Rolls Royce name for their troubles.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:57 AM
Just a couple of quotes from "Tempest/Typhoon in action."

In the winter of 1942...The Tempest prototype reached a speed of 466 mph at 24,500 feet during testing."

"Tempest V testing started in mid-1943. The third production Mk V (JN731) went to Boscombe Down for handling and performance testing which revealed a top speed of 432 mph at 18,400 feet and 411 mph at 6,600 feet and a service ceiling of 34,800 feet."

"The V-1's usually came in about altitudes between 1,500 to 2,000 feet and at speeds around 400 mph. Tempest had a better speed margin than all other fighters at that altitude and their steadiness as a gun platform was a useful advantage."

I really don't know what the exact numbers were but your chart numbers for Tempest seem very low. Top speed of 376 mph at sea level? That is the lowest I have seen by almost 20 mph. The Tempests supposedly were catching the V-1's at 1,500 to 2,000 feet at 400mph, if that is any indication, as history seems to support, then the numbers posted are likely wrong. And I believe the climb rate is way off (low). Still I don't pretend to have any answers but from what I have read and taking the averages I believe the Tempest probably reached about 390+ mph at sea level and about 425+ mph at around 10,000 feet.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg


Message Edited on 06/28/03 04:01AM by kyrule2

Message Edited on 06/28/03 04:40AM by kyrule2

Message Edited on 06/28/0304:42AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:48 AM
Funny, I also noticed that the plane tested in your chart is the same one I posted about from the book I mentioned (and elsewhere on the internet). Strange.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:04 AM
British 100/150 grade fuel, production.

From POWE 33/1363, Report of actual production 100/130 and 100/150 gasolines and components. 1 bbl (barrel) = 35 imp gallons, 1 ton = 2240lbs

Total 150 grade produced.

February 44 to March 45

369,385 tons 3,283,400 bbls 114, 919,000 gallons.

Total 130 grade produced.

February 44 to March 45

293,963 tons

Total aero fuel production. 663,348 tons of which 55.7% was 150 grade.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:45 AM
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Bristol.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:29 AM
From, Comparative performance of fighter aircraft, by the O.C. Flying at the Air Fighter Development Unit, Sqdn Ldr T.S. Wade.


http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Tempest+IIc.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:32 AM
Part 2.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Tempest+IId.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:40 AM
hop2002 wrote:
-- 426 is well above the normally quoted Tempest II
-- speed at sea level of 406, though, or at least the
-- one I've seen. Is this at a different octane fuel,
-- in which case what is the octane for the Tempest V
-- (392mph)?
-
- 426 mph at sea level required 150 octane fuel and
- water methanol injection.

[.. etc ...]

Thanks for that hop.

-

- The Tempest was not particularly fast at high
- altitudes,

The figures I've seen rate the Tempest II at
460 at 30,000 feet, which is only a shade behind
the P47M at 475, but that's in the same set of
figures quoting the SL performance at 406. If
it could manage 426 at SL, I wondered what
the high alt drop off would be.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:04 AM
Anyone got the Wing Load and Roll/Turn Rate in comparison to other major fighters?

How's your feel with this bird in CFS3 as I may ask?

Tully__
06-28-2003, 01:15 PM
Try and keep the personalities toned down and concentrate on the data. Seems to me everyone is posting the best sources they know. Doesn't make any sense to diss someone for posting alternative sources, on the contrary it looks more like an oppurtunity to expand your data resources.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:53 PM
Didn't I see in the developement page that there's going to be a Tempest in the patch?
Can't remember if it's going to be flyable or not though.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:00 PM
Tully__ wrote:
- Try and keep the personalities toned down and
- concentrate on the data. Seems to me everyone is
- posting the best sources they know. Doesn't make any
- sense to diss someone for posting alternative
- sources, on the contrary it looks more like an
- oppurtunity to expand your data resources.

I agree. It's research. There are all sorts
of conflicting documentary evidence for all sorts
of things in all sorts of arenas in history and
plenty of it is conflicting, and open to interpretation.
I suppose that is why historians can keep publishing
books each year about the same events!

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:24 PM
LW Order of Battle


31 May 44

Serviceable Aircraft Strength: Single-engined fighters > 1063

10 January 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strength: Single-engined fighters > 1462

9 April 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strength: Single-engined fighters >> 1305

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html


Seems that vast quantity of a/c produced, especially the 109, became "smoking holes".

An example of a JG

31 December 44 JG26
unit - auth. - a/c > onhand - servcble

Stab - 4 - Fw 190A-8 > 1 - 0, Fw 190D-9 > 2 - 1
I Gruppe - 68 - Fw 190A-8 > 3 - 0, Fw 190D-9 > 49 - 32
II Gruppe - 68 - Fw 190D-9 > 39 - 32
II Gruppe - 68 - Bf 109G-14 > 14 - 7, Bf 109K-4 > 29 - 13, Fw 190D-9 > 1 - 1
III/JG - 68 - 54 Fw 190D-9 . 49 - 32

Out of 208 a/c authorized, only 186 were avaiable and ONLY 86 were flyable. That is only 41.35%.




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:22 PM
hmmm every one seems to be obsessed with top speed and Hp, how about acceleration and torque. do you know how slow a spitfire, bf109 and FW109 is then....