PDA

View Full Version : Bf 109 was a turner or not ? Treu of false !



S.taibanzai
06-17-2005, 08:51 AM
Wat you al think ?


Are veterans right

have a look here



Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace:
"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.
Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?
Interviewer: Yes.
Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."

Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."


Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in a turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."

And some additional facts about the 109:
- The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
- Me-109 was credited with shooting down more enemy aircraft and producing more aces than any single fighter in the annals of aerial warfare.



Plan_D British test-pilots did exactly the same as novice LW pilots did when trying to turn the 109 ! They eased off the turn as soon as the slats popped out, and wouldnt go any further.

The british even verify this themselves in many tests:

"the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "

British test-pilots would almost s**t their pants when the 109's slats deployed, and would think "Hell no !" and then drop the maneuver entirely. That is why these test-results are so inaccurate.

S.taibanzai
06-17-2005, 08:55 AM
More 109 pilot quotes:

Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. During this battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."

Helmut Lipfert, German fighter ace. 203 victories:
"I cast a quik glance at the machine and then climbed up after the other enemy aircraft. ****, he could turn! Finally I was sitting behind him. I turned so tightly that condensation trails formed behind both wingtips and my Me shuddered on the verge of a stall more than once. Fortunately, the 109 turned extremely well.
The whole air battle took place at a very low altitude. I sat behind the Russian like a shadow, and now and then I succeeded in hitting him.......
He (Russian pilot) turned sharply, leaving a heavy vapor trail, and dove away towards the northeast.......... I cut him off and closed in at high speed. My airspeed indicator was showing more than 750 km/h.
I opened fire rather too soon, but he didn't change direction, instead he put his nose down briefly so that I was suddenly a level higher than he was. I put my nose down as well, but as I was about to fire he pulled up again, and this time I ended up below him."

S.taibanzai
06-17-2005, 08:56 AM
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about1849-140.html

Blutarski2004
06-17-2005, 09:09 AM
Turn & maneuverability performance will vary according to the following scientific formula -

(pilot quality) x (aircraft design) = maneuverabilty factor of merit.

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-17-2005, 09:15 AM
Interesting to read this.
Well, maybe the Messer is a real good turnfighter, but only if the violinist knows how to play his instrument. The unexperienced pilots and the superior enemy number(BnZ is better with to much opponents) forced the commonality to have the picture of the 109, that it can`t turn.
But I think the 109 is ok, still able to turn for a short time. Good enough to achieve kills in IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-17-2005, 09:25 AM
There are many accounts you don't show that don't paint the 109 as those.
Blow them off as incorrect.

Good thing the planes are not modelled by stories but rather original test documents.

It is up to the player to find out how to fly the models right. All the time for years
have the best sims pulled away from bank and yank, one formula fits all FM's but this
series has been raising the bar more every time.

Read that first quote again and ask yourself if he is speaking of flat turn combat.

BigganD
06-17-2005, 09:58 AM
Nice post S.taibanzai !
If you look at the spitfire and 109 they look similar,from the front and specialy from the behind. Wonder why most of the big aces were germans. Me109 must have been a great plane.

Those who win a war can change the true facts..

Jaws2002
06-17-2005, 10:36 AM
So is it not turning enough in PF?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Honestly how much better do you want it to turn?
I'm allways shocked when I change from FW-190 to 109.

VW-IceFire
06-17-2005, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
So is it not turning enough in PF?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Honestly how much better do you want it to turn?
I'm allways shocked when I change from FW-190 to 109.
I rather think it is turning just fine in PF. Its hard to choose from Spitfire to 109. Spitfire turns a bit better at high speeds...109 at slower speeds. Sounds right either way.

Jaws2002
06-17-2005, 10:48 AM
That's exactly my point.
109 is one of the best turners in the game.


But i wouldn't give my FW for that ugly KUBELWAGEN http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

S.taibanzai
06-17-2005, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There are many accounts you don't show that don't paint the 109 as those.
Blow them off as incorrect.

Good thing the planes are not modelled by stories but rather original test documents.

It is up to the player to find out how to fly the models right. All the time for years
have the best sims pulled away from bank and yank, one formula fits all FM's but this
series has been raising the bar more every time.

Read that first quote again and ask yourself if he is speaking of flat turn combat.


i dont have to ask my self

But i found rather very interesting that the MYTHE of the bf 109 was not a turn fighter at al is not treu , Like manny thinks here who fly's il-2

in real live ,and i saw the bf 109 at airshow oppenheim type G-4

was very manouverbal


and i think the one's who flew against and with it are more in place to say that is was a very good turn fighter then any of use here

so Maxgunz i now its very hard to exept it but the words of the pilots who flew them i believe 100%

And not some statements from test pilots who didned now how to fly a captured airplane ,in this case a bf 109

Jaws2002
06-17-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
And not some statements from test pilots who didned now how to fly a captured airplane ,in this case a bf 109

90% of the LW pilots in 44'-45 that flew 109 didn't do better then those british test pilots.

S.taibanzai
06-17-2005, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
And not some statements from test pilots who didned now how to fly a captured airplane ,in this case a bf 109

90% of the LW pilots in 44'-45 that flew 109 didn't do better then those british test pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yep 100% right

Mostly rookies who didend have good or proper training deu to lack of time

Man can you imagine how those guys felt ?!!!

just trow in to combat if you live long enouf

that is your training boys

ploughman
06-17-2005, 12:12 PM
I don't know where you get the idea that the 109 wasn't a turn fighter. Almost all the literature I've ever read that extends beyond a parapraphs description of the BoB says the 109 was a turn fighter and in the right hands could out turn or turn with a Spitfire, but the Spit was an easier plane to fly than the 109 so it flattered the inexperienced pilot while the 109 was hard on noobs and punished them. An experienced 109 pilot who new his ride knew he was flying a very capable aircraft that could turn with virtually anything in the sky if properly flown.

HayateAce
06-17-2005, 12:32 PM
Official German stance on the Yak3:

AVOID any combat with a Yak aircraft lacking the front radiator.

Jak3 eat your lunch, as it did in WW2. Bf109 lost it's war and it's turn was beaten by many aircraft.

Here, have a gander to a real dogfighter:

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/GH-Yak3-1-800.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2005, 12:46 PM
Oh nice wish HayateAce would not miss out important part of this Order .) was it avoid df with new yak under 5000 or 6000 m ? And which type of plane was used as mainstay for LW at this order ?

The yak3 reached 720 km/h at 6 k that has not much to do with turning when you avoid dfs you cant run escape from .

ICDP
06-17-2005, 12:46 PM
The Yak-3 would beat any contempory fighter in any airforce in a dogfight (1944).

horseback
06-17-2005, 12:55 PM
The question was not whether the 109 had superior maneuverability, but whether its pilots used the best tactics for it in a given situation.

In most situations, the average 109 pilot found the classic 'zoom and boom' tactics both safer and more rewarding than going in circles with the more numerous enemy aircraft it often encountered.

Pilots who were experienced and gifted, like Marseille and Rall, were able to fully exploit the 109's potential even in a target-rich environment, but they were exceptions rather than the rule, even in the early war period. The development of energy conserving team tactics, permitted by the simultaneous development of high performance aircraft and reliable radio communications, coupled with the Messerschmitt fighter's ability to adapt to more powerful engines and armament during wartime had more to do with the number of high-scoring pilots flying it than the aircraft's maneuvering superiority over its contemporaries.

cheers

horseback

F19_Ob
06-17-2005, 12:59 PM
The 109 sure could turn well enough for dogfights with many planes although they sometimes couldn't outturn them horisontally. The 109 was especially good with vertical elements wich many allied planes couldn't handle equally well because of slower accelleration and worser climb. Hurricanes and p40 and p39 for example.
This is stated by many pilots on all sides of the conflict.

However, many german pilots used the climb, speed and accelleration for safer slashing attacks and then climbed away (BnZ). This tactic made good use of it strenghts and also allowed them to chose to attack or disengage at will, wich is much harder if one sacrifices the energy for turningcombat.
Later in the war when the allied got faster fighters the 109 had a much harder time. Although planes like p47 and p51 wasn't so good turners they could now catch the 109's in climbs and dives aswell as level flight.

Marseille perhaps was one of the most famous of the successful turnfighters in the 109 and he often attacked a group of fighters like spits or p40's alone, leaving his wingman as topcover. He counted on the surprize in his attacks but still often outturned his victims.
Many of his collegues didn't at all adopt his tactics since they thought them to dangerous and risky for the attacker.

a few thoughts

stathem
06-17-2005, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by BigganD:
Nice post S.taibanzai !
Wonder why most of the big aces were germans. Me109 must have been a great plane.

Those who win a war can change the true facts..

This needs to be put to bed every time it crops up.

1) Luftwaffe pilots flew day in day out until they were killed, physically or psycologically destroyed, or the War ended. Western allied pilots flew tours and were rotated out of the firing line after a set number of sorties or hours to train new pilots or other useful work. I wonder which was the most effective tactic, considering the outcome. Soviet pilots had a far more rigorous proceedure to be awarded kills, and different priorites regarding air combat.

2) For most of the War the Luftwaffe faced superior numbers on most fronts. Individual pilots thus had a far greater chance of meeting enemy planes on any given sortie than allied pilots.

3) Most if not all of the top scorers alluded to in the intial post made the bulk of their kills during their "Happy time" before the VVS got it's act together. Of course those that survived continued to make kills since by then they had a wealth of experience. 109's were the main fighter type at this time, the newer and superior 190 being reserved for the JG's facing a harder time over northern Europe. The top Experten did not make their name flying the lottery that was heavy bomber intercept, and when they faced it, they were depleted very quickly.

3) The Nazi warrior-hero ethic placed great emphasis on the sheer number of kills made to the exclusion of all else, as opposed to the success of mission goals. (and according to Golodnikov were rewarded fiscally for kills made.)

The facts as stated say nothing about the superiority or otherwise of the 109 or it's pilots. Any competitive fighter (Spifire, Lavotchkin, P-47 to name but few) would have achieved the same results under the same system. Similarly any "ace" pilot from any airforce (Buerling, Kohzedub, Doe, Boyington) would have run up similar scores under such a system.

I think I'll save this and post it every time it comes up.

Chadburn
06-17-2005, 01:33 PM
Just a few thoughts. The Spits and 109's in the Battle of brittain were close enough in performance that it's generally agreed pilot skill was the deciding factor. Therefore, you get Spit pilots insisting they were never out-turned by 109's and 109 pilots insisting they could turn inside Spits. Of course, there are different types of turns - continuous, instantaneous.

Regarding the quote you use from Leykauf, you left off the last part. He says, "In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it. THIS ADVANTAGE TO THE BF 109 SOON CHANGED WHEN IMPROVED SPITFIRES WERE DELIVERED."

The 109 was not a flying brick as many people who post in the forums would suggest. It had a gentle stall characterisitic that let good pilots get the most out of it's turning ability.

However, as the war went on it got heavy with more powerful engines and it's wingloading got worse, so it was probably a handful to fly even for experienced LW pilots.

Cragger
06-17-2005, 03:37 PM
The other problem with accounts as the original poster detailed is they don't take into account (how could they) The experience of the opponent and how familiar he was with his aircraft. Maybe those Spitfires weren't holding the edge of an accelerated spin like they really could because they where afraid they where already near the edge?

This is the reason why only documented trial data can be used because the instruments used to gather the data cannot lie only display the forces they where reading.

GR142_Astro
06-17-2005, 05:08 PM
stathem,

That may be one of the better posts I've read here in ages. I've copied and will help you paste it up here to keep the myths stamped out.

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

LEXX_Luthor
06-17-2005, 05:13 PM
The Soviet pilot emphasized good Bf~109 vertical manuever but not pure horizontal turning. Here the Bf~109 was at best "average," although I would say vertical manuever superiority is, in general, more important than horizontal manuever superiority.

MEGILE
06-17-2005, 06:07 PM
Are "maneuvrable" and "slow, low altitude turn fights" strictly the same thing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
The BF-109 is a fantastic turning plane in IL2, it just can't outturn Spitfires or Yaks..doesn't make it a poor turner.

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

Hastatus
06-17-2005, 06:10 PM
WW2 air combat rarely revolved around sustained turn fights.

The air battles were too large and typically the one shot down never saw his attacker. They did not have "icons" to tell friend from foe, they flew through poor weather, they had limited intel at the time, ect ect.

Most fighters shot down by another fighter would have been pursuing another fighter or bomber, or covering a wingman, or otherwise distracted when the enemy closed and opened fire. It made little difference if one plane or the other turned better.

There were some combats where they did do a lot of manuevering, yes, but it was the exception rather than the rule.

Read real WW2 air combat accounts. Many aces talk about closing and firing on enemy a/c that did little manuevering. They would see an opportunity, close in quickly, fire, and get the hell out of there.

Examples I will use is the P-47 Thunderbolt, it couldnt out turn Fw190s or Bf 109s in a sustained contest at most alts, but that made little impact on its success as an escort fighter. The P-38 couldnt out turn ANY Japanese fighter...yet it was the most succesfull US type vs the IJN and IJAAF. The Fw190A-3 could not out turn a SpitVb either. So how is it they were successfull types? If all that mattered was this turning ability?

There is a reason that biplanes were phased out of fighter design, figure it out.

Skalgrim
06-17-2005, 06:13 PM
109 was average turner compare russian plane like yaks.

Oleg had say yaks was better turner as spits, compare to the yaks are even spit average
turner.




Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The Soviet pilot emphasized good Bf~109 vertical manuever but not pure horizontal turning. Here the Bf~109 was at best "average," although I would say vertical manuever superiority is, in general, more important than horizontal manuever superiority.

stathem
06-17-2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
stathem,

That may be one of the better posts I've read here in ages. I've copied and will help you paste it up here to keep the myths stamped out.

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

Many thanks Astro. I think there always needs to be some context in these discussions.

Cragger
06-17-2005, 07:25 PM
In conjunction with what Hastatus said you also have to take into account that these pilots had generally been flying for hours and where not on the top of their situational awareness.

Flying from point A to point B is pretty mind numbingly boring work, especially at altitude where everything is green,brown,blue and white without detail, much like driving down a long straight road like the interstates here in the US.

p1ngu666
06-17-2005, 07:41 PM
its more handy in defense probably, as u can quickly get someone off your 6.

in attack if your in the better plane then that gives u a advantage as u can follow whatever the other guy does.

planes that dont turn well tend tobe faster, so that balences out

IHI.OuTcAsT
06-17-2005, 07:44 PM
in-game patch 4.01, I think, from personal experience the best (high speed/late war) turners are BF-109 G6/AS and LA7. Yaks (both 9U and 3) seem too weak and stall often, and spitfires are like FW190D trying to dogfight. That is my view on the 4.01 situation as I have already done many dogfights online.

Too bad the only model of BF that turns good in the G6/AS. The later ones are a lot heavier can\t can't maneuver like that.

stathem
06-18-2005, 01:30 AM
and odd therefore that that model (G/AS) as it is configured in-game never existed IRL

Skalgrim
06-18-2005, 01:42 AM
g6/as with mw50 had existed, but they must call g6/asm, m for methanol (mw50)

More as 1000 g6/as had existed and 150 had get mw50, but they should than call g6/asm

BigKahuna_GS
06-18-2005, 02:42 AM
S!


What the first post did not specify is which model of 109 was flown and at what altitude and speed ?

Manueverability is relative to speed, altitude and aircraft design.

Many of experten perfered the 109F.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Gunther Rall

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/kuvat/WW2History-guntherrall_1.jpg

And when Crete was finished we went back to Romania, and there we got a new airplane. It was the 109 F. This was my beloved aircraft. It was the first aircraft with the round wing tips, no struts in the back, 605 engine (ed. DB 601), excellent, and not too overloaded. You know, later on they put in this, and put in this, and put in this. The aircraft became heavier, but not this one. The F was my ideal aircraft.


___

Ruy Horta
06-18-2005, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Official German stance on the Yak3:

AVOID any combat with a Yak aircraft lacking the front radiator.

First let me say that I have not been able to find an original source for that order, so if you can point me to one I'd be very grateful.

Secondly, yours is but one version of this order, the wording is subjective. The Yak 3 was a good fighter, but ordering not to engage does not make any sense, however an order stating that one should avoid "dogfighting" or turnfighting (Kurvenkampf) a Yak 3 makes perfect tactical sense.

That's why:

1. an original source is paramount
2. an original German text is almost as important

I've been around this subject area long enough that a much repeated claim isn't necessarily true...

jugent
06-18-2005, 03:12 AM
Dont make the misstake to compare this game with reallity.
A programmer can make every plane the way he wants, like make the damageprofile 25% smaller, with only some lines of code.

The LW was defeated by the superior numbers of allied fighters. After a while eaven an ace get caught wiht his pants down, or crash because of mechanical trouble.
And aces are valuble especially if you are fighting against superior numbers.

Lets hope for a future where our computers are so powerful that they can calculate the airprofile for every plane, in every altitude, position, only to the strict aerodynamical/physical figures known from windtunnel test and other sources.

To start with buy games to show the game producers that there is money to make in making this games.
Dont make illegal copies, sneakers

stathem
06-18-2005, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Skalgrim:
g6/as with mw50 had existed, but they must call g6/asm, m for methanol (mw50)

More as 1000 g6/as had existed and 150 had get mw50, but they should than call g6/asm

My apologies, I phrased that badly, it was early in the morning when I posted it.

However....

By my understanding, the AS designation refers to a DB605 with the large blower from the DB603, to give increased performance at higher altitude, but a decrease in power of 50PS at low level.

and

the AS/M, with MW50, which allowed high boost pressures and thus markedly improved power at low level, imposed the penalty of a 90kg increase in weight, which additionally changed the CoG because of it's positioning behind the pilot. And yet by your admission, the G/AS in game is lighter (and therefore handles better) than the later MW50 equipped G10 onward marques - so it has the advantage without the penalty.

Is that about right?

Flying_Nutcase
06-18-2005, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
This needs to be put to bed every time it crops up.

1) Luftwaffe pilots flew day in day out until they were killed, physically or psycologically destroyed, or the War ended. Western allied pilots flew tours and were rotated out of the firing line after a set number of sorties or hours to train new pilots or other useful work. I wonder which was the most effective tactic, considering the outcome. Soviet pilots had a far more rigorous proceedure to be awarded kills, and different priorites regarding air combat.

2) For most of the War the Luftwaffe faced superior numbers on most fronts. Individual pilots thus had a far greater chance of meeting enemy planes on any given sortie than allied pilots.

3) Most if not all of the top scorers alluded to in the intial post made the bulk of their kills during their "Happy time" before the VVS got it's act together. Of course those that survived continued to make kills since by then they had a wealth of experience. 109's were the main fighter type at this time, the newer and superior 190 being reserved for the JG's facing a harder time over northern Europe. The top Experten did not make their name flying the lottery that was heavy bomber intercept, and when they faced it, they were depleted very quickly.

3) The Nazi warrior-hero ethic placed great emphasis on the sheer number of kills made to the exclusion of all else, as opposed to the success of mission goals. (and according to Golodnikov were rewarded fiscally for kills made.)

The facts as stated say nothing about the superiority or otherwise of the 109 or it's pilots. Any competitive fighter (Spifire, Lavotchkin, P-47 to name but few) would have achieved the same results under the same system. Similarly any "ace" pilot from any airforce (Buerling, Kohzedub, Doe, Boyington) would have run up similar scores under such a system.

I think I'll save this and post it every time it comes up.

Yep. It's good for a copy and paste. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-18-2005, 04:21 AM
The facts as stated say nothing about the superiority or otherwise of the 109 or it's pilots. Any competitive fighter (Spifire, Lavotchkin, P-47 to name but few) would have achieved the same results under the same system. Similarly any "ace" pilot from any airforce (Buerling, Kohzedub, Doe, Boyington) would have run up similar scores under such a system.

Disagree!
P-47/P-51 not.
At least, if those planes are the same as they were in history. With .50 cals etc. you can`t attack heavy bomberformations. Those guns are for fighters, not for bombers.
So they needed a few modifications.
Maybe reduce the fuel capacity and install for this reduced weight heavy cannons(like MK 108).

The german fighters had to make a balancing act.

1. Be able to destroy bomber

2. Be able for fightercombat with the fighterescort

P-47/P-51 were made for fighterattacks and vulching. 109 was made for bomberattacks and fighterattacks.

Those planes had different purposes.
But I agree with you, that if the allied aces flew on the german side, they possibly would be as successful, as the german Ace pilots.

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-18-2005, 04:26 AM
The Nazi warrior-hero ethic placed great emphasis on the sheer number of kills made to the exclusion of all else, as opposed to the success of mission goals. (and according to Golodnikov were rewarded fiscally for kills made.)

Where did you read that?!?
A successful(kills) german pilot is not good in achieving his mission goals? Did they have to win the war(alone), to change your point of view?

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-18-2005, 04:29 AM
For most of the War the Luftwaffe faced superior numbers on most fronts. Individual pilots thus had a far greater chance of meeting enemy planes on any given sortie than allied pilots.


Isn`t it rather negative?
More enemies, less chance to survive!

stathem
06-18-2005, 04:29 AM
Yes of course Wulf, but the development of the 109/190 was influnced by the jobs they had to do. There's no reason to suppose the US fighters wouldn't have similarly been turned in slighly different directions.

alert_1
06-18-2005, 04:57 AM
In famous Rechlin test La5FN (1850hp) was described as better turner as Fw190 but worse then Me109...
Also Me109F4 was able to do horizontal turn withut losing speed at 1000 m for 18s, it's just as good as Yak3 (Me109F4=1350hp, 2800kg,Yak3=1240hp, 2660kg..)
Generally VVS fighter was't better turners then Me109 (maybe except of me109K)

Hristo_
06-18-2005, 06:46 AM
From my limited time in 109 in this game, I'd say it turns well. It is not a Spitfire, but even small differences in relative energy states can make up for it.

When I'm in 109 and someone jumps me, he'll have to work very hard to get me.

Here I agree with Galland's quote: "...you wore 109 like a glove, it fitted your hand perfectly..."

Ankanor
06-18-2005, 07:22 AM
I've always wondered why encountering many enemies is considered a positive feature? sorry, but it is just saying that all the kills of the German aces were inexperienced boys who were put as a cannonfodder. This is a disrespectfullness to the deeds of the pilots and instructors on both sides of the frontline. Of course it adds to the image of the "blond knights being kicked in the @ss by a bunch of farm boys, highschool graduates and rednecks". It enforces the belief that "the best soldier is the farmer, the grocer, who left to fight the enemy" that has been around since Bunker Hill. I am not ranting(ok, maybe just a little bit) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Did Marseille fight against the "weak" russians? Or Priller? Or Hahn? When the Russians stopped being weak?

Hastatus
06-18-2005, 08:39 AM
The 109 was not designed in any way different than a P-51 or a P-47. All three types were designed as *interceptor/fighters*. The realities of how the war in Europe played out resulted in them being used as they were.

The 109F was not effective vs 4 engined heavies (as effective as the LW wanted them to be),and later versions (109G-6, 109G-14, 109G-10, 109K-4) had heavier armament (13.1mm MGs and 30mm center cannons eventually replacing the 20mm), and 20mm gondola or mortar bomb mounts. None of that was originally envisioned for the 109 design.

The P-51 and P-47 despite all the stuff about how they were "designed as escort fighters", is absolute rubbish. They were pressed into service that way because of the failure of the initial USAAF strategy of having heavy bombers attack unescorted. When that didnt work (in 1943) the USAAF decided to go to a strategy of escorted raids, and adapted the fighters they had available: P-38 and P-47 for the escort role. The P-51 came along later, and was pressed into service as it had the best range with large DTs.

None of them were ever "designed" to only deal with fighters. The LW, RAF, USAAF and IJN/IJAAF, VVS all had different philosophies about armament, but they were all expected to shoot down fighters AND bombers. The USAAF decided on .50 caliber MGs for the fighters they had more than a year before the unescorted bomber strategy failed, and nobody in the Allied Command had a crystal ball as to what types of heavy bombers the LW might have later deployed.

Hindsight is 20/20.

As for the quality of the flyers facing the LW, on average US and British (incl Commonwealth et al) were well trained and equipped. The VVS by late 1943 was catching up, and by 1944 was gradually fielding more experienced pilots. That being said, the LW would never have willingly gone down a road that would see its veteran pilots having to be kept in service almost continuosly with no rest or rotation. That is a losing strategy, it means they have a shortage of skilled replacements, which by 1944 was reaching a crisis. They LW aces fought to the last because they had to, they had no choice. Same goes for the Japanese aces, for the same reason.

stathem
06-18-2005, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Nazi warrior-hero ethic placed great emphasis on the sheer number of kills made to the exclusion of all else, as opposed to the success of mission goals. (and according to Golodnikov were rewarded fiscally for kills made.)

Where did you read that?!?
A successful(kills) german pilot is not good in achieving his mission goals? Did they have to win the war(alone), to change your point of view? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Reference the Golodnikov interview - read it all carefully and think about it with an open mind.

Additionally, and Lord knows why I am explaining this, why do you think the Luftwaffe handed out decorations based solely on the number of kills made? Or allowing the pilot with the most kills lead his flight? Familiar with the term 'Katschmareks'? Ritterkreutz mit cabbages and forks? Ever heard Jagdwaffe pilots described as having a 'Halsweh' (a sore throat)?

Or of the fate of Helmut Wick? Killed on 56 by John Dundas over the Channel when he got desperate (and therefore careless) to move ahead of Galland and Molders.

Or ask the crews of the 111's. Or the Panzergrenadiers under the guns and bombs of the IL2s.

You see, point *****s existed even then. But then, if you are one, you won't understand my point.

stathem
06-18-2005, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
For most of the War the Luftwaffe faced superior numbers on most fronts. Individual pilots thus had a far greater chance of meeting enemy planes on any given sortie than allied pilots.


Isn`t it rather negative?
More enemies, less chance to survive! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be negative but it's a fact. Read all of Mike Spick's books and make your own mind up.

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 09:48 AM
american fighters where mostly designed tobe long range interceptors, because of americas long boarders and area.

european fighters where point defense, they didnt need the range as countries are smaller, and less fuel= less weight= greater rate of climb.

p51 was designed more as a long range general fighter i think.

stathem
06-18-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Ankanor:
I've always wondered why encountering many enemies is considered a positive feature? sorry, but it is just saying that all the kills of the German aces were inexperienced boys who were put as a cannonfodder. This is a disrespectfullness to the deeds of the pilots and instructors on both sides of the frontline. Of course it adds to the image of the "blond knights being kicked in the @ss by a bunch of farm boys, highschool graduates and rednecks". It enforces the belief that "the best soldier is the farmer, the grocer, who left to fight the enemy" that has been around since Bunker Hill. I am not ranting(ok, maybe just a little bit) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Did Marseille fight against the "weak" russians? Or Priller? Or Hahn? When the Russians stopped being weak?

Look chaps, regarding this. I'm not saying that encountering many enemies is a positive feature. You only assume that if you are of the mind set that thinks the only thing that matter is the maximum number of kills. I'm saying that it is a STATISTICAL reason for the huge number of kills the top Experten ran up. There are of course many other reasons, I'm not denigrating them as pilots.

Consider the case of Ft Lt D_i_c_k Audet. Flying 53 sorties in several months on the Rhiene sector of the Western Front, he had NEVER encountered ANY enemy machines in the air. On 29th Dec 1944, flying CAP over an important Luftwaffe airfield, he finally spotted some airborne e/a - 4 109's and 8 190's. Leading his section of FOUR Spitfires into action (locally outnumbered), in the next 10 mins he shot down 5 e/a - an instant ace and a feat to rival any of Marseille's. And Marseille had flown in the BoB and scored 7 before he went to NA to perform his feats.

Ever heard of D_i_c_k Audet before? Do you understand now how opportunity creates aces?

Ruy Horta
06-18-2005, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Ever heard of D_i_c_k Audet before? Do you understand now how opportunity creates aces?

Opportunity creates aces, but repeat performance creates Experten. The whole concept differs.

First and foremost we are talking claims, and statistics are against ace in one fight claims.

Next you are comparing a Dec. 1944 achievement with one in the period of 1940-41. Different circumstances all together, not a statistically fair comparison.

Do you really expect people to regard the one off performance of Audet, late war, with the repeated early and middle war performance of Marseille?

Stathem how many Luftwaffe pilots with +/- 5 claims do you know?

In this light Audet, might have been outnumbered, but tactically in a superior position. Perhaps a relative veteran pilot against typical late war Nachwuch. Bouncing a number of them and claiming 5 (perhaps only actually shooting down 1/3rd, and killing even less pilots...).

A game of downgrading can be played both ways.

As for "score *****", one of the best examples is Tommy McGuire.

Again, the game of offending icons can be played both ways too...

If you do not want to be objective, it is easy to present these kinds of pictures. You do it, I can do it as well.

stathem
06-18-2005, 01:28 PM
Ruy, I will reply in due course. In the meantime I suggest you go back and re-read the entire thread in the light of your comments

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 02:01 PM
horta, kinda agree with u, but the guy in question hadnt had contact in 53 ops, so he had NO opertunity to shoot down any enemy. he then gets 5 in his first contact, personaly i think thats good going. u need to have contact with the enemy to score, german experten got that, and where good and lucky.

LW had two types aprently, the experten, who where as good as your gonna get pretty much, and the rest who wherent that good.

there where several allied aces who had a better sortie/kill ratio than say heartman aswell.

fact is LW was beaten. even in the end where they seemed to fly around in large groups, still wouldnt win engaugements as much as they should have, ie hardly ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

mynameisroland
06-18-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
horta, kinda agree with u, but the guy in question hadnt had contact in 53 ops, so he had NO opertunity to shoot down any enemy. he then gets 5 in his first contact, personaly i think thats good going. u need to have contact with the enemy to score, german experten got that, and where good and lucky.

LW had two types aprently, the experten, who where as good as your gonna get pretty much, and the rest who wherent that good.

there where several allied aces who had a better sortie/kill ratio than say heartman aswell.

fact is LW was beaten. even in the end where they seemed to fly around in large groups, still wouldnt win engaugements as much as they should have, ie hardly ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What engagements are you talking about Pingu?

You must have forgot the Schweinfurt raids or maybe the Dieppe raid or perhaps even the first stages of operation Barabarossa.

Redwulf_34
06-18-2005, 04:22 PM
Wow, it took me all afternoon to read this thread. It was very intersting. I must say we all forget pilot ability. I love the 109 G2. It's my favorite aircraft. I get into the War Clouds room and everybody out turns me though.

So one evening I decide I'm gonna have some turning fun. I take one of those ALLIED UBER TURNERS and what happens? All the 109s out turn me!

Bottom line is I don't know how to turn! It doesnt matter what my planes ability is I'm not capable of doing it.

stathem
06-18-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:

Opportunity creates aces, but repeat performance creates Experten. The whole concept differs.

Repeat performance requires repeat opportunity. How do you know Audet couldn't or didn't repeat that?



First and foremost we are talking claims, and statistics are against ace in one fight claims.


Apologies, don't really understand this one


Next you are comparing a Dec. 1944 achievement with one in the period of 1940-41. Different circumstances all together, not a statistically fair comparison.


Excellent, so glad you agree with me on that.



Do you really expect people to regard the one off performance of Audet, late war, with the repeated early and middle war performance of Marseille?

Yes absolutley. Audet shot down late model Antons and Gustavs with a Spit IX. Not outmoded ground attack Kittys and Hurris. And besides, I said, or intimated, EQUIVALENT to Marseille, not better than. IMO Marseille was the greatest fighter pilot of WW2, although Pattle and Buerling run him close.



Stathem how many Luftwaffe pilots with +/- 5 claims do you know?


Unfortunatley none. If I had have found an example of a Luftwaffe pilot who illustrated my point as well as the Audet example, I would have used that. It would have saved all this nastiness from people who get upset everytime someone posts something which shows the RAF, and particularly the Spitfire, in a positive light.




In this light Audet, might have been outnumbered, but tactically in a superior position. Perhaps a relative veteran pilot against typical late war Nachwuch. Bouncing a number of them and claiming 5 (perhaps only actually shooting down 1/3rd, and killing even less pilots...).




Of course he was in tactically superior position. Isn't that what Experten do? As Pingu said, and I reiterate, it was his FIRST ever contact with enemy aircraft. The unlucky Luftwaffe pilots had almost certainly met e/a before, unless they were a squadron of replacements flying in.

Why are you talking about claims? All Audet's victories were confirmed, in the standard RAF practice, by the testimony of his flight and Guncam footage. See Clostermann for info. on RAF proceedure for claiming. Are you saying Hartmann, Rall, Molders only actually shot down 1/3 of what they are credited with?



A game of downgrading can be played both ways.

As for "score *****", one of the best examples is Tommy McGuire.

Again, the game of offending icons can be played both ways too...

If you do not want to be objective, it is easy to present these kinds of pictures. You do it, I can do it as well.

If you want to talk painting one-sided pictures, check the thread start.

Why do you think I am not being objective? The story is true; I posted it in order to illustrate a point about opportunity and statistics. I started these frankly tedious explantions in order to de-bunk the myth that the Experten scored so highly because they were German, and because the 109 was a superior aircraft to all others - a laudable objective don't you think, considering the slightly racist undertone of the myth. I am in no way trying to denigrate the achievements of the Experten (ignoring the moral bankruptcy of the regime they fought for), just to illustrate that any of the 'special' pilots of any nation - Pole, American, Russian, Brit, Aussie, Canadian, French, Italian, Kiwi, Czech, Finn,yay and German too,- could have run up similar scores had they been fighting under the system and opportunity that the Luftwaffe did.

(apologies if I missed anyone)

[/RANTOFF]

Hastatus
06-18-2005, 05:50 PM
Comparing aces is always apples and oranges. They fought different battles, and different foes, and flew different a/c, at different times in the war. The respective air forces had tours of duty that lasted for differing time periods.

Btw "Experten" was not a "different concept" its a German word meaning "expert". Ace (coined by the French press in WW1), experten, it means the same thing: a veteran fighter pilot who scores successes. The Japanese word for it? I have no idea but I guess they had one...

As for Audet, I see no reason to not give him the credit he is due, he was obviously a very good pilot.

As for Wick, I never read a single word that he "got careless" or was a "score hound", any more or less than anybody else.

As for Macguire, he was in a sort of "unnofficial" competition with Bong, he surely was not the only ace in history to do so with a rival? He was also a very capable fighter leader. Maybe he should have shot down less so that post war historians would think better of him? C'mon.

I see a lot of assumptions and half baked truths being thrown around with little to no facts to back them up. - "My ace is better than your ace" arguements are largely irrelevant.

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
horta, kinda agree with u, but the guy in question hadnt had contact in 53 ops, so he had NO opertunity to shoot down any enemy. he then gets 5 in his first contact, personaly i think thats good going. u need to have contact with the enemy to score, german experten got that, and where good and lucky.

LW had two types aprently, the experten, who where as good as your gonna get pretty much, and the rest who wherent that good.

there where several allied aces who had a better sortie/kill ratio than say heartman aswell.

fact is LW was beaten. even in the end where they seemed to fly around in large groups, still wouldnt win engaugements as much as they should have, ie hardly ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What engagements are you talking about Pingu?

You must have forgot the Schweinfurt raids or maybe the Dieppe raid or perhaps even the first stages of operation Barabarossa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

badly mauled some unprotected bombers, dieppe raid the RAF kept up the air umbrella and protected the ships etc well from what ive heard.

first stages or barabarossa went very well, dont surpose the fear of stalin helped the ppl in command.

mid to late war mostly, plus theres the BOB and malta too. the polish put up a very good fight also, in p11's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

horseback
06-18-2005, 07:33 PM
Apparently, the subject of this thread has evolved into the question of what makes an (German) experten vs what makes an ace (primarily in the context of the Western Allies).

Let's start by agreeing that both groups were possessed of certain basic qualities:

1)aggressiveness/competitiveness,

2)superior vision (not necessarily superior eyesight-witness Galland-but people able to see)

3)the ability to observe and predict motion in three dimensions (a little more than simple marksmanship)

4)better than average eye-hand coordination

5)greater than average physical strength and endurance (it is no coincidence that many of the experten/aces were outstanding athletes in their youths); other than late-model P-38s, fighter planes of the era were controlled by muscle power; men died when they got tired.

6)they had to be more than adequate pilots

7)they were capable of learning from their mistakes; a number of the great ones had an early escape to teach them caution. There are lots of dead guys with between 5 and 15 kills. Statistically, it looks to me as though many of these died of overconfidence.

7)finally, they had to be capable of 'grace under fire,' to be able to perform precise tasks under physical and emotional duress.

In every fighter unit in WWII, less than 10% of the pilots did more than half of the damage to the enemy. These men had at the very least these basic qualities in some combination.

Now let us agree that skills improve with practice, and that in WWII, contact with the enemy was the best teacher. Practice dogfights or 'rat races' with your squadronmates do not fully prepare you to perform in combat, any more than shooting baskets by yourself in the driveway prepares you for shooting three pointers in an NBA game (it's good practice, but hardly the same intensity). The 'train like you fight, fight like you train' philosophy was not practiced by the respective air forces during WWII to any degree.

The German fighter pilot had a good head start over his European contemporaries at the outset of the war, possessing a superior fighter in the Bf-109E with powerful and reliable armament, excellant performance, and good handling qualities in the air. Add to that superior tactics, reliable communications systems, and generally better training, and when they made contact, their 'tigers' were able to make the most of their chances.

With the brief exception of attempting to establish air superiority over Southern England (which mainly taught the survivors caution), they continued to lengthen their lead over the opposition through 1942. By this time they had established a nurturing system, identifying newcomers with potential, and apparently setting them up for their first victories to be relatively untraumatic. Galland and others state that they went to some pains for budding stars to make their first kills easily. This practice fell by the wayside as enemy number increased and just making it home alive took priority by the Spring of 1944.

By contrast, the RAF (their only remaining major opponent in 1941-early '42) took the majority of its surviving Battle of Britain aces out of combat after the losses of several promising fighter leaders in the post-Battle period. Thus, leaders like Malan saw little action after the losses of Bader and Tuck, for example.

Less spectacular scorers could cycle into combat units for six months at a time after a 'rest' assignment, and over a period of a couple of years, begin to approach the numbers of the heavy hitters, but some could lose their edge sitting on the sidelines for too long or failed to make contact in later combat tours.

When the US trained USAAF units arrived in Britain in late 1942, the Germans had a tremendous lead in experience and confidence. The only American fighter pilots with combat experience were in the former Eagle Squadrons of the 4th FG, and their ranks were trimmed of several experienced leaders to be distributed among the USAAF units arriving, limiting their effectiveness even farther.

The Americans followed the British lead in the sense that experienced fighter pilots served a defined combat tour, and returned to train other pilots, develop tactics and strategy, or sell War Bonds. Because they had to fly farther to the combat zone, and enemy aircraft were comparitively more rare, combat experience was harder to come by for them. Top scorers were often guys who could make to an enemy aircraft first.

John Godfrey said that Don Gentile -an early leader in the ETO ace race- was unbelievably quick to spot and engage the enemy; as soon as he saw them, he was on them. Gentile had been with 121 'Eagle' Squadron, with two Spitfire kills at Dieppe, three or four kills in the P-47, and another 14 or so scored in less than three months from February to April of 1944 flying a razorback Mustang. Few ETO pilots had as much combat time to learn their skills, and none had anything approaching the experten.

Thus Gunther Rall could 'corner' the vastly less experienced Hub Zemke's (with only 14 months' combat and 14 kills) flight of Thunderbolts and take down 3 of 4 to bring his score up to 275. Rall's time in combat dated to the Battle of Britain period, interrupted only by injuries and wounds by that point in mid 1944. He ****ed well should have been better than Zemke with the most tenuous of advantages, and by Zemke's description, Rall had all the cards in that encounter. Zemke was smart enough to recognize that fact, and dove for the deck once his last wingman was taken out of the fight.

The Germans were the only ones to operate in a largely defensive fighter campaign in a 'target rich' environment for an extended period. Defensive campaigns, where the enemy comes to you in numbers, provide the best opportunities for fighter pilots to score quickly and often. American fighter pilots at Guadalcanal, British pilots in the Battle of Britain, and Malta scored fairly well even when they lacked a technological advantage (or even parity, in many cases). Their defensive campaigns lasted a few months. The Germans' defensive campaign began in 1942 and ended with VE Day.

Statistically, a few exceptional individuals were bound to beat the odds and develop tremendous, if not unbelievable, skills. The top experten had the 'opportunity' to do so, and did. I will happily concede that they were the best the world has ever seen, and if God is merciful, the best the world ever WILL see.

I will not, however, concede that their excellence was due to any inherent racial or cultural superiority, or to the aircraft that they flew. The far end of the bell curve belongs to no race or nationality, and the aircraft was only a tool meeting the general capabilities of most firstline fighters of the period.

cheers

horseback

stathem
06-18-2005, 07:39 PM
Thank you for that brilliant, informative, and well considered post, horseback.

deathping---
06-18-2005, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by S.taibanzai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There are many accounts you don't show that don't paint the 109 as those.
Blow them off as incorrect.

Good thing the planes are not modelled by stories but rather original test documents.

It is up to the player to find out how to fly the models right. All the time for years
have the best sims pulled away from bank and yank, one formula fits all FM's but this
series has been raising the bar more every time.

Read that first quote again and ask yourself if he is speaking of flat turn combat.


i dont have to ask my self

But i found rather very interesting that the MYTHE of the bf 109 was not a turn fighter at al is not treu , Like manny thinks here who fly's il-2

in real live ,and i saw the bf 109 at airshow oppenheim type G-4

was very manouverbal


and i think the one's who flew against and with it are more in place to say that is was a very good turn fighter then any of use here

so Maxgunz i now its very hard to exept it but the words of the pilots who flew them i believe 100%

And not some statements from test pilots who didned now how to fly a captured airplane ,in this case a bf 109 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

deathping---
06-18-2005, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Official German stance on the Yak3:

AVOID any combat with a Yak aircraft lacking the front radiator.

Jak3 eat your lunch, as it did in WW2. Bf109 lost it's war and it's turn was beaten by many aircraft.

Here, have a gander to a real dogfighter:

http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~wingman/pics/GH-Yak3-1-800.jpg

hideous

deathping---
06-18-2005, 08:18 PM
Any competitive fighter (Spifire, Lavotchkin, P-47 to name but few) would have achieved the same results under the same system. Similarly any "ace" pilot from any airforce (Buerling, Kohzedub, Doe, Boyington) would have run up similar scores under such a system.



Someone once said, i forget who,-

"What is freely asserted is freely denied"

deathping---
06-18-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Yes of course Wulf, but the development of the 109/190 was influnced by the jobs they had to do. There's no reason to suppose the US fighters wouldn't have similarly been turned in slighly different directions.

yes but maybe the difference may have been the men in the machine. In the present day, you see that generally speaking, people from continental Europe including Germany exude intelligence where in America, you look at the average young american and they exude, i hate to say it, a sense of stupidity, I stress generally, speaking!! But I think this translates to the people of the past as well as pilots. unfortunately the worst of America has been creeping over Europe as well. Oh well.

horseback
06-18-2005, 11:19 PM
deathping

one can only assume that "exuding intelligence" consists of speaking your language and agreeing with your world view. I would suggest that most of the young Americans you may be acquainted with are not necessarily representative of my countrymen, most of whom don't travel abroad because they have jobs and are working full time to build a decent future for themselves and their families (note: employees with less than 10-15 years of seniority rarely have more than two weeks' vacation a year, and most don't take all of that. Maybe that's why Americans are more productive than their European counterparts). Even so, I doubt that they'd qualify as "intelligent" because most of them are outspoken and possessed of a number of different world views, the product of a much older stable continuous democracy than the overwhelming majority of Europeans can claim.

Most of us don't learn foreign languages because it is unnecessary; for most Americans, the only foreign speaking country in our vicinity is much farther away than London is from Berlin. Those of us who did learn another tongue get little opportunity to practice. My last chance to converse in Russian was 8 years ago, with the Aeroflot agent in Madrid International Airport (I was having a problem finding the Delta desk). Except for the debased Spanish spoken in the western hemisphere and the distinct French dialects spoken in Canada and Louisiana, American English is the primary language spoken here.

Gee, I guess that makes us provincial, not being crowded into a corner with a dozen other nations with a day's driving distance...on the other hand, no world wars have sprung up in our immediate vicinity.

cheers

horseback

WTE_Target
06-19-2005, 12:07 AM
Hey folk's , Mellow !!
A thread is started about Spitfires and 109's then turns into a racial ****ging match http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Going back to the original post, after our little side track, I would say that I would agree with the poster that claimed you had to get quotes from the pilots that flew the birds .
Well the allied pilots calim that the Spit out turned a 109!!
Bader or Johnson come to mind .L.Deighton(in his book fighter) claims that theoreticaly the 109 had a smaller turning circle than the Spit but that the pilots didnt trust the "thin fragile wings".
This myth about the wings was exposed as such by pilots like Marseilles in his turn fight victories around the Med.

Both Bader and Johnson claim that the German pilots didnt pull out of dives very hard as they seemed to fear structural failure and often the Allies could catch and shoot down the 109 as it pulled out of a dive.Bader claims to have done that in a Hurricane.Again this points to the arguement that the German average pilot didnt trust the strength of his slimline highloaded wings.
German pilots also made claims, I am sure pepole have seen, that the slats were unreliable and some time would not open at the same time further adding to the pilots woes.
What we have here it seems is a thouroughbred that in experienced hands could fight a turn fight with a Spit. But that in the average hands was behind in turning performance when compared to the Spitfire.
Biographies by allied pilots always claim that they would crank into a tight turn as possible if they were jumped by a 109 and within 3 full circles be on his six.Now I am not going to find the exact quote but if you get J.Johnson book or Baders books or the diary by Paul Ricthie I am sure you will find the information there.
I am about to re-read Galland book and see what he states but I seem to recall him confirming the same.
I personaly feel the 109 was superior to the Spit in vertical manouvers and the Spit in the Horizontal.
One thing further my old neighbour flew Hurricanes ,Spits in the BOB then flew Tempests when they were chasing down the V1's,I spent many days sitting listening to stories about his war experiences, he confirmed much of what I repeated to him after I read the books.
This is just my opinion and you are welcome to agree or disagree but one thing is for certain National loyalties will invariably lead to biased opinions but as for unbiased opinions just ask an Aussie .
Everyone knows the Boomerang was the worlds best fighter/interceptor/ground attack ;P

Proberton
06-19-2005, 01:53 AM
I agree, nicely put Target!

Ruy Horta
06-19-2005, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
I started these frankly tedious explantions in order to de-bunk the myth that the Experten scored so highly because they were German, and because the 109 was a superior aircraft to all others - a laudable objective don't you think, considering the slightly racist undertone of the myth. I am in no way trying to denigrate the achievements of the Experten (ignoring the moral bankruptcy of the regime they fought for), just to illustrate that any of the 'special' pilots of any nation - Pole, American, Russian, Brit, Aussie, Canadian, French, Italian, Kiwi, Czech, Finn,yay and German too,- could have run up similar scores had they been fighting under the system and opportunity that the Luftwaffe did.

If your posts were really 100% objective, I'd not been tempted to react, but your choice of words and examples does proof that there is an element of "downgrading" german achievement.

But certainly I agree, these discussions are extremely tedious.

Already there are tags being trown of "racist" tendencies, almost accusations of believing nazi myths.

Yes, a louthsome objective, from both sides of that coin.

Of course, given the same circumstances, pilots from other nations would have achieved roughly the same results. You only have to look at World War One to come to this natural conclusion, nothing special about that. The top Aces of Britain, France and Germany were all fairly close in score, those of other countries having had less opportunity to attaint the same level of success.

The German soldier is not better than his british, french or american counterpart. Be it the Ace Factor by Spick or A Genius for War by Dupuy, the conclusion is the same. There is no inherented factor that makes a German racially a superior soldier. Neither is the german pilot "racially superior", to hint at such ideas on this forum is provocative, but accusing people of such sympathies must be backed up by strong evidence.

Also we can agree upon the fact that although both Bf 109 and Fw 190 had their periods of acendency, it certainly did not hold until the end of the war. Yes, both types remained relative competative designs, but their superiority had disappeared, often to be replaced by inferior performance compared to their allied counterparts.

So we have pilots who are just ordinary men, often flying in a/c that were not special in any way (ranging from superior to inferior) flying under difficult circumstances for much of the war (circumstances that you yourself claim were missing for those allied pilots of similar quality) and those who survived to aquire the necessary skill managed to claim unprecedented results.

It was a hard school that left few mediocre students, or at least few of them alive.

Even if you'd apply the rough rule of thumb that 1-2/3rds of claims are false, that still gives unpresendented results. In the end it is not only the number of kills that were claimed, but those differing circumstances that makes some of these achievements special.

Achieving "only" 5 kills does not make a pilot 20x inferior to one that claimed 100 kills. Yet, to survive the combat encounters needed to get those 100 kills does make a difference. If you start counting encounters which resulted in air combat, the term Experten gets a whole new meaning. It is not only about kills, it is about experience. It is about surviving hundreds of enemy encounters.

Like you wrote yourself, opportunities that were not granted to most Allied pilots.

Ruy Horta
06-19-2005, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
one can only assume that "exuding intelligence" consists of speaking your language and agreeing with your world view...on the other hand, no world wars have sprung up in our immediate vicinity.

God Help us now...

Wallstein
06-19-2005, 02:40 AM
Naturally I believe the veterans.

It has been "common knowlidge" as far as I can remember, that Bf-109 was better than - say - Spitfire and this lasted at least till the end of 1942. I was a six years old boy in 1969-1970 and bought my first (Airfirx) plastic model. It was a Spitfire. After two weeks or so I went back to the store and asked for more. Then the salesman told me about Messerschmit Bf-109. He explained to me, that this particular aeroplane was difficult to fly, but when well-piloted, it was the best fighter in the war till the end of the year 1942. I asked the man if my Spitfire (bought that earlier) was better or not compared to that Bf-109. He said, that an experienced Bf-109 pilot could outturn Spitfire and needed to dive to gain speed after that. On the other hand the less experienced pilots could not outmaneuver the Spitfire.

Right, that above is not veteran story and I am not an engineer, but I just want to point out, that as long as I have lived, there has never before been any question about the general matter: Meserschmitt Bf-109 was a superior fighter, but required good skill. I have to say that I wonder what all this new discussion is actually all about. Is this based on the same that the moderns US military history? Younger writers with their new ideas write about old things which they never experienced claiming better understanding than those who lived through the old days?

I don´t go in to details but stick right to the general view: The question of Bf-109 / Spitfire seems very much like the modern American consept of the Normandy invasion. I know that there are people who really believe, that the Americans invaded the beach alone and faced the elite German troops from the beginning.

So - heh heh - Let´s just hope, that little by little all the details would get corrected according to the historical facts. I cannot say what all those details are and what are their historical correspondents. ALL IN ALL I`M VERY HAPPY WITH THIS SIMULATOR. AND I HOPE THAT WE ALL CAN ENJOY WETHER OR NOT ALL THE DETAILS GO IN PACE WITH HISTORICAL FACTS.


Long and enjoyable flights to all,
Wallstein

Ruy Horta
06-19-2005, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Wallstein:
Right, that above is not veteran story and I am not an engineer, but I just want to point out, that as long as I have lived, there has never before been any question about the general matter: Meserschmitt Bf-109 was a superior fighter, but required good skill.

Thanks Wallstein, nice post.

One comment on the skill required to get the most out of a 109. It appears that the 109 to pilot was fairly docile, this made it - to quote a russian - a soldier's a/c. It also helps explain why it remained a popular type.

Of course, as in everything and anything in life, to get most out of its performance required skill and experience. This also helps explain the discrepency between Anglo-American testing of the type and reported performance.

It also helps explain why the Russians had much more regard for the 109 than their Anglo-American counterparts.

But indeed the 109, although having no "magical" qualities, was a competative design for much of the war and arguably superior in the first half.

stathem
06-19-2005, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:

If your posts were really 100% objective, I'd not been tempted to react, but your choice of words and examples does proof that there is an element of "downgrading" german achievement.

But certainly I agree, these discussions are extremely tedious.

Already there are tags being trown of "racist" tendencies, almost accusations of believing nazi myths.

Yes, a louthsome objective, from both sides of that coin.

Of course, given the same circumstances, pilots from other nations would have achieved roughly the same results. You only have to look at World War One to come to this natural conclusion, nothing special about that. The top Aces of Britain, France and Germany were all fairly close in score, those of other countries having had less opportunity to attaint the same level of success.

The German soldier is not better than his british, french or american counterpart. Be it the Ace Factor by Spick or A Genius for War by Dupuy, the conclusion is the same. There is no inherented factor that makes a German racially a superior soldier. Neither is the german pilot "racially superior", to hint at such ideas on this forum is provocative, but accusing people of such sympathies must be backed up by strong evidence.

Also we can agree upon the fact that although both Bf 109 and Fw 190 had their periods of acendency, it certainly did not hold until the end of the war. Yes, both types remained relative competative designs, but their superiority had disappeared, often to be replaced by inferior performance compared to their allied counterparts.

So we have pilots who are just ordinary men, often flying in a/c that were not special in any way (ranging from superior to inferior) flying under difficult circumstances for much of the war (circumstances that you yourself claim were missing for those allied pilots of similar quality) and those who survived to aquire the necessary skill managed to claim unprecedented results.

It was a hard school that left few mediocre students, or at least few of them alive.

Even if you'd apply the rough rule of thumb that 1-2/3rds of claims are false, that still gives unpresendented results. In the end it is not only the number of kills that were claimed, but those differing circumstances that makes some of these achievements special.

Achieving "only" 5 kills does not make a pilot 20x inferior to one that claimed 100 kills. Yet, to survive the combat encounters needed to get those 100 kills does make a difference. If you start counting encounters which resulted in air combat, the term Experten gets a whole new meaning. It is not only about kills, it is about experience. It is about surviving hundreds of enemy encounters.

Like you wrote yourself, opportunities that were not granted to most Allied pilots.


Ruy Horta


Ruy, I'm so pleased we agree on most things then.

To clarify, as you request, I was originally responing to the post :


Originally posted by BigganD:
Nice post S.taibanzai !
If you look at the spitfire and 109 they look similar,from the front and specialy from the behind. Wonder why most of the big aces were germans. Me109 must have been a great plane.

Those who win a war can change the true facts..

Sorry, english is my first language and I'm very particular about semantics. In the first paragraph, "Wonder why most of the big aces were germans. Me109 must have been a great plane." on it's own could be construed as a simple question, however, the rider "Those who win a war can change the true facts." turns it into something entirely more subversive. In todays climate, offence is in perception.

Further explanations were necessary because some other respondents failed to understand my response to that post, and seeked futher clarification.

Now, apologies if you find some of my language and examples are seeking to denigrate 'German' achievement. If you can point them out to me, I can try to futher clarify the reasons for such language and examples.

Brotrob
06-19-2005, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Apparently, the subject of this thread has evolved into the question of what makes an (German) experten vs what makes an ace (primarily in the context of the Western Allies).

Let's start by agreeing that both groups were possessed of certain basic qualities:

1)aggressiveness/competitiveness,

2)superior vision (not necessarily superior eyesight-witness Galland-but people able to see)

3)the ability to observe and predict motion in three dimensions (a little more than simple marksmanship)

4)better than average eye-hand coordination

5)greater than average physical strength and endurance (it is no coincidence that many of the experten/aces were outstanding athletes in their youths); other than late-model P-38s, fighter planes of the era were controlled by muscle power; men died when they got tired.

6)they had to be more than adequate pilots

7)they were capable of learning from their mistakes; a number of the great ones had an early escape to teach them caution. There are lots of dead guys with between 5 and 15 kills. Statistically, it looks to me as though many of these died of overconfidence.

7)finally, they had to be capable of 'grace under fire,' to be able to perform precise tasks under physical and emotional duress.

In every fighter unit in WWII, less than 10% of the pilots did more than half of the damage to the enemy. These men had at the very least these basic qualities in some combination.

Now let us agree that skills improve with practice, and that in WWII, contact with the enemy was the best teacher. Practice dogfights or 'rat races' with your squadronmates do not fully prepare you to perform in combat, any more than shooting baskets by yourself in the driveway prepares you for shooting three pointers in an NBA game (it's good practice, but hardly the same intensity). The 'train like you fight, fight like you train' philosophy was not practiced by the respective air forces during WWII to any degree.

The German fighter pilot had a good head start over his European contemporaries at the outset of the war, possessing a superior fighter in the Bf-109E with powerful and reliable armament, excellant performance, and good handling qualities in the air. Add to that superior tactics, reliable communications systems, and generally better training, and when they made contact, their 'tigers' were able to make the most of their chances.

With the brief exception of attempting to establish air superiority over Southern England (which mainly taught the survivors caution), they continued to lengthen their lead over the opposition through 1942. By this time they had established a nurturing system, identifying newcomers with potential, and apparently setting them up for their first victories to be relatively untraumatic. Galland and others state that they went to some pains for budding stars to make their first kills easily. This practice fell by the wayside as enemy number increased and just making it home alive took priority by the Spring of 1944.

By contrast, the RAF (their only remaining major opponent in 1941-early '42) took the majority of its surviving Battle of Britain aces out of combat after the losses of several promising fighter leaders in the post-Battle period. Thus, leaders like Malan saw little action after the losses of Bader and Tuck, for example.

Less spectacular scorers could cycle into combat units for six months at a time after a 'rest' assignment, and over a period of a couple of years, begin to approach the numbers of the heavy hitters, but some could lose their edge sitting on the sidelines for too long or failed to make contact in later combat tours.

When the US trained USAAF units arrived in Britain in late 1942, the Germans had a tremendous lead in experience and confidence. The only American fighter pilots with combat experience were in the former Eagle Squadrons of the 4th FG, and their ranks were trimmed of several experienced leaders to be distributed among the USAAF units arriving, limiting their effectiveness even farther.

The Americans followed the British lead in the sense that experienced fighter pilots served a defined combat tour, and returned to train other pilots, develop tactics and strategy, or sell War Bonds. Because they had to fly farther to the combat zone, and enemy aircraft were comparitively more rare, combat experience was harder to come by for them. Top scorers were often guys who could make to an enemy aircraft first.

John Godfrey said that Don Gentile -an early leader in the ETO ace race- was unbelievably quick to spot and engage the enemy; as soon as he saw them, he was on them. Gentile had been with 121 'Eagle' Squadron, with two Spitfire kills at Dieppe, three or four kills in the P-47, and another 14 or so scored in less than three months from February to April of 1944 flying a razorback Mustang. Few ETO pilots had as much combat time to learn their skills, and none had anything approaching the experten.

Thus Gunther Rall could 'corner' the vastly less experienced Hub Zemke's (with only 14 months' combat and 14 kills) flight of Thunderbolts and take down 3 of 4 to bring his score up to 275. Rall's time in combat dated to the Battle of Britain period, interrupted only by injuries and wounds by that point in mid 1944. He ****ed well should have been better than Zemke with the most tenuous of advantages, and by Zemke's description, Rall had all the cards in that encounter. Zemke was smart enough to recognize that fact, and dove for the deck once his last wingman was taken out of the fight.

The Germans were the only ones to operate in a largely defensive fighter campaign in a 'target rich' environment for an extended period. Defensive campaigns, where the enemy comes to you in numbers, provide the best opportunities for fighter pilots to score quickly and often. American fighter pilots at Guadalcanal, British pilots in the Battle of Britain, and Malta scored fairly well even when they lacked a technological advantage (or even parity, in many cases). Their defensive campaigns lasted a few months. The Germans' defensive campaign began in 1942 and ended with VE Day.

Statistically, a few exceptional individuals were bound to beat the odds and develop tremendous, if not unbelievable, skills. The top experten had the 'opportunity' to do so, and did. I will happily concede that they were the best the world has ever seen, and if God is merciful, the best the world ever WILL see.

I will not, however, concede that their excellence was due to any inherent racial or cultural superiority, or to the aircraft that they flew. The far end of the bell curve belongs to no race or nationality, and the aircraft was only a tool meeting the general capabilities of most firstline fighters of the period.

cheers

horseback

One cannot quote this post often enough. Very well written, horseback

Ruy Horta
06-19-2005, 04:53 AM
Stathem,

If I understand correctly what you've written, I can only agree.

Offence is in perception and we non-english speakers have difficulty in understanding and expressing subtle differences in what is essentially a foreign language: English.

We seem to agree on most counts and even where we disagree it is mainly a misunderstanding or a matter of poor wording.

The post that got most of my attention was:


Additionally, and Lord knows why I am explaining this, why do you think the Luftwaffe handed out decorations based solely on the number of kills made? Or allowing the pilot with the most kills lead his flight? Familiar with the term 'Katschmareks'? Ritterkreutz mit cabbages and forks? Ever heard Jagdwaffe pilots described as having a 'Halsweh' (a sore throat)?

Or of the fate of Helmut Wick? Killed on 56 by John Dundas over the Channel when he got desperate (and therefore careless) to move ahead of Galland and Molders.

Or ask the crews of the 111's. Or the Panzergrenadiers under the guns and bombs of the IL2s.

You see, point *****s existed even then. But then, if you are one, you won't understand my point.

Well easiest of all is the term point *****. If we take Wick as an example, I think applying this term is indeed degrading. Yes, I understand what you are trying to convey, and also I agree to a large extend, but the term is derogatory when applied outside the "gaming universe".

Also it is this post that implies that the Jagdwaffe structurally failed to support the army or the bomber force. That personal achievement was paramount to the detriment of its mission.

Yet, of course I should have understood that these are probably generalizations to proof a point, not necessarily a single conviction.

Lets suppose that Wick was a Britton, fighting with the same determination as he did, falling in the latter phase of the Battle of Britain, but not before attaining one of the highest scores of that campaign on the RAF side.

How would we describe him?

A point *****, or a hero?

Perhaps he was both, perhaps neither.

Choice of words.
The enemy is fanatic, we are determined...

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PS.
I am not German, nor do I have any special regard for Germans or things German. I'm writing this disclaimer to prevent the usual flame war stuff that gets thrown around so easily here.</span>

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-19-2005, 05:38 AM
why do you think the Luftwaffe handed out decorations based solely on the number of kills made? Or allowing the pilot with the most kills lead his flight? Familiar with the term 'Katschmareks'? Ritterkreutz mit cabbages and forks? Ever heard Jagdwaffe pilots described as having a 'Halsweh' (a sore throat)?

It`s for sure, that the pilots with the most kills are very experienced. Usually those ilots got noobs or not so much experienced pilots as "Katschmarek"(Wingman). Look at Hartman. Started his carrer in 42 with less success in the beginning. The unexperienced pilots should learn from the experienced pilots.
Thats the reason, why a noob lieutnant become Wingman off an experienced Staff Sergeant.
For sure there were point *****s, but don`t you think that it was on allied side not the same?!?
In some cases the allied claimed on one day more kills than the Luftwaffe had operational.

But I think you know what happened to "point *****s" in a squad. No one wants to fly with them. Usually the Squad commander forced them to come down to earth and fly with teamplay.

I think Ritterkreuz and such things showed arrogant officers, that the Feldwebel(staff sergeant) is the better pilot and that counts in aerial fight.

And there were not only Ritterkreuz decorations.
Do you know Frontflugspange or Ehrenblatt der Deutschen Luftwaffe(espacially for unique doings, something for your Ft Lt D_i_c_k Audet)?

It is the fame you got under your pilots and not the propaganda fame(a lot of pilots didn`t like to be Goebbels toy).

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-19-2005, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
For most of the War the Luftwaffe faced superior numbers on most fronts. Individual pilots thus had a far greater chance of meeting enemy planes on any given sortie than allied pilots.


Isn`t it rather negative?
More enemies, less chance to survive! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be negative but it's a fact. Read all of Mike Spick's books and make your own mind up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2 points of view and I don`t agree with it. A bulf of good pilots is better than a few Ace pilots, especially when the aces should attack bomber formations.

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-19-2005, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by deathping---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Yes of course Wulf, but the development of the 109/190 was influnced by the jobs they had to do. There's no reason to suppose the US fighters wouldn't have similarly been turned in slighly different directions.

yes but maybe the difference may have been the men in the machine. In the present day, you see that generally speaking, people from continental Europe including Germany exude intelligence where in America, you look at the average young american and they exude, i hate to say it, a sense of stupidity, I stress generally, speaking!! But I think this translates to the people of the past as well as pilots. unfortunately the worst of America has been creeping over Europe as well. Oh well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope I don`t get you wrong, but what you wrote sounds like racism... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
As I said, I hope I missunderstood you.

mynameisroland
06-19-2005, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
horta, kinda agree with u, but the guy in question hadnt had contact in 53 ops, so he had NO opertunity to shoot down any enemy. he then gets 5 in his first contact, personaly i think thats good going. u need to have contact with the enemy to score, german experten got that, and where good and lucky.

LW had two types aprently, the experten, who where as good as your gonna get pretty much, and the rest who wherent that good.

there where several allied aces who had a better sortie/kill ratio than say heartman aswell.

fact is LW was beaten. even in the end where they seemed to fly around in large groups, still wouldnt win engaugements as much as they should have, ie hardly ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What engagements are you talking about Pingu?

You must have forgot the Schweinfurt raids or maybe the Dieppe raid or perhaps even the first stages of operation Barabarossa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

badly mauled some unprotected bombers, dieppe raid the RAF kept up the air umbrella and protected the ships etc well from what ive heard.

first stages or barabarossa went very well, dont surpose the fear of stalin helped the ppl in command.

mid to late war mostly, plus theres the BOB and malta too. the polish put up a very good fight also, in p11's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You ought to read up on the Dieppe raid again if your under the impression the RAF got anything other than a hiding taht day.

The Luftwaffe - like the whole german armed forces - had an overall KD ratio of something like 4 - 1. Please enlighten me what multiple engagements are you talking about where they outnumbered the enemy in a fighter vs fighter encounter and came off the worse.

With regards to Kills to sortie ratio Hartmann was no where near the top of the list check out some of the other aces like Rall or even Lambert and you will see some very impressive scores per missions.

Going back to Hartmann it is impressive, you have to admit, going in to combat over 1500 times in an 'inferior' aircraft , in an 'inferior' airforce and not getting killed. Bet he loved how he always had the 'luck' of meeting the enemy and that time he was outnumbered 12 to 1 by Mustangs. I suppose using your logic Hartmann outnumbered the enemy on that occasion too?

carguy_
06-19-2005, 06:28 AM
What really is sad is that Brits/Americans/Russians too often are obsessed with opinions that anything fighting them in WWII never was equal to their arms,not speaking of being better.Logis 'we won the war so we got better hardware' is one of the most idiotic opinions that a big part of 'allied' community presents.

Look what happened to MG shell from MG151/20.It was ok in 4.0 but ppl put pressure on Oleg so he toned MG shell down to a normal HE shell effectiveness.

Very sad.

mynameisroland
06-19-2005, 06:35 AM
"I will not, however, concede that their excellence was due to any inherent racial or cultural superiority, or to the aircraft that they flew. The far end of the bell curve belongs to no race or nationality, and the aircraft was only a tool meeting the general capabilities of most firstline fighters of the period."

So basically it is down to the individual?

I would argue that the 'Kultur' and ethics of the Luftwaffe played a massive role in their enormous scores. Without these factors and also that they flew excellent aircraft - where do you see the equivalent of the P40 or Hurricane amongst the German fighter ranks? They would not have achieved the results that they did. The very fact that the Luftwaffe did not rotate or rest their fighter leaders is endemic of their success. There were ace quality pilots on all sides only the (short sighted IMO) Germans let their fighter pilots of the leash in such a manner as to achieve what the allies seemingly thought were ridiculous amounts of kills.

I am not suggesting that they were racially superior - who did in this thread? But by you writing off every other aspect that differentiated them from the other counries that fought ed culture, aircraft, national ( this definitley iis a factor - who else had so many potential targets and enemies?) Then you would have all pilots being equal this is clearly not the case. I would also go as far to say that not all pilots had the same raw ingredients or raw potential - is that racist?

What is relevant though is the Nazi state shaped these pilots by providing flying clubs at a young age , instilled propaganda and a superiority complex, provided them with good infrastructure and planes and created wars where they could go out and practice and hone their techniques.

Hastatus
06-19-2005, 08:43 AM
Every major air force in WW2 had encounters where their fighters came off second best in some encounters where they possessed superior numbers. Perhaps by surprise or other factors too numerous to bother listing. Thats just the nature of war. Sometimes you had a bad day.

JG52Karaya-X
06-19-2005, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The yak3 reached 720 km/h at 6 k that has not much to do with turning when you avoid dfs you cant run escape from .

I think the 720km/h apply only for the Yak3 with VK107 engine (1500hp) which had many growing pains and thus wasn't used in WWII Yak3s...
The Yak3 we have in FB is one with a VK105PF2 and 1240hp at its disposal - resulting in a topspeed of around 650km/h (at the same height).

Yes, the Yak3 is one though opponent for it has excellent acceleration, a fair enough topspeed at both sealevel and altitude, good dive, and very easy to handle guns (straight trajectory). Above 5-6k however it is dogmeat and will be eaten alive by anything LW/USAAF/RAF

IMHO the Yak9U is an even deadlier plane (700km/h topspeed, greater climb and zoom but castrated turn) - however it should be looked at as a '45 plane because it has the VK107 engine and for that reason more or less a post-war bird

stathem
06-19-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
Stathem,

If I understand correctly what you've written, I can only agree.

Offence is in perception and we non-english speakers have difficulty in understanding and expressing subtle differences in what is essentially a foreign language: English.

We seem to agree on most counts and even where we disagree it is mainly a misunderstanding or a matter of poor wording.

The post that got most of my attention was:


Additionally, and Lord knows why I am explaining this, why do you think the Luftwaffe handed out decorations based solely on the number of kills made? Or allowing the pilot with the most kills lead his flight? Familiar with the term 'Katschmareks'? Ritterkreutz mit cabbages and forks? Ever heard Jagdwaffe pilots described as having a 'Halsweh' (a sore throat)?

Or of the fate of Helmut Wick? Killed on 56 by John Dundas over the Channel when he got desperate (and therefore careless) to move ahead of Galland and Molders.

Or ask the crews of the 111's. Or the Panzergrenadiers under the guns and bombs of the IL2s.

You see, point *****s existed even then. But then, if you are one, you won't understand my point.

Well easiest of all is the term point *****. If we take Wick as an example, I think applying this term is indeed degrading. Yes, I understand what you are trying to convey, and also I agree to a large extend, but the term is derogatory when applied outside the "gaming universe".

Also it is this post that implies that the Jagdwaffe structurally failed to support the army or the bomber force. That personal achievement was paramount to the detriment of its mission.

Yet, of course I should have understood that these are probably generalizations to proof a point, not necessarily a single conviction.

Lets suppose that Wick was a Britton, fighting with the same determination as he did, falling in the latter phase of the Battle of Britain, but not before attaining one of the highest scores of that campaign on the RAF side.

How would we describe him?

A point *****, or a hero?

Perhaps he was both, perhaps neither.

Choice of words.
The enemy is fanatic, we are determined...

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">PS.
I am not German, nor do I have any special regard for Germans or things German. I'm writing this disclaimer to prevent the usual flame war stuff that gets thrown around so easily here.</span>

Yes you are correct, Ruy. I apologise for the tone of that post, it was written in haste (and a little anger) due to my exasperation with Wulf disputing the concept of the €œNazi Hero-Warrior€ ethos which pervaded the Jagdwaffe. To fully explain the concept would have taken an essay of epic proportions. I have read extensively about the Nazis and their ideology and should have appreciated that Wulf may not have been as well informed.

With regard to Wick; if it helps, or if you or Wulf (or anyone) wishes I can type out the account of his last day as detailed in €œThe Most Dangerous Enemy€ by Stephen Bungay €" it€s an interesting read in any case. I understand your point but do not necessarily believe that the actions of the men of those times puts them above all criticism. I have some views on Bader and Leigh-Mallory you may find surprising, and don€t even get me started on Montgomery.

Btw with regard to the Audet/Marsielle comparison, it struck me today, I was referring specifically to the discrete feats of H-J, specifically his breaking the Luftberry circle and shooting down, what was it, 6 or 7 Tomahawks in quick succession with his 20mm cannon jammed, or the record for number of kills in one day. I wasn€t referring to his kill total as a whole. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

horseback
06-19-2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
"I will not, however, concede that their excellence was due to any inherent racial or cultural superiority, or to the aircraft that they flew. The far end of the bell curve belongs to no race or nationality, and the aircraft was only a tool meeting the general capabilities of most firstline fighters of the period."

So basically it is down to the individual?

I would argue that the 'Kultur' and ethics of the Luftwaffe played a massive role in their enormous scores. Without these factors and also that they flew excellent aircraft - where do you see the equivalent of the P40 or Hurricane amongst the German fighter ranks? They would not have achieved the results that they did. The very fact that the Luftwaffe did not rotate or rest their fighter leaders is endemic of their success. There were ace quality pilots on all sides only the (short sighted IMO) Germans let their fighter pilots of the leash in such a manner as to achieve what the allies seemingly thought were ridiculous amounts of kills.

I am not suggesting that they were racially superior - who did in this thread? But by you writing off every other aspect that differentiated them from the other counries that fought ed culture, aircraft, national ( this definitley iis a factor - who else had so many potential targets and enemies?) Then you would have all pilots being equal this is clearly not the case. I would also go as far to say that not all pilots had the same raw ingredients or raw potential - is that racist?

What is relevant though is the Nazi state shaped these pilots by providing flying clubs at a young age , instilled propaganda and a superiority complex, provided them with good infrastructure and planes and created wars where they could go out and practice and hone their techniques.

I once made a comment to the effect that the German hunting culture was unique among the European participants, and helped confer a certain advantage in overall marksmanship, and was thoroughly reamed for my 'racism', even though I also pointed out that both the Finnish Air Force and US Navy and Marine aviation made a similar emphasis on gunnery techniques.

Certainly culture has a role, but in the context of this conversation, I don't consider it a crucial role. All of the participants in the European air war shared similar cultural roots and educational base, and much of modern American culture has its roots in the Germans who migrated here in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Hurricane and P-40 were simply products of the thirties that were still useful at the beginning of the war, but unlike the Spitfire, P-38 or Bf 109, lacking in development potential, or a nightfighter role, like the Me 110. They deservedly fell by the wayside, as the 109 would have if the FW 190 had been able to develop better high altitude performance sooner.

As for state sponsored flying clubs, the Soviets had a similar program, and made a near cult of the "New Soviet Man", and look what good it did them in the summer of 1941.

People with the qualities required to be an experten/ace made the most of the opportunities they were given. Generally speaking, the aggressiveness and intelligence factors appear to me to be much more decisive. People with those qualities tend to excel in the wartime military, regardles of whether they are serving in the infantry, ships or airplanes.

cheers

horseback

Ruy Horta
06-19-2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
Yes you are correct, Ruy. I apologise for the tone of that post, it was written in haste (and a little anger) due to my exasperation with Wulf disputing the concept of the €œNazi Hero-Warrior€ ethos which pervaded the Jagdwaffe. To fully explain the concept would have taken an essay of epic proportions. I have read extensively about the Nazis and their ideology and should have appreciated that Wulf may not have been as well informed.

With regard to Wick; if it helps, or if you or Wulf (or anyone) wishes I can type out the account of his last day as detailed in €œThe Most Dangerous Enemy€ by Stephen Bungay €" it€s an interesting read in any case. I understand your point but do not necessarily believe that the actions of the men of those times puts them above all criticism. I have some views on Bader and Leigh-Mallory you may find surprising, and don€t even get me started on Montgomery.

Btw with regard to the Audet/Marsielle comparison, it struck me today, I was referring specifically to the discrete feats of H-J, specifically his breaking the Luftberry circle and shooting down, what was it, 6 or 7 Tomahawks in quick succession with his 20mm cannon jammed, or the record for number of kills in one day. I wasn€t referring to his kill total as a whole. Sorry, I should have been more specific.

Stathem,

First, you owe me nothing, not an apology nor an explanation. If anything I was just as guilty, if there is such a thing here as guilt.

Yes, again I can only agree that these men, including Wick were fallible in some way or another. That's the nice thing about History and that's probably what attracts both of us to these subjects.

So apology NOT accepted, since it is cetainly NOT in place. Enjoyed the discussion.

Best regards,

stathem
06-19-2005, 03:10 PM
And Best Regards to you Ruy, see you around.

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

blazer-glory
06-19-2005, 04:01 PM
I read somewhere that german Messer pilots were afraid to turn to tightly due to the fact they thought the short stubby wings would break off.

S.taibanzai
06-20-2005, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
horta, kinda agree with u, but the guy in question hadnt had contact in 53 ops, so he had NO opertunity to shoot down any enemy. he then gets 5 in his first contact, personaly i think thats good going. u need to have contact with the enemy to score, german experten got that, and where good and lucky.

LW had two types aprently, the experten, who where as good as your gonna get pretty much, and the rest who wherent that good.

there where several allied aces who had a better sortie/kill ratio than say heartman aswell.

fact is LW was beaten. even in the end where they seemed to fly around in large groups, still wouldnt win engaugements as much as they should have, ie hardly ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What engagements are you talking about Pingu?

You must have forgot the Schweinfurt raids or maybe the Dieppe raid or perhaps even the first stages of operation Barabarossa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

badly mauled some unprotected bombers, dieppe raid the RAF kept up the air umbrella and protected the ships etc well from what ive heard.

first stages or barabarossa went very well, dont surpose the fear of stalin helped the ppl in command.

mid to late war mostly, plus theres the BOB and malta too. the polish put up a very good fight also, in p11's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You ought to read up on the Dieppe raid again if your under the impression the RAF got anything other than a hiding taht day.

The Luftwaffe - like the whole german armed forces - had an overall KD ratio of something like 4 - 1. Please enlighten me what multiple engagements are you talking about where they outnumbered the enemy in a fighter vs fighter encounter and came off the worse.

With regards to Kills to sortie ratio Hartmann was no where near the top of the list check out some of the other aces like Rall or even Lambert and you will see some very impressive scores per missions.

Going back to Hartmann it is impressive, you have to admit, going in to combat over 1500 times in an 'inferior' aircraft , in an 'inferior' airforce and not getting killed. Bet he loved how he always had the 'luck' of meeting the enemy and that time he was outnumbered 12 to 1 by Mustangs. I suppose using your logic Hartmann outnumbered the enemy on that occasion too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thx good point of view

My englidh id not that good ,and i cant understant some answer's in this topic.

So i am happy that see some good arguments

from people who understand english

i agree S!

S.taibanzai
06-20-2005, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
What really is sad is that Brits/Americans/Russians too often are obsessed with opinions that anything fighting them in WWII never was equal to their arms,not speaking of being better.Logis 'we won the war so we got better hardware' is one of the most idiotic opinions that a big part of 'allied' community presents.

Look what happened to MG shell from MG151/20.It was ok in 4.0 but ppl put pressure on Oleg so he toned MG shell down to a normal HE shell effectiveness.

Very sad.


Yes and we are the whiners then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


I would say i dont want any alies plane to be toneddown for that matter

But gif us the right FM and ARMENT

I think way back at patch 1.0

Big_Bad_Wulf
06-20-2005, 06:15 AM
Yes you are correct, Ruy. I apologise for the tone of that post, it was written in haste (and a little anger) due to my exasperation with Wulf disputing the concept of the €œNazi Hero-Warrior€ ethos which pervaded the Jagdwaffe. To fully explain the concept would have taken an essay of epic proportions. I have read extensively about the Nazis and their ideology and should have appreciated that Wulf may not have been as well informed.

With regard to Wick; if it helps, or if you or Wulf (or anyone) wishes I can type out the account of his last day as detailed in €œThe Most Dangerous Enemy€ by Stephen Bungay €" it€s an interesting read in any case. I understand your point but do not necessarily believe that the actions of the men of those times puts them above all criticism. I have some views on Bader and Leigh-Mallory you may find surprising, and don€t even get me started on Montgomery.

Btw with regard to the Audet/Marsielle comparison, it struck me today, I was referring specifically to the discrete feats of H-J, specifically his breaking the Luftberry circle and shooting down, what was it, 6 or 7 Tomahawks in quick succession with his 20mm cannon jammed, or the record for number of kills in one day. I wasn€t referring to his kill total as a whole. Sorry, I should have been more specific.


I don`t know, where you are from.
I am german.
Maybe a lot of guys here have an absolutely wrong picture of today`s germany and the germans.
I can read it very often here, that a lot of people think, today`s germans are like the Nazis, or **** patriotic.
Trust me, you are absolutely wrong.
In the USA you can see a lot of star sprangled banners on house walls.
If you do this here or show, that you are proud of your today`s country, they think, that you are a patriotic ***hol3. No one knows the first verse of the national anthem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Soccer excluded http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If someone here in germany is as patriotic as maybe the standard american is, you would be pushed into the brown corner(and I would think so too, that you are ill in your brown brain).
For sure, we have stupid black sheeps here, but in which country it isn`t so?
I think we have one of the best democracy here.
Why?!? Because it was formed by the allies. They developed this kind of democracy with a lot of 3rd Reich haunted german politicians. It is a young and fresh democracy. Ok, there may be others, that don`t think so, but we have a lot of controls, that our politicians can`t make nonsense like war for oil http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, or cheat during elections. Please now no political debate here.

In school and TV we got very much documentations and lessons about NSDAP and 3rd Reich. You will not find any positive word about 3rd Reich on TV or school.
Now you want to know, why the german Luftwhiner are proud of "their" planes.
It`s because there is a great truth, that a lot of "Alliedwhiners" seems to think, that all german planes are rubbish. We have a few documentry channels here, where we see every day US or british Documantations about WW2 planes.
The funny thing is, that they begin with "Probably the best plane in WW2 was P-47/P-51/Spitfire/P-38/Corsair/and so on". I have never seen so many discrepancies concentrated in a few documantations. And Hollywood boosts this picture(Last funny thing was "Taken"(Steven Spielberg), when the B-17 shoot down 2-3 Messer and those Messer were a mixture of 109 E/F in 44` easy "targets the huns").
For sure, a lot of you read books and see both sides of the coin and do this.
But don`t forget, that not all the germans/soldiers/pilots were the evil. They were blinded by the Propaganda before the war, the trouble after WW1 was one reason. They were not as kill lustful as almost every WW2 movie shows. They had to go into the war or they or (more important) their family would be punished.

Everybody, who grew up in pre-war germany(jews/hunted peoples excluded) would think the WW2 was a fair thing. If I would be born and brainwashed in 1925, almost everybody here would become a german soldier, who fought for his country.
Watch the movie "The wave" for example.
Thats no apology for that, what the Nazis did! Absolutely not!
I don`t apologise me for that what the Nazis did. It wasn`t me or my parents, but I regret what happend very much! No one is proud of it and if someone is, I`ll kick his a$$ in the HL from here to the moon!
Which american apologize for killing the Indians? Why not? Because it was not you. You regret it, but don`t feel guilty.

I wrote that, because I nearly felt offended by the assumption "Wulf may not have been as well informed". Be sure, I am.
Be sure, we germans are very well informed about what happend in the 3rd Reich(there may be exceptions like everywhere).
The guys, that are flying the 109/190/262 and "whine" (lol) about it, do this maybe, because there is nothing else than technology that they can be proud of this evil period of their country.
The production of this technology was evil too!!!
History is written by the winner. Usually a stupid argument especially if some brown say it about war crimes, but in context with technology, I think it has a true core.
Be happy, that we are here, because without us, no one would fly crappy planes that the blue would have without our complaining.
P-51 vs P-51 and so on would be boring.

I think it was the human factor, not any allied technological superiority(ok, BOB Radar was great in 41/42). They were more, and had especially at the end more well trained pilots. Thank God!

Back to the thread, I don`t think, that the 109 could better turn than the Spit, but I think, that the spit turns far to good, but the difference between TnB planes and BnZ planes is inherently to big in this sim.

PS: I want not to flame/insult anyone of you! Maybe if it happens, its only because of my lack of english expressions. I am sorry for that. Especially I am not good in the tenses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
06-20-2005, 07:02 AM
I don't think German culture had any effect on the skills of the pilots, I do think it had an effect on the tactics of the Luftwaffe, and the tactics are what made for the high scoring pilots.

Stephen Bungay, The Most Dangerous Enemy, goes in to the Luftwaffe tactics:

"And of these Hauptmann Tietzen, my Staffel commander alone has nineteen! I witnessed most of his kills. It is fantastic, the way he shoots. He is the boss, he moves us into position and selects the victims, and we have to do little more than cover him. There is a wonderful sense of teamwork in the Staffel. With his twentieth victory, the Ritterkreuz will be due. For me, the award of the Iron Cross, First Class, has been imminent since my fourth kill."

Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing, writing to his parents.

The Luftwaffe tactics were for a few pilots to score the kills, the rest were there to support them.


But I think you know what happened to "point *****s" in a squad. No one wants to fly with them. Usually the Squad commander forced them to come down to earth and fly with teamplay.


I think the problem was the "score *****" was often the man in charge.

Again from Bungay:

"This was part of the Luftwaffe's emphasis on individual stardom and it had some negative aspects. At the margin, some of the most successful gave the impression that they were after their own glory rather than the success of the unit, and the view became widespread that some of them were building their scores at the expense of their protecting wingmen, the poor old 'Katschmareks'. Ulrich Steinhilper reports on such discussions in JG52 which increased in frequency as the battle continued:
The debates nearly always came back to the subject of battle honours and decorations, mostly prompted by the NCOs who felt more aggrieved than the officers. Why was it, they would ask so often, that the decorations are, in the main, only handed out to those with the highest scores? Wasn't it clear that it was those who were flying ahead and insisting on strong formation discipline around them who were also running up the highest personal scores - almost exactly matched by the losses from their own formations - losing one Katschmarek after another for another white stripe on the tail of their aircraft? And who was it who was suffering the most, they would ask. Of course, it was the NCOs who generally flew at the rear or on the flanks.
Those known to be plagued by a chronic desire to have a Knight's Cross and its various accoutrements (Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds) dangling around their necks were said to be suffering from €œHalsweh€ (a sore throat). Adolf Galland was one well known sufferer, and he used his position first as Gruppenkomandeur of III/JG26 then as Kommodore of the whole Geschwader to hand pick his wingmen."

p1ngu666
06-20-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
horta, kinda agree with u, but the guy in question hadnt had contact in 53 ops, so he had NO opertunity to shoot down any enemy. he then gets 5 in his first contact, personaly i think thats good going. u need to have contact with the enemy to score, german experten got that, and where good and lucky.

LW had two types aprently, the experten, who where as good as your gonna get pretty much, and the rest who wherent that good.

there where several allied aces who had a better sortie/kill ratio than say heartman aswell.

fact is LW was beaten. even in the end where they seemed to fly around in large groups, still wouldnt win engaugements as much as they should have, ie hardly ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What engagements are you talking about Pingu?

You must have forgot the Schweinfurt raids or maybe the Dieppe raid or perhaps even the first stages of operation Barabarossa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

badly mauled some unprotected bombers, dieppe raid the RAF kept up the air umbrella and protected the ships etc well from what ive heard.

first stages or barabarossa went very well, dont surpose the fear of stalin helped the ppl in command.

mid to late war mostly, plus theres the BOB and malta too. the polish put up a very good fight also, in p11's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You ought to read up on the Dieppe raid again if your under the impression the RAF got anything other than a hiding taht day.

The Luftwaffe - like the whole german armed forces - had an overall KD ratio of something like 4 - 1. Please enlighten me what multiple engagements are you talking about where they outnumbered the enemy in a fighter vs fighter encounter and came off the worse.

With regards to Kills to sortie ratio Hartmann was no where near the top of the list check out some of the other aces like Rall or even Lambert and you will see some very impressive scores per missions.

Going back to Hartmann it is impressive, you have to admit, going in to combat over 1500 times in an 'inferior' aircraft , in an 'inferior' airforce and not getting killed. Bet he loved how he always had the 'luck' of meeting the enemy and that time he was outnumbered 12 to 1 by Mustangs. I suppose using your logic Hartmann outnumbered the enemy on that occasion too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did the air umbrella break? where 100s of ships sunk?

keeping the ships, and the 1000s of men on them safe was more important.

and im going from stuff in clostermans book and other stuff ive read.

german experten had luck not only in combat, but to survive mechincal faliure, acciedents etc.

much like schumi in F1 they come out really well 90% of the time.

Ruy Horta
06-20-2005, 10:58 AM
You should read Steinhilper, the man had a giant chip on his shoulder. It has been a while, but if I remember correctly, he hardly got along with the people he served with and his COs did not hide their dislike for him.

This is but one side of the story and not a very nuanced one at that, since there are plenty of biographies describing how green pilots were helped by experienced ones to gtet their feel for combat, so I won't start quoting them.

Besides does the first quote strike you as something negative?

There is a wonderful sense of teamwork in the Staffel

Perhaps letting the best shooter go for the kill isn't that crazy if the team wins.

faustnik
06-20-2005, 11:47 AM
The RAF took a beating at Dieppe even with far superior numbers.

LW at Dieppe (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm)

stathem
06-20-2005, 12:48 PM
Hop, thanks.


Originally posted by Big_Bad_Wulf:
I wrote that, because I nearly felt offended by the assumption "Wulf may not have been as well informed". Be sure, I am.
Be sure, we germans are very well informed about what happend in the 3rd Reich(there may be exceptions like everywhere).


(I've edited the quote purely for reasons of space, be sure I've read it all carefully http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Hi Wulf,

I apologise if you were offended, none was meant. Absolutley there is no need for a flame war. I didn't mean to imply that you know nothing about the politics of Germany 1920-1945. In my replies there is no political intent whatsoever. As you suggest, political discussions are pretty much off the limits on here.

When I say you 'may not have been as well informed" I was talking specifically about your understanding of the 'Nazi warrior-hero ethic' (the term is quoted by Bungay, but is probably coined by an earlier writer), as it appiled to the Jagdwaffe. I drew this conculsion because you disputed it's existence. Maybe my use of the term is too emotive, but I can't think of a better way of putting it. I sincerely hope that these discussions will provoke you to reading more about the subject. The more we all read and discuss and debate, the better the world wil be.

It's not quite a tactical doctrine, but Luftwaffe tactical doctrine cannot be separated from it. It also has elements of being a motivational tool. I'm not discussing it in terms of it's politcal message, nor disparaging Germans either past or present. I was quoting it as a contributing reason why some Jagdwaffe pilots ran up enormous kill totals. It catergorically doesn't mean that all Luftwaffe pilots were Nazis - far from it. We know as much about it from the pilots that were disaffected by it as from anywhere.

Now some people, and after learning about it, you may become one, will argue that it was the correct doctrine to use (not the Nazi part, the warrior-hero part.) That's fair enough, and we could debate that and it would be an interesting discussion.

Enough already, time to go.

I sincerely hope this has helped clear things up. If you can get a translation of the book quoted by hop above and you are interested (particulary with BoB coming soon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif) give it a go, it's a great, and I think, very fair, treatment of the BoB.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

Additionally, if you have time, check out what Golodnikov has to say.

Salute, Wulf, see you around

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

Kurfurst__
06-20-2005, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:
I don't think German culture had any effect on the skills of the pilots, I do think it had an effect on the tactics of the Luftwaffe, and the tactics are what made for the high scoring pilots.


Hmmm, gliding was 'the' national sport in Germany in the `30s, part of the culture if you like, so it was obviously adventageous to make young men into fighter pilots who already know the basics and had a lot of practice.

They had a strong military culture, perhaps more than other continental countries thanks to the prussian heritage - they were raised in a culture with the tradition of citizens having obligation to serve the country in the armed forces, and where progression in rank was a matter of ability alone and not birth. Certainly that was an advantage, compared to, say, countries where easily nobody from your family had served as soldier for generation due to the lack of tradition of a conscript army (a few mercenaries doing the job), which anyway was often lead by the, to put it mildly most incompetent young titans of the aristocracy, after buying(!!!) their rank as a major so to avoid the boring process of working your way up, and who were sent into the low-prestige army by their family because they were the least capable within that family.





The Luftwaffe tactics were for a few pilots to score the kills, the rest were there to support them.

The LW had less fighter pilots but more kills in total than others, so the claim is silly.

It was not a LW tactic, it was the tactic of all effectively organized airforce in WW2.

It makes no sense to let the rookies shoot the sky instead of planes while they prove easy pickings for the enemy`s more experienced pilots because they don`t know when to disengage, they don`t know how to check their six, or how to make deflection shootings. Simliarly it doesn`t make sense to let rookies work in pairs until they know their stuff.

As a wingman, they could learn in process, and more importantly, survive long enough util they were ready to enter combat on their own. Until then, they could protect the more experienced pilot who had much better chances anyway of succeeding in his mission of shooting down enemy planes, and both of them has a seperate job he can fully concentrate on. Even Eric Hartmann started as a wingman. He finished as Major, and being the ace of aces. pretty much every successfull LW pilot climbed the same ladder.

It`s called team tactics and the same manpower management on micro level was employed in every major army in all history : the old veteran thought the young ones about the craft and kept an eye on them so they won`t kill themselves in some silly way.

horseback
06-20-2005, 01:46 PM
Kurfurst,

I think the picture stetham was trying to portray was one where certain 'stars' used their supporting cast as 'beaters' for game at best, and as bait on a regular basis. There were a few earlier references to large numbers of wingmen lost by certain individuals. There was an earlier post citing experienced NCO pilots in near rebellion because they were being used in this way. This may be why Hartmann was held in high regard--he always brought his wingman back.

I'll concede that similar tactics and mindsets could be found in Allied ranks, but in general, where you find a unit with a high number of victories, you'll find a leadership with a concern for everyone getting into the fight rather than funneling prey to a select few.

Hub Zemke and David McCampbell are outstanding American fighter leaders who successfully taught and led other aces, and I believe Trautloft might also fit into that mold.

cheers

horseback

p1ngu666
06-20-2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
The RAF took a beating at Dieppe even with far superior numbers.

LW at Dieppe (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm)

yeah they didnt do too well, but seems they got 2 small boats from that, so the raf seemed to have kept the ships safe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
06-20-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
The RAF took a beating at Dieppe even with far superior numbers.

LW at Dieppe (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm)

yeah they didnt do too well, but seems they got 2 small boats from that, so the raf seemed to have kept the ships safe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same can't be said for the poor Canadians on the beaches. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif