PDA

View Full Version : Holy Cow



Segwin
03-25-2009, 05:53 PM
Do I suck at this sim.

I'm no stranger to flight sims or dog fighting but I'm ready to put my foot through my nice LCD monitor (cost to much to replace though).

Insert your favorite cuss word here *....* Just venting I guess....

BTW, does the P-51 really fly that bad? If you pull it just past that point, in a corner, it freaks out like someone cut all the control cables. It's hard to believe that we (the Americans) built a plane so bad (and I really like the looks of it too).

This sim gets me angry enough to get really good at it and then take it off my hard drive in revenge.

jayhall0315
03-25-2009, 05:57 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I told Xiolablu that I thought there had been a previous thread entitled, "The P51, Why is it so dang hard to fly ?!!!" or some such and ... well... see what I mean ?

Sorry but my gut is hurting from too much laughter at the moment.

F19_Orheim
03-25-2009, 05:58 PM
just because it freaks out past a point does not mean it's bad.... all powerful high performing machines push limits... take a F1 racecar for example past "that point" and you'll see what happens...

one has to learn how to handle it.. tame the beast... so back to it mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jayhall0315
03-25-2009, 06:02 PM
Sorry Segwin, had to make sure I didnt blow a gasket there. To help you out and get you flying better, try these two links:

The Nuggets Guide:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/9121094645 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9121094645)

and when you decide to head online to face real humans, The Newbie's Guide to IL2 Online Dogfighting:

http://www.mediafire.com/?shar...dc50e04e75f6e8ebb871 (http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=47962757be5412c90c814df2efeadc50e04e75f6 e8ebb871)

This will help get you started on the steep learning curve.

Jay

TS_Sancho
03-25-2009, 06:04 PM
Welcome to IL2 and no, its not the plane.

raaaid
03-25-2009, 06:04 PM
learn bnz and orientate on yours and enemy base http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

danjama
03-25-2009, 06:06 PM
P51 is a high energy fighter, built for high altitude. Be gentle with her and you will learn to tame her.

Stiletto-
03-25-2009, 06:10 PM
If you are flying it to that point in the corner, you are not flying the P-51 correctly. It is not best flown tightly chasing other planes around in circles.. What other people have said about the Nuggets guide and Boom and Zoom tecniques, it is a great fighter plane in this game one of the best but it is an energy plane not a turn on the dime kind of one.

Certainly, it is not a beginners plane, I would reccomend something like the Hurricane, P-40, Zero, La-5, Yak or the BF-109 F4. If you wish to get into furballs and also, not have the plane "flip out" on you.

F19_Orheim
03-25-2009, 06:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...283/m/5641027835/p/1 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5641027835/p/1)

Segwin
03-25-2009, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
Welcome to IL2 and no, its not the plane.

That's what I was afraid of.

Segwin
03-25-2009, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Stiletto-:

If you wish to get into furballs and also, not have the plane "flip out" on you.

No... it's not a desire to get into furballs per se, it was an observation on how the P-51 handled when ridden hard and put away wet.

I'm coming from Falcon 4, an F-16 sim, so there is a huge learning curve in proper techniques. My biggest problem is thinking everything corners like an F-16.

Tis me, nothing else.

X32Wright
03-25-2009, 06:35 PM
Change your HARDWARE-INPUT to all 100s for PITCH,ROLL and YAW and get back to me about how the P-51 sucked and this surely would change the way you feel about that plane.

With all 100 inputs she would circle forever without stall below 280kph with combat flaps.

The others are correct that you are pushing her to the limit of stall but it could also be your INPUT settings. A mustang LIKES and WANTS to be fast and she MISBEHAVES if you fly her slow specially with default INPUT settings.

M_Gunz
03-25-2009, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Segwin:
Do I suck at this sim.

I'm no stranger to flight sims or dog fighting but I'm ready to put my foot through my nice LCD monitor (cost to much to replace though).

Insert your favorite cuss word here *....* Just venting I guess....

BTW, does the P-51 really fly that bad? If you pull it just past that point, in a corner, it freaks out like someone cut all the control cables. It's hard to believe that we (the Americans) built a plane so bad (and I really like the looks of it too).

This sim gets me angry enough to get really good at it and then take it off my hard drive in revenge.

It flies about as good as the pilot. And yes, it had snap-nasty departure behaviour in the 'right' conditions
-- so did the FW190.
You have to consider the P-51 IRL couldn't run full power while stopped, it would flip itself over according to the pilots.
How does that translate to when you're close to stall and running full power? The words 'turn turtle' have been used.
First time that happened to me in IL2 when AEP came out I knew they were doing something right and I did something wrong.

You want to ride Ole Dobbin then you're not going to win the Kentucky Derby. Thoroughbreds are dangerous as well as fast.
A tame plane will not maneuver (roll fast, pitch easily = change the lift vector quickly) as well as something less stable,
it's that simple.
The thing about Ace Pilots is that they make it look easy, kind of like Olympics contestants. Watch them and do you think
that you can just go downhill skiing without ever having skied before? When you are wrapped around a tree waiting for help
will you be cursing the maker of the skis you used? My skis don't turn well enough, I've seen what they can do IRL?

No, really, there is a thread linking an article on what it takes to become a warbird pilot, the stages of training.
A qualified General Aviation Pilot for Cessnas and the like would be in trouble if just jump into a P-51 and fly regular.
Even to fly a Spitfire such as we have, first is hours in a Tiger Moth and then to the Spitfire for more hours and still
they don't take the plane near full capability because they simply did not dare, those boys with less than 10 hours in
type who went into battle didn't push the edge let alone ride over it.
That's why you'll find quotes from Germans in 109's who turned inside of Spitfires. They did. They didn't know who was
flying the Spitfire though. It wasn't only plane vs plane as some would suggest or even insist. The most important quote
about aerial combat I know is "It's the PILOT not the PLANE.".

DKoor
03-25-2009, 06:50 PM
American fighter planes such is P-47 or P-51 are one of the most powerful airplanes in this simulation.
To illustrate this, download some of these tracks, put them in your records folder (under main game folder) and run them so you will see for yourself.

P-51 vs 4 German ace FW-190 Ai on realistic settings, coop
http://www.esnips.com/doc/3e9e.../DKoor51D-4x190A-408 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/3e9e1ca5-28cc-45ea-8384-64415e3a7ace/DKoor51D-4x190A-408)

Test of the .50cal vs hard targets, German Focke Wulfs
http://www.esnips.com/doc/0de7...48839/Power-of-50cal (http://www.esnips.com/doc/0de7e3f5-b790-44ad-bb5a-e9b6dc648839/Power-of-50cal)

Online, player gets few kills (ETO)
http://www.esnips.com/doc/3da0...in32P51D-2xEA-WC-402 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/3da0781e-4835-44fd-9183-094bd0ec9f9c/Brain32P51D-2xEA-WC-402)

Solo P-51 vs 6 ace Japanese planes, realistic settings, almost 1 hour of offline fight
http://www.esnips.com/doc/edce...Koor51D-vs-6xJPN-408 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/edce8046-80a2-4a49-8920-da3427c0b5c0/DKoor51D-vs-6xJPN-408)

M_Gunz
03-25-2009, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Segwin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:

If you wish to get into furballs and also, not have the plane "flip out" on you.

No... it's not a desire to get into furballs per se, it was an observation on how the P-51 handled when ridden hard and put away wet.

I'm coming from Falcon 4, an F-16 sim, so there is a huge learning curve in proper techniques. My biggest problem is thinking everything corners like an F-16.

Tis me, nothing else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh. Torque. P-factor. Propwash. Wing and rudder twist. LOW power loading.
OTOH much lower stall speeds.

Your lift vector -can- be the most potent force at your disposal if you keep your speed up.
At twice Reference Stall you can pull 4G's though you'll need to lose alt to hold it.
At 2.5x Stall you can black out if you do hold it.

The Corner Speed that matters now is Sustained Corner, around 240-250mph in most late war birds.
You'll have enough roll and lift to change direction the best right around there.

Work the vertical! Ride like a rollercoaster. Yoyos, rolling scissors, same basic moves just different rhythms and speeds.

The other big difference to jets is that jets have constant thrust available while props have constant power available.
Power = Thrust x Speed.
The faster you go in a jet, the more power you have. The faster you go in a prop, the less thrust you have.

Whole new ballgame in props.

Or you could fly the 262 or other IL2 jets, which you may like once you learn to not catch them on fire!
Well, those primitive engines you just have to be really slowwww on the throttle esp in the earliest jets like the 262.

There lots of learning curve for the bucks you spent on the game, be sure!
Look at it this way, no more MFD's. No more Master Warning panels. Less instruments and gimmicks to remember.
And if we're real good, the Rise of Flight WWI sim will be out "soon" with even less doodads to deal with!

RPMcMurphy
03-25-2009, 07:23 PM
Your reaction was like mine when I started Segwin. The planes would snap roll and flip over on me and **** me off bad. I wanted to throw my joystick thru the dam wall. But then I found that I had to go to the input settings and reduce them. Just dont quit and you will get good at flying these planes.
Go to this and adjust the pitch:
http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo71/11072008/grab0000.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-25-2009, 07:36 PM
RE: The Mustangs handling and stall characteristics...seems to match with reality.

Read this thread (its currently just a few spots down): http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/7651002447 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7651002447)

HayateAce
03-25-2009, 09:55 PM
Finally, it's only a game, so don't try to believe that the IL2 P51 is anything like the real bird.

The P51 dominated the the 109/190 in the skies over Europe, and the historical records bears that out time and again. The Mustang will never be equaled in terms of achievement and impact on the outcome of a war.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v730/fugari/LtBillGroseclose4thFG.jpg

Buzzsaw-
03-25-2009, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Segwin:
Do I suck at this sim.

I'm no stranger to flight sims or dog fighting but I'm ready to put my foot through my nice LCD monitor (cost to much to replace though).

Insert your favorite cuss word here *....* Just venting I guess....

BTW, does the P-51 really fly that bad? If you pull it just past that point, in a corner, it freaks out like someone cut all the control cables. It's hard to believe that we (the Americans) built a plane so bad (and I really like the looks of it too).

This sim gets me angry enough to get really good at it and then take it off my hard drive in revenge.

Salute Segwin

Fly more, practice more, join a Squadron and you will get better.

However, you are correct, the Mustang is modelled poorly in general.

If you want to get a better perspective on the Mustang, try flying the Mustang III, it has performance similar to the real thing. (although it still has the overdone stall and wing weakness)

Buzzsaw-
03-25-2009, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
RE: The Mustangs handling and stall characteristics...seems to match with reality.

Read this thread (its currently just a few spots down): http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/7651002447 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7651002447)

Yeah read that thread.... RIGHT TO THE BOTTOM.

Then you will see a WARTIME evaluation of a properly functioning Mustang running at full power and turning at max. G's.

As far as the test of 60 year old planes running less than max boost and tested at low G's, I think you can discount it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jamesblonde1979
03-26-2009, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Segwin:
Do I suck at this sim.

I'm no stranger to flight sims or dog fighting but I'm ready to put my foot through my nice LCD monitor (cost to much to replace though).

Insert your favorite cuss word here *....* Just venting I guess....



BTW, does the P-51 really fly that bad? If you pull it just past that point, in a corner, it freaks out like someone cut all the control cables. It's hard to believe that we (the Americans) built a plane so bad (and I really like the looks of it too).

This sim gets me angry enough to get really good at it and then take it off my hard drive in revenge.

Go to loadout screen.

Fuel: 50%

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

GH_Klingstroem
03-26-2009, 02:42 AM
Hi Segwin!
First let us know what joystick you have! You really need to dampen the settings in the input section of the game! This dampeing is very very differnt depending on the stick you have!

Also check my tutorials out
http://352ndfg.com/smf/index.php?topic=1214.0

Its a mix of AVI videos and tracks (that need to be put in the records folder of the game")
She is a GREAT plane with dampened stick settings!!!

Segwin
03-26-2009, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
Hi Segwin!
First let us know what joystick you have! You really need to dampen the settings in the input section of the game! This dampening is very very different depending on the stick you have!

Also check my tutorials out
http://352ndfg.com/smf/index.php?topic=1214.0

Its a mix of AVI videos and tracks (that need to be put in the records folder of the game")
She is a GREAT plane with dampened stick settings!!!

I have a X52 Pro. It's actually a pretty good stick and very programmable.

Thanks to all that have posted and offered help/opinions. The one thing that attracts me to the sim is how hands on the flying is. I've aways had a soft spot for the P51 too, it's got sexy lines, love the way it looks. I'm just taken aback by the modeled flight.

I'll take the advice and dampen the stick to see what happens. I am learning to be aware of the signs of losing control - my wife tells me to quit shouting at the computer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif With regards to the P-51, I can feel is start to shudder in the corner and if you pull any harder - poof, she'll slip away.

I have every intention of joining a squad but only when I have mastered most of the basics. I don't want to be a boat anchor.

Today is a new day however and after a good nights sleep I'm ready for more humiliation. I thought I saw my wingman shaking his head once.

Feathered_IV
03-26-2009, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Segwin:
Do I suck at this sim.

I'm no stranger to flight sims or dog fighting but I'm ready to put my foot through my nice LCD monitor (cost to much to replace though).

Insert your favorite cuss word here *....* Just venting I guess....



BTW, does the P-51 really fly that bad? If you pull it just past that point, in a corner, it freaks out like someone cut all the control cables. It's hard to believe that we (the Americans) built a plane so bad (and I really like the looks of it too).

This sim gets me angry enough to get really good at it and then take it off my hard drive in revenge.

Go to loadout screen.

Fuel: 50%

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% correct http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The pony with full tanks was very dangerous. Many famous US pilots mention this. Centre of gravity was way off and it would spin like Jesse Owens with one foot nailed to the floor.

Urufu_Shinjiro
03-26-2009, 06:00 AM
Best stick settings I found for the X52 is all 100's in pitch and roll.

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Segwin:
I have every intention of joining a squad but only when I have mastered most of the basics. I don't want to be a boat anchor.

You should check out Joint-Ops for online training. You'll probably breeze on through.

raaaid
03-26-2009, 07:30 AM
personally i just use 100 in joystick profiler for tnb like with spits
with the 190 to bnz i prefer default profiler for being gunnery more precise in the center of the joystick, less shaky

ROXunreal
03-26-2009, 08:11 AM
They can be whatever they like, but I just can't stand the lack of cannons on most US planes.

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Finally, it's only a game, so don't try to believe that the IL2 P51 is anything like the real bird.

The P51 dominated the the 109/190 in the skies over Europe, and the historical records bears that out time and again. The Mustang will never be equaled in terms of achievement and impact on the outcome of a war.


LoL, another propaganda victim. I dare say that the P-47 was the more important USAAF fighter in the ETO.

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
LoL, another propaganda victim.

Read a history book. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



I dare say that the P-47 was the more important USAAF fighter in the ETO.

I made no comparison between the two, citing neither above the other. Yes, the P47 was largely responsible for blackening both Luftwaffe eyes. The P51 delivered the knockout blow.

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

DrHerb
03-26-2009, 08:52 AM
In the end, it all boils down to "the machine is as good as the operator"

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:


The pony with full tanks was very dangerous. Many famous US pilots mention this. Centre of gravity was way off and it would spin like Jesse Owens with one foot nailed to the floor.

Slight clarification:

The Mustang with a full FUSELAGE TANK experienced CoG problems. Pilots would burn from the FUSE tank until it was at most half full or below, then switch on to the drops. Once in combat and the drops were jettisoned, the Mustang was "ready to fight." This real procedure cannot be reproduced in IL2, making the P51's CoG perpetually inaccurate.

In reality, what was happening is that the Mustang tried to turn too tightly in this state, causing it to try to "swap ends." Pilots including Chuck Yeager mentioned having to actually push the stick forward to avoid the Mustang turning too tightly.

In IL2 the P51 doesn't swap ends, but rather Oleg tried to somehow mimmick this with a rather horrid and ahistoric wing stall at both high and low speeds. This limited IL2 modeling engine simply cannot handle the complex and dynamic flight characteristics of the Mustang.

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, the P47 was largely responsible for blackening both Luftwaffe eyes. The P51 delivered the knockout blow.

Same old tired cliche.

The fact remains that the P-51 made its ETO reputation when the majority of the Luftwaffe were recruits with little combat training. I don't need your Barnes and Noble coffee table history books to know that the best thing about the Mustang was that it was a flying gas tank... and when it faced enemy aircraft with competent pilots it was not "dominant." The P-51 was a good aircraft, don't get me wrong, but it owns the most over-inflated reputation of any WWII aircraft, without exception.

As for nose bounce, it's kind or ironic that the Aces High P-51 also has longitudinal instability, and the guy who created the flight model has flown a real P-51 on multiple occasions.

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 09:18 AM
Same old tired ill-informed myths.

Ask Bud Anderson, Merle Olmsted, John B. England, Leonard K. Carson, Donald Bochkay, Robert Foy and a thousand other P51 pilots if the 109/190/262 pilots they faced in early 1944 were "recruits." Better still, ask the German aces that were downed.

"The 357th arrived in England at the turn of 1943/44 and was committed to combat on 11 February 1944, the first Group of the 8th AF to fly the mighty mustang. For a young fighter pilot eager to put his training to work, the Group could not have arrived at a better time.

The massive bomber offensive against the German aircraft industry was just beginning and brought the Luftwaffe out in force to protect their source of aircraft supply. There was violent combat almost from the beginning and the 357th pilots began to compile a rapidly increasing number of victory credits. That spring of 1944 is now considered the beginning of the end for the once all powerful Luftwaffe."

BaronUnderpants
03-26-2009, 09:46 AM
I think i see where this is going http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif



...the threadh will end debating weather P11 is uber or not.

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 10:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

megalopsuche
03-26-2009, 10:32 AM
"Young fighter pilots" with ~300 hours of fighter training under their belts...instruction received from the best USAAF pilots who had already fought the Luftwaffe.

Moreover, by Spring 1944 the Luftwaffe was severely outnumbered in the ETO. It was the kind of "ganging" that we sim pilots love to whine about.

-----------

I'm yet to see you respond to the fact that the Il-2 P-51 is nearly identical in flight characteristics to the P-51 of Aces High, which is a flight sim created by a guy in Texas (of all places) who has done mock dogfights in a real P-51.

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 10:58 AM
It's almost hard to believe that any P-51's were ever shot down, they were so dominant yet I read that at least one was once.
True Fackt.

danjama
03-26-2009, 11:01 AM
Just to add to this fiasco, let's not forget the effects of the mighty Spitfire on cross channel hops....

By far, the best performing plane of ww2 in all aspects apart from escort range.

I laugh at your silly P51's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

danjama
03-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
It's almost hard to believe that any P-51's were ever shot down, they were so dominant yet I read that at least one was once.
True Fackt.

I heard that too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Falcke
03-26-2009, 11:02 AM
If you don't feed the troll it dies really quick.

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:


Moreover, by Spring 1944 the Luftwaffe was severely outnumbered in the ETO.

Cool, more mythical BS.

Bud Anderson:

"It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times."

Now let me see, believe a decorated Mustang Ace or someone who flies a computer monitor in his bedroom at night.....golly the choice will be tough.

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

Romanator21
03-26-2009, 12:47 PM
Enter the Furball:

Our eastern friends blindly followed "comrade" Stalin's orders to jump into the meat grinder did that. My mom knew a pilot "hero" who flew without legs, used a pole to press the rudders. My grandfather and his friends, as schoolkids were bombed by stukas. One time he had nothing to eat but a camel's jaw bone. He would sneak behind the lines to get a few twigs of "firewood" My grandmother barely got out of a line to be sent to concentration/labor camps. Her father worked to save people from the enemy soldiers; he was rewarded with a trip to the Gulag. Germans had developed a concrete which couldn't be destroyed by bombs. A soldier was expected to plug the "pillbox" with his own body to allow his comrades to pass though. Some soldiers went into battles without guns, and fought tanks on horseback. Women fought, kids fought, the elderly fought. mothers with nursing infants fought. There isn't one family today that hasn't had a direct relative die in that war. Pilots in biplanes and glued plywood did more damage to Germany than spitfires and fortresses.

But yes,you're right the p-51 totally destroyed the Germans. Gave 'em the 'ol one two. Pow! right in the kisser!

Don't get me wrong, the P-51 was great, it's accomplishments were staggering. But look at the bigger picture. Consider what people had to go through, in Great Britain, in the US, in the USSR, in Germany, in France, in Italy, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Japan, in China...These people put forward so much, more than you or I can imagine. And yet, this senseless bickering over one plane and how it "won the war".

danjama
03-26-2009, 12:51 PM
good post

Tab_Flettner
03-26-2009, 06:10 PM
"Enter the Furball:

Our eastern friends blindly followed "comrade" Stalin's orders to jump into the meat grinder did that. My mom knew a pilot "hero" who flew without legs, used a pole to press the rudders. My grandfather and his friends, as schoolkids were bombed by stukas. One time he had nothing to eat but a camel's jaw bone. He would sneak behind the lines to get a few twigs of "firewood" My grandmother barely got out of a line to be sent to concentration/labor camps. Her father worked to save people from the enemy soldiers; he was rewarded with a trip to the Gulag. Germans had developed a concrete which couldn't be destroyed by bombs. A soldier was expected to plug the "pillbox" with his own body to allow his comrades to pass though. Some soldiers went into battles without guns, and fought tanks on horseback. Women fought, kids fought, the elderly fought. mothers with nursing infants fought. There isn't one family today that hasn't had a direct relative die in that war. Pilots in biplanes and glued plywood did more damage to Germany than spitfires and fortresses.

But yes,you're right the p-51 totally destroyed the Germans. Gave 'em the 'ol one two. Pow! right in the kisser!

Don't get me wrong, the P-51 was great, it's accomplishments were staggering. But look at the bigger picture. Consider what people had to go through, in Great Britain, in the US, in the USSR, in Germany, in France, in Italy, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Japan, in China...These people put forward so much, more than you or I can imagine. And yet, this senseless bickering over one plane and how it "won the war"."

Excellent post. Don't you get the history channel where you live?

horseback
03-26-2009, 06:32 PM
1. Find a map of Europe, circa December 1943/April 1944.

2. Draw a semicircle centered about the mouth of the Thames River in Great Britain. We'll use that as the starting point for most P-47 groups, and assuming a pair of 100 US gallon drop tanks (and most of them used a single belly tank for most of the first half of 1944), we'll make our semicircle's radius 400 miles, based on the combat radius of a P-47D-11 with drop tanks.

3. Everything past that had to be covered by either P-38 or P-51 groups, so that would be 2 Lightning groups and one Mustang group (at this point, a group was about 50 aircraft, with maybe 36-40 available per max effort) the first month or so, expanding to two each in February, finally adding the veteran 4th FG in early March, and adding another pair of groups in March and April. Bear in mind throughout this period that both types were suffering teething problems that often resulted in half the assigned escort returning early for mechanical problems.

4. Now take a look ata a globe. Find Dallas/Ft worth in Texas, and Los Angeles/Burbank, in California. This is where the Mustangs and Lightnings were built, and from which these aircraft were transported by rail to the eastern US, where they were put on ships for delivery to Britain. It takes time to make these aircraft and ship them to the front at greater numbers than they can be lost to operational accidents and enemy action.

5. Most of these groups' pilots were on their first combat tours, and before their arrivals in England, had never flown the P-51. The conversion of the 4th FG directly to the P-51 demonstrated that veteran P-47 groups could successfully do so without leaving the combat zone. The vast majority of the pilots flying the initial missions in December '43 through February '44 had only trained flying P-39s or P-40s before seeing the Mustangs they would take into combat a month or six weeks later.

6. By all accounts, the period from January through April 1944 was when the Luftwaffe's fighter corps experienced it's most critical loss of experienced fighter pilots and leaders, mostly over Germany and out of the range of the P-47, at a time when the USAAF could muster at most 150-200 fighters over Germany.

7. According to some people, that means that there were fewer than 20 Axis fighters covering Central Europe. According to others, that must mean that 100-150 mostly rookie USAAF pilots with 350 total hours and about fifty hours each in the Mustang must have been better trained than the Axis pilots with literally hundreds of combat hours in their 109s and 190s.

Naturally, it couldn't possibly mean that those kids, while well prepared, might have been flying an aircraft at least the equal of the opposition's.

cheers

horseback

HayateAce
03-26-2009, 07:29 PM
Well sheesh, if you're going to bring FACTS into the discussion....

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

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Yeager, Anderson and their contemporaries trained in P-51's in the US for over 100 hours in type.
More like 150 hours in type STANDARD.
So what's this "most" learning the plane on the way to the fight as rookie pilots business? Back it up with more than one quote.
Yeah, the new guys got shown which instruments were what and sent right into battle as SOP... and I'm FDR.

OTOH yes the Germans did work for and at times achieved local numeric superiority yet that went both ways as well.
What we haven't seen is how many times either side had the better odds and what they were, so it's played upon heavily.

Bearcat99
03-26-2009, 08:52 PM
See the post by Orheim on page one.

The P-51in this sim is not bad.. but it does take practice. Klingstroem has the best tutorial on the P-51 I have seen.

Tab_Flettner
03-26-2009, 08:54 PM
20 Axis fighters covering Central Europe

Ya but these guys were good.

WTE_Ibis
03-26-2009, 08:55 PM
Naturally, it couldn't possibly mean that those kids, while well prepared, might have been flying an aircraft at least the equal of the opposition's.
--------------------------------------------

Well I agree with this statement, they were by all accounts equal, indeed they were fine aircraft.
To listen to some here though the rest of the allied air forces could have knocked off and gone home once the stang arrived.
.
The one that was reportedly shot down had in fact run out of fuel.
So that puts an end to that propagander claim.
Check your facts Mr Gunz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


.

Viper2005_
03-26-2009, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
The Mustang will never be equaled in terms of achievement and impact on the outcome of a war.


You appear to have forgotten the Hawker Hurricane, without which the Mustang would probably have needed either floats or a tailhook to impact the War in Europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Personally however, I think that this sort of "aeroplane X was the best aeroplane ever", or "aeroplane Y won teh war" approach is simplistic.

If the P-51 hadn't existed then something else would have probably turned up (like developed P-47, or a Spitfire with long range tanks or...), just as if the Hurricane hadn't existed then Martin-Baker would almost certainly have filled the gap with considerable skill and aplomb.

The P-51 (like the A-bomb) was made possible by the fact that in addition to providing an excellent education system for her citizens, the USA was accepting of the contribution of immigrants in a way that the Germans and Russians were not.

In that favourable environment, high technology was likely to flourish. The fact that it was the P-51 and not something else is arguably an accident of History.

M_Gunz
03-26-2009, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Naturally, it couldn't possibly mean that those kids, while well prepared, might have been flying an aircraft at least the equal of the opposition's.
--------------------------------------------

Well I agree with this statement, they were by all accounts equal, indeed they were a fine aircraft.
To listen to some here the rest of the allied air forces could have knocked off and gone home once the stang arrived.
.
The one that was reportedly shot down had in fact run out of fuel.
So that puts an end to that propagander claim.
Check your facts Mr Gunz. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck Yeager himself says he was shot down in his biography. But then what did he know?
But he wasn't looking and he was the only one ever shot down by another plane in a P-51, a bad case of overconfidence.
All the rest were from AA and non-combat accidents like gear door openings ripping wings off and accidentally flying
into the path of enemy bullets and shells, ie pilot error and not enemy actions at all. The P-51 Dominated like was said.

horseback
03-27-2009, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Yeager, Anderson and their contemporaries trained in P-51's in the US for over 100 hours in type.
More like 150 hours in type STANDARD.
So what's this "most" learning the plane on the way to the fight as rookie pilots business? Back it up with more than one quote.
Yeah, the new guys got shown which instruments were what and sent right into battle as SOP... and I'm FDR.

OTOH yes the Germans did work for and at times achieved local numeric superiority yet that went both ways as well.
What we haven't seen is how many times either side had the better odds and what they were, so it's played upon heavily. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WRONG.</span>
The 354th 'Pioneer' Mustang group trained up on P-39s, and expected to fly them in combat. They flew their first Mustangs in England after arriving in November of 1943 (and made their first combat flights the following month). Specific source: Osprey Aircraft of the Aces #7, Mustang Aces of the 9th a& Fifteenth Air forces & the RAF, top of page 79. Also see Big Friend, Little Friend by Richard Turner

I recently re-read Yeager's bio, and he makes no mention of Mustangs until very late in his training--and in those days, getting 10-15 hours per pilot of flying time a week in late fall-early winter was a heavy schedule, especially with a brand new type just coming into production. If the anyone in the 357th besides the CO and XO had more than 20-30 hours in type before embarking for England in the winter of '43/'44, I would be frankly shocked.

As for the 4th FG, they maintained a full schedule through Big Week in Jugs and still had everyone get signed off with less than 8 hours in type per man (during an English winter, meaning at best, lots of low cloud ceilings). Chances are very good that on their first 'all up' mission in the Pony that Blakeslee was the only one with more than 20 hours in type, having been assigned to mentor the 354th through their baptism of fire.

Freeing up Mustangs for groups in training Stateside before everyone who wanted them in England, the Med, China/Burma and the Pacific got one would have been very hard to justify. Your 150 hours in type minimum might have been possible in late summer of 1944, but not much sooner. The Army Air Force, just like the RAF, taught you how to fly and gave you specific training for the general class of aircraft you were going to operate; fighters, bombers, or transports. It was up to you to fly what they gave you.

Sometimes that meant that you were expected to familiarize yourself with a new aircraft in less than a month or two. There was a war on, after all.

Much is made of how many escorts were sent on each bombing mission, but in real terms, each group of fighters was tightly scheduled to cover only one section of the bomber stream for X number of minutes before they ran short of fuel and had to turn for home.

The Lightnings and Mustangs were the only fighters that had the range to be over Central Europe with the bombers, and it was an incredible technical feat at the time that as many as two-thirds usually made the whole trip even without running into the LW, and it was even more impressive that they enjoyed the degree of success that they did way out there at the pointy end of the spear.

There can be little doubt that for the 45 minutes or so that they were over enemy held territory beyond the range of the P-47 during those critical early months that they were pretty heavily outnumbered by the German fighters in that airspace. Had the bombers not been there to distract the Germans a little bit, it could have been a lot uglier than it was.

It would still have been pretty ugly if the Mustang, or the men that flew it, had been less good.

cheers

horseback

jamesblonde1979
03-27-2009, 01:20 AM
Definitely confirmed wrong. Yeager and Anderson flew the P-39 in training. I have the Bio not 3m from where I am now.

They also flew for the 357th FG not the 354 th.

norton1974
03-27-2009, 09:09 AM
I just read Zemkes wolfpack and he went from the p47 to the p38 briefly and then the p51 briefly. He made no mention of any formal training before changing planes. Although he trained extensivly on the p47 in the states.
I was surprised a pilot would take a plane in combat with so few flying hours.
Whenever someone says the p51 won the war in this forum some people sure take offense to that, so i wonder who was the first person to say that the p51 won the war? Was it a p51 pilot or bomber crew or american news paper?
Or herman Goering?
My view is that germany would have lost weather there was or wasnt a p51, but it did help alot.

horseback
03-27-2009, 01:01 PM
To clarify:

354th FG entered combat operations with the Mustang on loan from the 9th AF in early December 1943, making them the first Merlin Mustang group. Former flying Tiger James Howard was the first Mustang ace, and the first US 'ace in a day' in the ETO. Other aces from that early period include Richard Turner, Clayton Gross, and Frank O'Conner.

Yeager's group, the 357th, was 'swapped' by the 9th AF for a P-47 group, and was the first 'official' 8th AF group to enter combat in the Mustang on February 11th, 1944. Like the 354th, they had received almost all of their flying hours in P-39s prior to embarking for England.

They were followed in (very) late February by the 4th FG, which happily discarded their narrow bladed P-47C/Ds for Mustangs as soon as Group CO Don Blakeslee could beg, borrow or steal enough for each of his squadrons. Several of the former Eagle squadron veterans in this group responded quite positively to the Mustang after less than stellar performance in the P-47; Gentile, Godfrey, Millikan and others started scoring at a rapid pace after leaving the Jug for the Mustang.

The 4th had to make their conversion after the 357th got their Mustangs, during the very short English winter days and while still maintaining a full combat tempo on those days the weather allowed them to fly.

Bear in mind that the early razorback Mustang was prone to gun stoppages due to the awkward placement of the 4X.50 armament; wing flexing led to the ammo feed jamming far too often until word got around to install ammo feed motors from bomber stocks to pull the ammo belts into the guns.

Also, the abort rate was painfully high until some enlightened soul tried spark plugs from British stocks instead of using the stock American brands (Bosch plugs being unavailable at the time). Even with these handicaps, Mustang groups scored at an impressive rate for the first half of 1944, especially on a per sortie rate compared to other types in the inventory.

All this well before the 'definitive' bubbletop D/K models arrived in late May/early June of 1944.

cheers

horseback

crucislancer
03-27-2009, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by norton1974:
I was surprised a pilot would take a plane in combat with so few flying hours.


Bud Anderson mentioned in his memoirs that he didn't fly the P-51 until he got to England, and had less hours flying the P-51 at the beginning of his tour then in the P-39, but that quickly changed, of course.

You could post charts, graphs, pilot accounts, and what not until you are blue in the face, the P-51 is nothing without a good pilot at the controls. Same for any other airplane.

There are a ton of reasons for why the Allies won and the Axis lost. One aircraft type isn't the reason for victory. Arguing over it seems childish, IMHO.

Segwin
03-27-2009, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:

My Band



I gave a listen to the "My Band" link. Sounds pretty good!

crucislancer
03-27-2009, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Segwin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:

My Band



I gave a listen to the "My Band" link. Sounds pretty good! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome! Thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SterlingX
03-28-2009, 11:11 AM
The P51 is absolutely brilliant, and it will outurn, outclimb, outrun, outdive and outkeepE just about any of its contemporary opponents. It can actually eat up the energy advantage of a BnZing Dora in less then a minute, if you ever found yourself in such a situation.
The Mustang III is the best, followed closely by the p51Bs (Cs and Ds break wings at high speeds).
You should never really fly it in combat with more than 25% fuel (it has a large internal capacity so 25% is a lot), or it will spin wildly in turns. When turning, use the rudder for correction at the slightest symptom of slippage, or if that's too tricky - use combat flaps and/or 90% throttle (reduced throttle = reduced torque = less likely to spin).

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 12:18 PM
You can leave it at 100% power, reduce prop rpms, keep your speed for a guns pass and still have less torque too.

M_Gunz
03-28-2009, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by norton1974:
I was surprised a pilot would take a plane in combat with so few flying hours.


Bud Anderson mentioned in his memoirs that he didn't fly the P-51 until he got to England, and had less hours flying the P-51 at the beginning of his tour then in the P-39, but that quickly changed, of course.

You could post charts, graphs, pilot accounts, and what not until you are blue in the face, the P-51 is nothing without a good pilot at the controls. Same for any other airplane.

There are a ton of reasons for why the Allies won and the Axis lost. One aircraft type isn't the reason for victory. Arguing over it seems childish, IMHO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright, I misremembered. They still trained heavily in warplanes in the US and does it say anywhere they didn't get time in
the P-51's before going to battle, more than a few hours for "most" of the pilots? Better yet, did the ones who learned the
plane on the way to their first combat in it come back as big winners with few or no losses -- as should be expected if the
plane was so much better that it's like a magical talisman?

Which plane is harder to fly anyway, P-39 or P-51? Which has better performance?
Which P-39 did the USAAF have in 1943? D? N?
After the Cobra it's no wonder they were overjoyed at having Mustangs!

horseback
03-28-2009, 05:00 PM
In the case of the 354th FG, they arrived in Britain in November, received their first plane on the 11th and entered combat operations gradually, starting in early December. This does not give them a lot of time to get in any serious hours per pilot, especially when you consider how little the RAF and 8th AF were able to operate at the time, due to bad weather.

There is also the problem of limited daylight; in November-December, I recall the sun rising after 7AM and setting around 3:30-4PM. If you assume an authorized strength of 55 pilots and a trickle of aircraft, less than 20 hours per pilot is not a stretch.

The next group, the 357th, began operations on Feb. 11th, 1944, and the veteran 4th FG got its first Mustangs on the 24th, flying its first mission in the type on the 28th with 35 aircraft and is 'fully converted' on the 29th. According to Escort to Berlin, by Jeffrey Ethell & Garry L. Fry, the first few missions were marked by multiple mechanical problems and aborts, although no casualties, and only one contact with enemy aircraft (a hapless Ju-88, shared between four pilots).

However, in the first 83 days of combat, the 354th were credited with a very respectable 103 victories, and the 4th starts a tremendous scoring spree, starting with 100 kills from March 18th to the 31st.

During most of this period, an average group would put up 48 aircraft for a mission and lose maybe a third to aborts of one kind or another, so on a per aircraft basis, the Mustang was extremely effective when it was working right.

cheers

horseback

PS--the P-39Q was probably the model trained on in most cases, being in production at the time. The Mustang was capable of better performance and flying behavior at all alts by all accounts, although not capable of as tight a turn (better roll rate, though), it had all the cards if it kept the fight in the vertical plane.

GH_Klingstroem
03-29-2009, 05:45 AM
and of course it would be! Think most of us are if put up vs novice to average 109s and 190s in game.... Not a problem at all to gte plenty of kills!!

Bremspropeller
03-29-2009, 07:48 AM
According to others, that must mean that 100-150 mostly rookie USAAF pilots with 350 total hours and about fifty hours each in the Mustang must have been better trained than the Axis pilots with literally hundreds of combat hours in their 109s and 190s.

A hand full for axis pilots in Reichsverteidigung could claim to have "hundreds of combat hours" by that time.
They were either coming from the east, having lived through an entirely different mindset of air-power and thus they were only partially valuable for the war that was fought at the western front.
The others were those that the raw darwinism of the Channel Front had left over.
They were battle-hardened without a doubt.
But lots of them were just at the end of their nerves. Nervous breakdowns were not that uncommun as some might think.

The rest were just hastily-trained pilots, freshly out of pilot-school that would have loved to get even 50 hours in their assigned fighters before going to combat, let alone 350hrs of overall flying-time.

Do you even know how much "350hrs" actually is?
Obviously not, because 350hrs is an awful lot of time in an airplane.

And concerning the "hundreds of fighters" brought up by Luftwaffe.
To believe that they all went up to shoot down a Mustang is pretty schizophrenic.
The had only one, very simple task: shoot down as many bombers as possible.
Lots of them died while trying to.

I guess you can't even imagine the relative safety, an altitude-advantage and hundreds of gun-starring bombers below will give every single Mustang-pilot.
That compared to a fighter-pilot, hastyily trained, turning into a combat-box of B-17s.
Each of them carrying 12-13 guns with gunners determined to fight for their lives...

Flying a Mustang above the mess, being able to bounce at will, having superrior training and therefore abilites on the average squad-pilot level, will greatly enhance your chances of survival.

So don't tell me the sorry story of a poor, outnumbered, outgunned P-51 pilot that had every single Lw-fighter scrambeled for him personally. It's pure BS.

Want to hear the story of people that REALLY fought agianst the odds?
Get some down-to-earth stories about Luftwaffe fighter pilots.
I'm not speaking of some Experte, writing his glittering memoirs.
I'm talking of the average squadron-pilot, sh1tting his pants or vomiting all over the cockpit because of sheer, naked FEAR.
Fear of not returning from the next mission.
Fear of climbing into an unbeatable enemy that is all over the place, hunting you down.
You can run, but you can't hide.
Fear of being shot-down while taking-off, or landing.
Did any Mustang pilot have to fear to be shot down while taking-off, grouping or landing?
What were the odds of being shot-down over Britain in 1944?
They were flying missions exceeding 7hrs, which is amirable and a feat on it's own.
But what's the percentage of time they had to fear being shot down compared to their mission-time?
Twenty per cent? Maybe even less.


Say goodbye to your fairy-tales of knighthood in the skies.
People were dying all over the place.
Most of them were dying a quick, violent and gruesome death, they were torn to pieces on impact. Some others slowly burned to death while trying to get out of that ******* plane that had turned into a blowtorch.
Can you imagine that?
It could have been you!
What tells you, you'd be the hot-shot pilot you pretend to be, sitting behind a screen and shooting down bits and bytes?
You could have been killed on your first mission because of some stupid rookie-mistake.
You could as well be killed in some stupid accident.
The odds were pretty good that you'd be killed anyway.
Face it, death was only waiting around the corner, reaching out for you.
Those people writing the books were only the lucky ones, returning to tell their stories.
Who tells the stories of those that weren't quite that lucky?
It's all about luck and the lack thereof.
And now there's people wanting to blow some glittering, rainbow-colored glory-story into that sh1t.

At the bottom-line, any pilot was just sitting there in his tin-can waiting for his time to die.
Because getting shot-down or not has never-ever been a story of ability.
It's been a story of sheer luck, period.

DrHerb
03-29-2009, 07:55 AM
Brems....

AWESOME post! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

danjama
03-29-2009, 12:47 PM
Yes, thankyou brems, well said pal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Could you recommend any Luftwaffe pilot books beside the obvious answers people give? Something a little more underground....

X32Wright
03-29-2009, 01:01 PM
Not to mention a lot more young luftwaffe pilot died taking off and landing than flying in the BF-109.

danjama
03-29-2009, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Not to mention a lot more young luftwaffe pilot died taking off and landing than flying in the BF-109.

I wonder if there's actual statistics for some planes for takeoff/landing fatalaties?! Seems theres too many variables just to put it down to the narrow landing gear...like what was their flight duration? How many hours on type? What happened during the flight? What was going on the pilots life personally? you get my point. Would be still interesting to compare Bf109 to P51 landing/takeoff accidents

R_Target
03-29-2009, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Not to mention a lot more young luftwaffe pilot died taking off and landing than flying in the BF-109.

Yikes. It's been a while since we've had a 50+ page thread.

horseback
03-29-2009, 04:26 PM
I never said that the Germans didn't have their own problems, but there is clearly a translation issue here.

In October 1943, the Allies were clearly and absolutely losing the air war over Europe, especially in daylight. The German border was essentially the line over which bombers crossed at great peril, because all manner of fighters lurked freely there, especially the heavily armed twin engined types like Ju-88Cs, Me-110Gs, and Me-410s as well as the more agile 109s and 190s. Once out of the reach of Allied fighters, they could freely hack down bombers in droves, and did.

It was in fact, more dangerous to be an average bomber crewman in the 8th Air force than it was to be an average US Army infantryman in the ETO almost throughout the war. It is a fact that Axis fighters always shot down many more bombers than were shot down BY bombers; the many, many guns they carried and literally billions of rounds they fired off had more of a 'scare' effect than anything else, because God knows that any 10 gunners' chances of hitting anything and doing real damage was pretty infinitisimal, unlike what we game players experience with the radar guided ai gunners.

Prior to February of 1944, most fighter pilots assigned to defending German airspace had a pretty cushy and glamorous job compared to the guys in Russia or the Pacific on either side. They lived in their home country, ate their native cuisine, listened to their own music, and enjoyed the status that went with being successful defenders of the Reich.

When the bell went off, they could climb to altitude and be waiting for the enemy to come to them in twenty minutes or less, flying in small, loose formations with no obligations to meet a schedule. They were flying proven planes with guns that were heavy hitting and reliable, and using tactics that had been developed in the heat of battle some years before. They were defending their homeland directly. They knew that any combat sorty they flew had a finite duration of less than 90 minutes in
all but the most extraordinary circumstances. They knew that if their aircraft combat was hit that they could parachute or make an emergency landing in friendly territory and expect immediate help and care by the standards of the time.

And yet, the appearance of less than 150 fighter escorts turned it all around in less than three months.

These guys were flying what was essentially an experimental fighter farther than anyone had successfully flown into hostile territory before. They had to fly up to altitude in close formation through heavy cloud cover most of the time, and do so to a strict schedule, because they were useless if they got to their rendezvous point more than a few minutes before or after the bombers did.

They had to do this in a dangerously overloaded and poorly balanced aircraft until they burned off the 45 or so gallons in their fuselage tanks
that made the plane so unstable that it has been fodder for every revisionist amateur historian on the web. Those revisionists tend to skip over the fact that there were more Mustang losses to noncombat operational reasons than to enemy action. Talk to any fighter pilot of the 8th AF from that period; most can point to at least four squadronmates who were lost in collisions with each other, the natural fallout of flying close formation through 9/10ths cloud cover for 10 to 15 thousand feet three or four times a fortnight.

They had to travel over the North Sea for a hundred miles or more, then over enemy held territory for another hundred or so at high altitudes in an unpressurized plane while sucking on a crude oxygen system before they would get a chance to do their jobs.

Of course, beside the very real stress of simply keeping in formation under those circumstances, they had to keep their heads on a swivel that whole time because the enemy might show up at any point to disrupt their schedule.

After an hour or two of that, contact with the enemy must have been a relief.

Relief. Oh yeah, how long can YOU perform a task that requires your complete attention before your bladder starts to announce its presence? On a four or five hour flight, through mostly enemy airspace, when exactly is it a good time to take a whizz? Choose: Dehydration or backed up urinary tract, and you still better do a good job or you won't survive.

Where were we? Oh yeah. Contact with the enemy. IF your guns work, and old hands tended to have this problem more often than newbies, because they habitually did some kind of fishtail maneuver before attacking to make sure there was no unauthorized company behind them, you had a certain element of surprise working for you. After all, this was German airspace, and the only single engine fighters around were supposed to be German.

Ideally, you looked for the twin engine 'easy meat' because they presented a greater threat to bomber formations than single engined fighters, but these aircraft were crewed by, on average, more experienced pilots and aircrew than the single seat types, and God help you if you blunder in front of those heavy guns at almost any range.

Single engine fighters could present some real problems if you were too persistant. Doctrine called for you to keep your speed high, and hit hard on a single pass. Better to damge the bad guys and take him out of the fight (and only a complete nutjob would stick around after being hit by a burst of between two and four fifty cal HMGs-no telling what's about to fall off your airplane) and keep going than come back around to try to finish him off and get nailed by one of his buddies.

Your tactics were relatively fresh; the Britsh philosophy was too defensive for the job, and even formations were debated and tinkered with constantly. Captains and Majors were writing the doctrine on the backs of envelopes, and lieutenants were debating them in pubs and bars in Essex and East Anglia most nights. Nothing was considered settled, and the guys with stars on their collars and 30 years' service had to ask guys under 30 years old for valid advice on the subject.

Hardly anybody had more than six month's combat under his belt, and a lot of those guys were gone, dead or wounded.

USAAF pilots had a VERY healthy respect for the opposition and its capabilities at that point in the war, and discretion was the better part of vqalor. It said so right there in the Orders of the Day...

If at any point, things go bad, you're screwed. No friendly aerodromes here, and parachuting or crashlanding could drop you into the hands of a civilian mob that may not be all that concerned about the Geneva Convention. Medical help, if needed, may not be immediately forthcoming until the legal niceties have been taken care of even if you fall directly into the hands of the German military; they were notoriously concerned with the requirements of their bureaucracy.

Then you get to go 'home'. To a base that like as not,was built in less than three months and houses you in a Quonset hut with steam heaters. I went to school in one of those Quonset huts in England for my fourth and fifth grade years. They're cold and drafty, unless you're right next to the radiator, and then they're too hot (on one side); they smell funny, and they lack a certain homeliness.

The locals, while they're glad you're there to help their boys fight the Germans, are not entirely thrilled with you--large portions of the population are either mercenary or disdainful in their dealings with you (first hand experience here), and the female population is mostly either painfully eager to get a ticket to the Land of Milk and Honey/Hollywood or of the cash and carry persuasion.

In short, you're in a foreign land, and your command is spending a great deal of effort convincing you that this is really your fight, and if We Don't Stop Them Here, We'll Have Them All Over Kansas.

Here, have a room temperature beer, and some fish & chips, uh, french fries. We've no catsup, so you'll have to get by with some vinegar instead.

Things were tough all over on BOTH sides. I have no tears to shed for German fighter pilots, because when I was eight, my Dad took me to the USAAF cemetary at Bury St Edmunds. Thousands of white crosses and stars of David on a very green field, and a young man far from home (my home) under each of them. And those were only the ones who made it back to base, or died in the literally hundreds of flying accidents that took place in Britain during that time.

As for breakdowns due to combat stress, 8th Bomber Command would have loved to trade places with the Jagdewaffe; fighter pilots have the ability to fight back in a more direct way than bomber crewmen, and the guys in the white coats were a lot busier in Britain than the ones in German in the first four months of 1944.

No, I don't think that even 150 well trained pilots with significant combat experience, flying an 'average' or mediocre fighter no matter how long ranged, would have had the effect on the air war over Germany that the Mustang pilots had, especially given the many handicaps they had.

It was NOT just a matter of range and sheer numbers, or the vastly better trained Americans overwhelming teenaged kids with less than fifty total hours. That's six to nine months later, well after those three Mustang groups knocked over that first domino.

cheers

horseback

Bearcat99
03-29-2009, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by megalopsuche:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Yes, the P47 was largely responsible for blackening both Luftwaffe eyes. The P51 delivered the knockout blow.

Same old tired cliche.

The fact remains that the P-51 made its ETO reputation when the majority of the Luftwaffe were recruits with little combat training. I don't need your Barnes and Noble coffee table history books to know that the best thing about the Mustang was that it was a flying gas tank... and when it faced enemy aircraft with competent pilots it was not "dominant." The P-51 was a good aircraft, don't get me wrong, but it owns the most over-inflated reputation of any WWII aircraft, without exception.

As for nose bounce, it's kind or ironic that the Aces High P-51 also has longitudinal instability, and the guy who created the flight model has flown a real P-51 on multiple occasions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Have you considered what he had to work with as far as code goes? I flew Aces High briefly.. and frankly I was not impressed. Also.... the P-51s entered service in 1941... and it's impact was felt.. even before it was fitted with the Merlin.. when it carried 4 .30s & 4 .50s with the RAF.. it was no slouch then either as quiet as it is kept. I am not saying "The Mustang won the war.." but it's impact cannot be negated by the "noob pilots for the Luftwaffe" revisionist bit either.


Also according to two men who flew the aircraft...


Robert Goebel flew Mustangs with the 31st Fighter Group, based at San Severo, Italy, in the MTO (Mediterranean Theater of Operations). Like Bud Anderson, he had flown P-39s earlier on. At San Severo in Spring 1944, he got his first crack at the P-51:

Bob Goebel on the P-51: We soon found out that the P-51 Mustang was indeed a different breed of airplane. It was fast, for one thing. ... The P-51 was redlined at 505 and, though it was no Spitfire, its turning ability wasn't bad at all - especially if you sneaked down 10 degrees of flaps. It was pretty good in the climbing department too, and accelerated very fast in a dive. But the thing that really set the Mustang apart from any other fighter, friend or foe, was its range. With a 75-gallon tank slung under each wing, it could perform the unheard-of: It could fly six-hour missions.

Physically, it was pleasing to the eye and looked fast, even sitting on the ground. Power was provided by a V-1650 Rolls-Royce Merlin engine built under license in the States by Packard, the luxury automobile company. The V-1650 was a fine engine and could be taken up to 61 inches of manifold pressure at 3,000 RPM for take-off or, if needed in combat, 67 inches for up to five minutes in Emergency Power. Normally aspirated engines tended to run out of power as altitude increased, usually between 15,000 and 20,000 feet.

The P-51 had a two-stage blower in the induction system that was controlled automatically with a barometric switch. Around 17,000 feet, when the throttle had been advanced almost all the way forward just to maintain normal cruise, the blower would kick into high, the manifold pressure would jump up, and the climb could be continued to 30,000 feet. The P-51 could be taken a lot higher than that, but above 30,000 feet the power was way down and the controls had to be handled gingerly.

and..........


When Bud Anderson arrived at Raydon Wood in England, with the 357th Fighter Group, he was introduced to the Mustang, which was a lot different from the P-39. The Mustang was a tail-dragger with a long nose blocking the pilot's forward view, requiring him to make sweeping "S" turns to see where he was going. The P-51 was a lot more powerful, and had a big four-blade paddle propeller. Take-offs and landing were a bit tricky, but in the air, the Mustang:
Bud Anderson on the P-51:
was pleasant and forgiving to fly. Best of all, it went like Hell. The Merlin had great gobs of power, and was equally at home high or low, thanks to a two-stage, two-speed supercharger. The Mustang carried fuel enough to pursue and destroy the enemy once you'd flown to the target, and it could turn on a dime. It was crucial to keep it it trim but, as we gained experience with the plane, that became automatic. We sensed it was special, even before we measured it against what the enemy pilots were flying.

quoted from To Fly and Fight, Memoirs of a Triple Ace, by Clarence 'Bud' Anderson

The Mustang's range and combat capabilities permitted it to escort the heavy USAAF bombers (B-17s mostly) on massive daylight bombing raids over Germany. Some have argued that it was a "war-winning" weapon. It certainly was a decisive factor in the aerial Battle of Germany.

and for those who say that pilot accounts are questionable.. I have personally met and talked to Col. Anderson 3 times since 2003... he was pretty lucid then.. so I know when this book was written he was all there....

and again just to reiterate.. no one (at least not me) is saying that the Mustang was the greatest aircraft of WWII or that it won the war or that it singlehandedly brought Germany to it's knees.. if there was any one aircraft that that crown could go to.. I'd be looking at the B-17s myself.. but that's another story... but it was IMO better than it is modeled in this sim, which still is not bad... and it was a good fighter... and it still just blows my mind that even after all this time.. threads like this still come up....

The Mustang in this sim takes practice to fly... and like most planes in this sim, no matter what your simming experience is or how good or bad you think a given aircraft is flying it will improve with practice... and stick settings are very important.

alphalvr
03-29-2009, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Just to add to this fiasco, let's not forget the effects of the mighty Spitfire on cross channel hops....

By far, the best performing plane of ww2 in all aspects apart from escort range.

I laugh at your silly P51's. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

chill, before they tell us america won the war for us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

triad773
03-29-2009, 10:16 PM
Wow- lots of stuff in this thread. Boiling down back to the basic question:
Cornering in a P-51 isn't what you think it'd be?
- Try flying a P-39 for two weeks straight.
- You'll be so gentle on that 51 after that it'll be kind to you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Worth a try http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Cheers

Triad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

HayateAce
03-29-2009, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
I never said that the Germans didn't have their own problems, but there is clearly a translation issue here.....

It was NOT just a matter of range and sheer numbers, or the vastly better trained Americans overwhelming teenaged kids with less than fifty total hours. That's six to nine months later, well after those three Mustang groups knocked over that first domino.

cheers

horseback

Enjoyed your post very much. You should be a writer if you're not already.

Bremspropeller
03-30-2009, 02:58 AM
Thanks a lot for telling everybody about the tough job of an escort-fighter pilot.

But it's not the Lw pilots didn't have to fly through clouds in tight formation.
They did breathe pure oxygen or a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen as well.

The stuff you're bringing up are mostly factors of convenience, not of life or death-importance.

I think we can agree that nobody had an easy task there.
But stories of the poor P-51 pilot, sitting at altitude and being outnumbered by fighters sitting below him really bring me to tears...

M_Gunz
03-30-2009, 05:33 AM
after those three Mustang groups knocked over that first domino.

Because we all know that nobody else made any real difference, it was the Mustangs from start to end.
Wings will be back after this commercial message....

horseback
03-30-2009, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Thanks a lot for telling everybody about the tough job of an escort-fighter pilot.

But it's not the Lw pilots didn't have to fly through clouds in tight formation.
They did breathe pure oxygen or a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen as well.

The stuff you're bringing up are mostly factors of convenience, not of life or death-importance.

I think we can agree that nobody had an easy task there.
But stories of the poor P-51 pilot, sitting at altitude and being outnumbered by fighters sitting below him really bring me to tears... Convenience? Have you ever flown at alts over 6000m without pressurization? It is debilitating, and the longer you do it, the harder it is. Add in the relatively crude oxygen systems used at the time; cold dry oxygen can be pretty harsh and uncomfortable, hard on throat and sinuses. Again, the longer you do it, the harder it is on you.

If I've been flying under those circumstances for 90 minutes or more, and you've just popped up in the last 20 minutes or so, who is better equipped for a life and death contest?

Flying those aircraft required physical strength to go with the skill. Would you want to run a 10km race and then have a wrestling match with a chap (or maybe a couple of chaps)who's just run a 400m race?

That is more than inconvenient, I assure you.

As for altitude advantage, that's a two edged sword. I may have a superior E-state, but I have to spot enemy fighters coming up against the visual ground clutter, while I am highlighted against the sky (or further screened by clouds, where nobody can see the other guy). From beneath, you can see where the opposition is much more easily. BUT as I pointed out, most German aircraft were already in the air with altitude advantage when the bomber stream (and its fighter escort) arrived, and it was pretty hard to hide a formation of B-17s. Naturally, the fighter escort was likely to be in the vicinity.

At worst, the situation for the German defenders is equal most of the time. I've read Knoke's book, and he makes it clear that he was above the bombers and waiting on almost every occasion. I have a hard time believing that his unit was the consistant exception to the rule.

Bomber raids were scheduled on the basis of weather over the target, not necessarily the weather over southeastern England. Defenders were likely to have clearer skies to take off into (and land in). Taking off in squadron/staffel strength and having to stay very close and climb at a tightly scheduled rate in dense cloud was more of the rule for 8th Fighter Command than Reich Defense by a wide margin.

Doing it with an extra tank behind the pilot and two more hanging off the wings while doing so was never in the LW's regular catalog. It too was 'inconvenient'.

You made much of the stress of being a German fighter pilot in that time, but if an American is fighting the same battle under longer lasting, higher risk conditions for an abstract idea rather than in direct defense of his home, you minimize his effort, his aircraft and skills.

It just doesn't add up. The LW lost a significant portion of their experienced fighter leaders over Germany in a very specific time period, the same leaders and experienced fighter pilots who had been decisively defeating the 8th AF's bombing campaign just a couple of months before. They were lost at a point in the war where Mustangs and Lightnings were the only Allied single seat fighters able to reach the contested airspace, and in severely limited numbers.

How does that happen?

Did these experienced, battle hardened veterans all 'crack up' at the same time?

Did they all ignore that there were escort fighters with the bombers now, because it just wasn't possible, and let themselves be repeatedly ambushed?

Did the historians and unit records all lie to conceal the fact that the US used a time warp and a couple of squadrons of stealthy F-22s to change the course of WWII?

Or had the combination of the Mustang and the pilots who flew it been able to 'solve' German fighters and tactics, and then stay ahead of them until the numbers game made the end inevitable?

I can only apply Occam's Razor and select the simplest answer.

cheers

horseback

Viper2005_
03-30-2009, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I never said that the Germans didn't have their own problems, but there is clearly a translation issue here.

In October 1943, the Allies were clearly and absolutely losing the air war over Europe, especially in daylight. The German border was essentially the line over which bombers crossed at great peril, because all manner of fighters lurked freely there, especially the heavily armed twin engined types like Ju-88Cs, Me-110Gs, and Me-410s as well as the more agile 109s and 190s. Once out of the reach of Allied fighters, they could freely hack down bombers in droves, and did.

It was in fact, more dangerous to be an average bomber crewman in the 8th Air force than it was to be an average US Army infantryman in the ETO almost throughout the war. It is a fact that Axis fighters always shot down many more bombers than were shot down BY bombers; the many, many guns they carried and literally billions of rounds they fired off had more of a 'scare' effect than anything else, because God knows that any 10 gunners' chances of hitting anything and doing real damage was pretty infinitisimal, unlike what we game players experience with the radar guided ai gunners.

Prior to February of 1944, most fighter pilots assigned to defending German airspace had a pretty cushy and glamorous job compared to the guys in Russia or the Pacific on either side. They lived in their home country, ate their native cuisine, listened to their own music, and enjoyed the status that went with being successful defenders of the Reich.

When the bell went off, they could climb to altitude and be waiting for the enemy to come to them in twenty minutes or less, flying in small, loose formations with no obligations to meet a schedule. They were flying proven planes with guns that were heavy hitting and reliable, and using tactics that had been developed in the heat of battle some years before. They were defending their homeland directly. They knew that any combat sorty they flew had a finite duration of less than 90 minutes in
all but the most extraordinary circumstances. They knew that if their aircraft combat was hit that they could parachute or make an emergency landing in friendly territory and expect immediate help and care by the standards of the time.

And yet, the appearance of less than 150 fighter escorts turned it all around in less than three months.

I think that this is a pretty severe oversimplification.

The Germans had a fundamental attrition problem from September 1939 onwards.

When Hitler came to power, he basically knew that he wanted to start a war or two, and so he invested vast resources in not only equipping, but also training his armed forces.

In the 6 years between 1933 and 1939, the Luftwaffe was training pilots. The Spanish civil war was used as a sort of university for German fighter pilots, and the veterans therefrom passed on their experience to the rest of the force.

Once the war started, there were 2 basic problems for the Luftwaffe:

1) Many of the best candidates had already joined the LW; only a fixed number of young men of equivalent calibre would reach fighting age each year to compensate for the inevitable attrition suffered in combat.

2) The quality of training inevitably declined as the war went on, since the training process had to compete for resources with the fighting itself. As is so often the case, once things get tight, the first costs to be cut are those associated with longer-term investments.

This meant that beyond a certain rather low rate of attrition, the overall quality of the fighting force started to decline fairly rapidly.

Once Hitler declared war upon Russia, there is no doubt in my mind that the additional attrition incurred pushed the LW over the edge.

It took a while for the fighting force to flatline, but IMO by about 1942/3 the LW had split into two distinct forces - the experten and the cannon fodder.

In direct contrast to this, the Allies were able to conduct pilot training in the USA, which offered several significant advantages:

1) Weather. Given 6 months in Florida, I'll log rather more flying hours than I would if given 6 months in Germany (or England).

2) Complete safety from the Enemy.

3) Almost unlimited airspace.

This meant that the average quality of Allied pilots probably increased throughout the war. Indeed, once the initial pressure of the Battle of Britain was removed, there was actually an over-supply of pilots. One of the guys at my gliding club went solo on Tiger Moths in 1943, only to be re-mustered as a tail gunner due to this oversupply. He told me that many partially-trained pilots deemed surplus to requirements ended up doing all sorts of incongruous jobs like working in coal mines!

The LW was stretched pretty close to breaking point by 1943, and whilst it was certainly hurting the 8th USAAF badly, in the end the LW was always going to run out of people first.

Though the bombers suffered losses which for a while were on the very ragged edge of sustainability, I would argue that the LW had been suffering unsustainable losses since about 1942.

Whilst German Industry proved capable of sustaining production even under extreme bombing, the thousands of aeroplanes available to the LW in late 1944 simply could not be filled with pilots of sufficient quality to make them effective; nor indeed could they be supplied with enough fuel to sustain unrestricted operations. And of course, when the fuel budget got tight, the first target for savings would always have been training.

I would therefore argue that the P-51B arrived in England just in time to start knocking nails into the LW's coffin on the Western Front, but that although it was certainly an extremely effective combat aeroplane, it was no more than a well-designed cog in an extremely large machine. By the time it arrived, numerous less glamorous types had actually done much of the heavy lifting.

In general I think that it's unrealistic to think of individual designs as war-winners. Wars tend to be won by not by outstanding individual designs, but rather by a solid general engineering base. This is perhaps exemplified by the fact that the Me-262, despite having the best performance of any fighter built in numbers during WWII (and by quite an impressive margin) was completely unable to turn the tide against the Allied War Machine which was vastly superior overall, especially over the long term when its substantially larger strategic reserves of materials and man-power were crucial.

In the case of the P-51, I think that it has suffered from the same sort of "movie-star" issues in the USA as the Spitfire has in the UK, leading to a strong tendency to burden it with unrealistic expectations.

Had there been no P-51, then I'm quite certain that US industry would have produced another aeroplane of similar stature. Indeed, the P-51 was mainly selected as the standard US escort fighter because it had the highest tactical Mach number of any available US fighter (Wings on my Sleeve, Eric Brown)

The same can equally be said of the Hurricane; in its absence the Martin-Baker MB.2 springs immediately to mind as a potential replacement for example.


Originally posted by horseback:These guys were flying what was essentially an experimental fighter Not especially. The first Merlin engined Mustangs flew in 1942; combat operations didn't start until December 1943. The first Mustangs of course were 1941 aeroplanes, and though the process of putting a new engine in the airframe was hardly trivial, it was going on in a myriad of aeroplanes at the time, most notably Spitfires, Beaufighters, Lancasters, Halifaxes, and the Typhoon/Tornado/Tempest series. Of course the Germans were also putting new engines in their fighters as well, with both the Bf-109 and Fw-190 being excellent examples of this.


Originally posted by horseback:farther than anyone had successfully flown into hostile territory before. They had to fly up to altitude in close formation through heavy cloud cover most of the time, and do so to a strict schedule, because they were useless if they got to their rendezvous point more than a few minutes before or after the bombers did.

They had to do this in a dangerously overloaded and poorly balanced aircraft until they burned off the 45 or so gallons in their fuselage tanks
that made the plane so unstable that it has been fodder for every revisionist amateur historian on the web. Those revisionists tend to skip over the fact that there were more Mustang losses to noncombat operational reasons than to enemy action. Talk to any fighter pilot of the 8th AF from that period; most can point to at least four squadronmates who were lost in collisions with each other, the natural fallout of flying close formation through 9/10ths cloud cover for 10 to 15 thousand feet three or four times a fortnight. Such statistics are common in aerial combat. Going back to WWI you can see a very similar problem; flying combat aeroplanes under the pressure of war has always been an extremely dangerous business, and the enemy actually tend to have quite a hard time making it significantly more dangerous than it already is!


Originally posted by horseback:They had to travel over the North Sea for a hundred miles or more, then over enemy held territory for another hundred or so at high altitudes in an unpressurized plane while sucking on a crude oxygen system before they would get a chance to do their jobs.

Of course, beside the very real stress of simply keeping in formation under those circumstances, they had to keep their heads on a swivel that whole time because the enemy might show up at any point to disrupt their schedule.

After an hour or two of that, contact with the enemy must have been a relief.

Relief. Oh yeah, how long can YOU perform a task that requires your complete attention before your bladder starts to announce its presence? On a four or five hour flight, through mostly enemy airspace, when exactly is it a good time to take a whizz? Choose: Dehydration or backed up urinary tract, and you still better do a good job or you won't survive.

My personal experience of this as a glider pilot is that it's very difficult to operate effectively for more than about 5 hours without taking a leak. As you point out, even in a benign environment with nobody actively trying to kill you, it's not trivial to take a leak and fly an aeroplane at the same time, especially as you're strapped in to the aircraft & your parachute, and wearing a fairly thick flying suit. Obviously you don't want to undo any of those harnesses. Turbulence at the crucial moment is likely to be messy.

You can generally spot a glider pilot taking a leak because his aeroplane will be flying somewhat erratically, probably in a series of dives and zooms, as reduced g makes things easier.

I expect that much the same would have applied to P-51 pilots...


Originally posted by horseback:Where were we? Oh yeah. Contact with the enemy. IF your guns work, and old hands tended to have this problem more often than newbies, because they habitually did some kind of fishtail maneuver before attacking to make sure there was no unauthorized company behind them, you had a certain element of surprise working for you. After all, this was German airspace, and the only single engine fighters around were supposed to be German.

Ideally, you looked for the twin engine 'easy meat' because they presented a greater threat to bomber formations than single engined fighters, but these aircraft were crewed by, on average, more experienced pilots and aircrew than the single seat types, and God help you if you blunder in front of those heavy guns at almost any range.

Single engine fighters could present some real problems if you were too persistant. Doctrine called for you to keep your speed high, and hit hard on a single pass. Better to damge the bad guys and take him out of the fight (and only a complete nutjob would stick around after being hit by a burst of between two and four fifty cal HMGs-no telling what's about to fall off your airplane) and keep going than come back around to try to finish him off and get nailed by one of his buddies.

Your tactics were relatively fresh; the Britsh philosophy was too defensive for the job, and even formations were debated and tinkered with constantly. Captains and Majors were writing the doctrine on the backs of envelopes, and lieutenants were debating them in pubs and bars in Essex and East Anglia most nights. Nothing was considered settled, and the guys with stars on their collars and 30 years' service had to ask guys under 30 years old for valid advice on the subject.

Hardly anybody had more than six month's combat under his belt, Not least because by that time most pilots would have done their share and been rotated out of theatre.


Originally posted by horseback:and a lot of those guys were gone, dead or wounded.

USAAF pilots had a VERY healthy respect for the opposition and its capabilities at that point in the war, and discretion was the better part of vqalor. It said so right there in the Orders of the Day...

If at any point, things go bad, you're screwed. No friendly aerodromes here, and parachuting or crashlanding could drop you into the hands of a civilian mob that may not be all that concerned about the Geneva Convention. Well, it is generally considered inadvisable to parachute into the people you have just helped to bomb. However, geography was obviously key. German civilians might reasonably be expected to be less welcoming than French civilians...


Originally posted by horseback:Medical help, if needed, may not be immediately forthcoming until the legal niceties have been taken care of even if you fall directly into the hands of the German military; they were notoriously concerned with the requirements of their bureaucracy.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by horseback:Then you get to go 'home'. To a base that like as not,was built in less than three months and houses you in a Quonset hut with steam heaters. I went to school in one of those Quonset huts in England for my fourth and fifth grade years. They're cold and drafty, unless you're right next to the radiator, and then they're too hot (on one side); they smell funny, and they lack a certain homeliness. The lack of mixer taps tends to scandalise the guys who move into the WWII vintage RAF accommodation block across the road from me. It's not exactly the Ritz, and you'd better like your neighbours, because the walls are paper thin. It certainly beats living in a tent however, and there is a bar!


Originally posted by horseback:The locals, while they're glad you're there to help their boys fight the Germans, are not entirely thrilled with you--large portions of the population are either mercenary or disdainful in their dealings with you (first hand experience here), Rather harsh methinks. Remember that the yanks coming here in WWII had rather better pay and rations than British soldiers, sailors and airmen in equivalent positions, and naturally put this unfair advantage to good use with the female population. Hence the "over-paid, over-sexed and over here" thing. I don't think that any local population particularly relishes large numbers of military men moving in, because the large transient male population tends to leave something of a baby-boom behind it.

It is also worth pointing out that much of the local population during WWII was living on the bare minimum, with very strict rationing of everything from petrol to butter, and had been for quite some time. When a bunch of kids with funny accents and lots of spending power show up, it's hardly surprising that their spending power (not so much their cash money as their access to goods that money simply couldn't buy the locals) attracts attention. You'd get the same thing if you turned up in a poor area of any big city anywhere in the world and started flashing cash about.


Originally posted by horseback:and the female population is mostly either painfully eager to get a ticket to the Land of Milk and Honey/Hollywood or of the cash and carry persuasion. I don't think that this issue is geographically specific...



Originally posted by horseback:In short, you're in a foreign land, and your command is spending a great deal of effort convincing you that this is really your fight, and if We Don't Stop Them Here, We'll Have Them All Over Kansas. Much the same could have been said about our entry into the war. Afterall, how much did the average man in the street really care about the sovereignty of Poland? And when it was all over, it's not as though we actually restored the status quo in that department anyway...


Originally posted by horseback:Here, have a room temperature beer, Do you live in a cellar?

I'm sorry, but this American stereotype of British Beer really drives me mad. Room temperature is about 20ºC. A decent pub keeps its beer its unheated cellar at about 8ºC. This is not room temperature by any stretch of the imagination unless, as I said, you live in an un-heated cellar.

Now it's also true that it isn't ice cold either. But you don't really want to drink proper beer ice-cold. Lager needs to be ice-cold because it's generally tasteless. But a decent ale should be served at cellar temperature.


Originally posted by horseback:and some fish & chips, uh, french fries. We've no catsup, so you'll have to get by with some vinegar instead.
Get by?

First you knock the beer and then you complain about the food! There's clearly no pleasing some people...


Originally posted by horseback:Things were tough all over on BOTH sides. I have no tears to shed for German fighter pilots, because when I was eight, my Dad took me to the USAAF cemetary at Bury St Edmunds. Thousands of white crosses and stars of David on a very green field, and a young man far from home (my home) under each of them. And those were only the ones who made it back to base, or died in the literally hundreds of flying accidents that took place in Britain during that time. All losses in war are tragic. I don't think that more than 60 years later there is much to be said for making a distinction as to the magnitude of that tragedy based upon the uniform that a young man was wearing when his life was cut short - the average fighting man in WWII was thrown into war by the force of political events well beyond his control. I suspect that by the end of the war, most of the Germans dying for their country were too young to have ever voted for Hitler...

That isn't to detract in any way from the fundamental justice of the Allied cause. But in wars between conscript armies, the fate of individuals is largely determined by geographical accidents of birth. My late grandfather, who travelled the length of Italy with the Royal Engineers, always said that he didn't have anything against the Germans as for the most part they were just men like him, plucked out of their lives by politicians and forced to shoot at each other.


Originally posted by horseback:As for breakdowns due to combat stress, 8th Bomber Command would have loved to trade places with the Jagdewaffe; fighter pilots have the ability to fight back in a more direct way than bomber crewmen, and the guys in the white coats were a lot busier in Britain than the ones in German in the first four months of 1944.

No, I don't think that even 150 well trained pilots with significant combat experience, flying an 'average' or mediocre fighter no matter how long ranged, would have had the effect on the air war over Germany that the Mustang pilots had, especially given the many handicaps they had.

It was NOT just a matter of range and sheer numbers, or the vastly better trained Americans overwhelming teenaged kids with less than fifty total hours. That's six to nine months later, well after those three Mustang groups knocked over that first domino.

cheers

horseback

Hopefully this mega-quote will come out coherently...

ploughman
03-30-2009, 12:05 PM
I own a pub.

Traditional ales should be kept and served at about 12-13 degrees centigrade not 8 degrees centigrade. Whilst ale keeps longer below this temperature, and many publicans will keep their ale as low as 11 degrees to ensure longevity of slow moving lines, 12-13 degrees ensures a top tasting pint. Nevertheless, this isn't warm or even room temperature (unless you're thinking of the 8th Century), if you think 13 degrees is warm go have a bath in the North Sea. It's true about the lager though, I mean why would you? Peasants.

Bremspropeller
03-30-2009, 12:14 PM
I'm quite familiar with the challanges of long-time unpressurized flight at high altitude.
There's no need in trying to play the smart-arse.

Again, german fighters were concerned with shooting down bombers, not fighters.
They never really gave a damn about the escorts.
Thus, escorting Höhenstaffel fighters were the only ones going up to higher altitudes and maybe even attacking escorts from above - ocasionally.
Those were specialized aircraft with a special mission.
But there's only one Höhenstaffel for each Gruppe, if that Gruppe has a Höhenstaffel at all. That's one out of four squadrons - at best, depending on the Fighter Wing.
The rest consists of either Fw 190s or cannon-pod 109s.
Those aircraft hardly ever cared about the escorts, they weren't much of a match anyway at bomber-altitudes.

They were only going after fighters in order to mutually or self-protect themselves, period.

Let's talk about Sturmstaffel 1, flying heavily armed 190s.
They were actually happy to reach bomber-altutudes at all.

So I ask you again:
where is the seeming umbrella of german fighters scrambling up from virtually every field in the vicinity, going after that single, poor P-51 squadron, still flying at alt- and speed-advantage?

Oh, btw:
Flying around at 6/8000m and comparing the physical effort to scrambling up, climbling into the foe is pretty much a convenience-thing to me.
You might see it differently, but then again, I don't give a damn about you perception anyway.

If I had the choice, I'd rather fly ten 7hr escort-missions than flying a single intercept-mission out of a german airfield in spring '44.


And don't try to BS me with "achievements".
The attrition-rate of the Luftwaffe to operational accidents and intercepts without escort-fighters was high enough to run them out of replacement-pilots.
Yes, the P-51 groups shot down a lot of planes and yeas, that is a feat, but it's not surprising due to the type of their mission.

BTW: what's the matter of shooting down an "experienced" pilot that has had his baptism of fire on an entirely different front, with different tactics and different ways of coping with challanges?
ANY experienced pilot that came from the eastern front had to virtually re-learn his abilities and convert them to MUCH more complex way of flying and fighting.
The formations were bigger, the atitudes higher, the number of planes involved in fights was greater, the opposition's level of aggressiveness was much higher.

Just because somebody has a couple of combat-hours and a couple of kills, he doesn't neccessaryly become a killing-machine in an entirely different environment.

I'm really tired of that sh1t.

Viper2005_
03-30-2009, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I own a pub.

Traditional ales should be kept and served at about 12-13 degrees centigrade not 8 degrees centigrade. Whilst ale keeps longer below this temperature, and many publicans will keep their ale as low as 11 degrees to ensure longevity of slow moving lines, 12-13 degrees ensures a top tasting pint. Nevertheless, this isn't warm or even room temperature (unless you're thinking of the 8th Century), if you think 13 degrees is warm go have a bath in the North Sea. It's true about the lager though, I mean why would you? Peasants.

I stand corrected. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Bremspropeller
03-30-2009, 12:32 PM
One thing I forgot about nervous breakdowns:

Surely, a bomber-pilot may have been more jittery, as his fate was clearly sealed during the first couple of months of daylight-bombing.

But hey, IF he made it, he only had to do it a finite 25 times to get a ticket home.
A Lw pilot had two options:

a) die.
b) fly 'till the war is over, which was not a known period of time.

Now re-assess the nervous thing.

M_Gunz
03-30-2009, 12:59 PM
Didn't the LW interceptors fly multiple sorties during attacks?

Going rapidly up to alt and back isn't the best thing for humans. Doing it day after day, some days many times, even worse.

It wasn't just B-17's by day either. The RAF had operations going. The USAAF were hitting Holland, France, lot of elsewhere.
In Russia it was likely worse even when not winter. Russian 'General Winter' was maybe the worst thing to the German military.

AFAIK the LW took many losses over Poland and lost how many 100 just in the BoB?
Didn't the Spitfires bag 'just a few' in cross channel fights?
When the IX's came out and were taken for V's, what did that do to LW fighter losses?
IIRC the P-47 and P-38 groups also took a bite out of the LW roster.

Notice for the handicapped, the next part is Sarcasm:
But that first domino belongs to the Mustangs, those 150 pilots who made ALL the difference.

Buzzsaw-
03-30-2009, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You can leave it at 100% power, reduce prop rpms, keep your speed for a guns pass and still have less torque too.

Are you back online then Max?

Or is this more of the single player based advice?

Buzzsaw-
03-30-2009, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'm quite familiar with the challanges of long-time unpressurized flight at high altitude.
There's no need in trying to play the smart-arse.

Again, german fighters were concerned with shooting down bombers, not fighters.
They never really gave a damn about the escorts.
Thus, escorting Höhenstaffel fighters were the only ones going up to higher altitudes and maybe even attacking escorts from above - ocasionally.
Those were specialized aircraft with a special mission.
But there's only one Höhenstaffel for each Gruppe, if that Gruppe has a Höhenstaffel at all. That's one out of four squadrons - at best, depending on the Fighter Wing.
The rest consists of either Fw 190s or cannon-pod 109s.
Those aircraft hardly ever cared about the escorts, they weren't much of a match anyway at bomber-altitudes.

They were only going after fighters in order to mutually or self-protect themselves, period.

Let's talk about Sturmstaffel 1, flying heavily armed 190s.
They were actually happy to reach bomber-altutudes at all.

So I ask you again:
where is the seeming umbrella of german fighters scrambling up from virtually every field in the vicinity, going after that single, poor P-51 squadron, still flying at alt- and speed-advantage?

Oh, btw:
Flying around at 6/8000m and comparing the physical effort to scrambling up, climbling into the foe is pretty much a convenience-thing to me.
You might see it differently, but then again, I don't give a damn about you perception anyway.

If I had the choice, I'd rather fly ten 7hr escort-missions than flying a single intercept-mission out of a german airfield in spring '44.


And don't try to BS me with "achievements".
The attrition-rate of the Luftwaffe to operational accidents and intercepts without escort-fighters was high enough to run them out of replacement-pilots.
Yes, the P-51 groups shot down a lot of planes and yeas, that is a feat, but it's not surprising due to the type of their mission.

BTW: what's the matter of shooting down an "experienced" pilot that has had his baptism of fire on an entirely different front, with different tactics and different ways of coping with challanges?
ANY experienced pilot that came from the eastern front had to virtually re-learn his abilities and convert them to MUCH more complex way of flying and fighting.
The formations were bigger, the atitudes higher, the number of planes involved in fights was greater, the opposition's level of aggressiveness was much higher.

Just because somebody has a couple of combat-hours and a couple of kills, he doesn't neccessaryly become a killing-machine in an entirely different environment.

I'm really tired of that sh1t.

Oh dear, someone's upset...

Obviously doesn't like his "wunderflyers" credentials questioned. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

X32Wright
03-30-2009, 01:36 PM
I recently saw a documentary about the Tuskegee Airmen and they said that the expected survival rate of a new pilot over combat area is 1.5 minutes!

So you had to be very good with teamwork to survive longer and know the limits of your plane as well as explout the limitations of your enemy's plane.

I have read the difficulties on both sides and they were indeed hard on both sides, cliaming whihc side had a harder time well that's something else. Overall both civilian and military poeople both suffered on both sides ultimately telling you how STUPID WAR is specially if it is fed by EGO.

I read that German expertens were flying with high fever and other sickness because Goering personally insulted them on why they were in bed when the 'vaterland' needs them against the bombers.

ploughman
03-30-2009, 01:55 PM
Knocke took up a knackered 109 that was performing at almost 1/2 what a combat ready bird might hope to acheive because he was accused of being a freitling, of course in his case he made sure all his other pilots were in performing aircraft and he took up the lemming.

Bremspropeller
03-30-2009, 02:17 PM
Obviously doesn't like his "wunderflyers" credentials questioned.

Yeah, whatever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm outta here - better let the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"other"</span> people fight this out...

M_Gunz
03-30-2009, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You can leave it at 100% power, reduce prop rpms, keep your speed for a guns pass and still have less torque too.

Are you back online then Max?

Or is this more of the single player based advice? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

4.08 changed just when? Keep trying.

horseback
03-30-2009, 04:19 PM
Before you go, Brem, I will point out that I have not engaged in personal insult, nor have I denigrated anyone's country, their pilots or aircraft. Yes, I was bit harsh about the vinegar on french fries thing but that was to illustrate that England simply wasn't like home. As for the room temprature beer, I'll point out that the British generally have a lower room temperature than Americans, which is why they wear sweaters and we prefer T-shirts. In any case, I was trying to illustrate that those kids were a painfully long way from home and trying to do a difficult job.

Think on this, for a minute. The usual group of people who defend and to some degree, romanticize the German aircraft of the period and the men who flew them never seem to make much of the fact that the RAF was 'concentrating on the bombers' while the guys in 109s were running up their big scores vs the Hurricane and Spitfire.

The fact that they were unsuccessful at protecting the bombers they escorted has little bearing on the subject of relative fighter superiority. The message seems to be "...yeah, the battle was lost, but we had better fighter vs fighter scores, and that proves the superiority of our aircraft and pilots."

How can you not apply the same standards to the pilots and aircraft that won their battle, and got comparable scores in a more strenuous and far-flung battle?

I'm not a big fan of the History Channel or the old Wings series. My friends and family go a little nuts every time we watch something like that because I'm always correcting the blatant errors in them, or almost any movie about WWII. These factual misrepresentations for the sake of appealing to an imagined public prejudice frankly annoy the hell out of me, and make the real accomplishments of Americans in that war a lot harder to credit.

That is why I have held up defense of the Mustang in this forum over the last seven years. The pendulum of its reputation has swung too far the other way; where it was once ballyhooed as the ultimate piston fighter, the epitome of the aerial weapon prior to the development of the jet engine, it has now become a Flying Gas Tank Equipped With Peashooters, produced in such huge numbers that it blanketed all of Europe and the Pacific with an aluminum overcast of thousands on January 1st 1944, which is the day the last competent German and Japanese pilots retired due to combat exhaustion, allowing the marginally competent, barely housebroken but overtrained American pilots to overwhelm a few undernourished teenagers valiantly trying to protect their families and friends from the ruthless Allied bombers...

Both versions are overromantic simplifications and deserve contempt.

The simple fact is that the Mustang was a VERY competitive fighter by the standards of the day AND it had a combat radius far greater than any other single seat high altitude fighter of the time. It had the additional advantage of being amenable to mass production in the way that its nearest competitor, the P-38 was not, and it was easier to master than any other USAAF fighter.

Many of us disagree with some of the ways it is depicted in this sim, even within the 'limitations of the game engine' in much the same way you are less than thrilled with the cockpit view from the FW 190 and certain aspects of its FM. The last thing that we want to see is the perpetuation of those things we feel are incorrect in the upcoming SOW series.

I don't claim that it won the war, but if we accept that the Normandy invasion was necessary to its conclusion, then the requirement that the Luftwaffe be neutralized before that invasion makes the Mustang pretty important to shortening the war. The LW could much more easily have maintained the status quo in early 1944 with only P-38 groups providing escort past the German border.

Given competent leadership, Germany could have done so even with the Mustang coming on line. They didn't, and I shed no tears for that fact, or for the people who for whatever reason served that system.

cheers

horseback

R_Target
03-30-2009, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
How can you not apply the same standards to the pilots and aircraft that won their battle, and got comparable scores in a more strenuous and far-flung battle

Around here, it seems that escort duty cripples effectiveness when a Bf109 does it, but multiplies effectiveness when a Spitfire or Mustang does it.

danjama
03-30-2009, 04:42 PM
I still can't believe this argument is talking purely about P51's escorting B17's helping to shorten the war. What about everything else that was going on? Did you all forget about the RAF? Such a narrow view it's shocking.

M_Gunz
03-30-2009, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
I still can't believe this argument is talking purely about P51's escorting B17's helping to shorten the war. What about everything else that was going on? Did you all forget about the RAF? Such a narrow view it's shocking.

We didn't all forget, no. Someone wishes we would in favor of a certain Domino-tor Theory of Mustang Superiority.
Yup, it was 1943 and 150 Mustang pilots that changed everything and spelled the demise of the LW.
They could only do it under such harsh conditions against a rested foe because the Mustang is so easy to fly and totally rules.

Bremspropeller
03-31-2009, 10:29 AM
I'd sign yor last post, horseback!

It's not my intention to play down anybody's effort or achievements, nor bash any country.

I just get p1ssed off at times by certain oversimplyfications - that works both ways. I did that a lot in the german-speaking forum when it's still been active, pretty much argueing for the allied side.

Sorry for being a bit harsh towards you - I'm just gettin kind of emotional at times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback
03-31-2009, 06:11 PM
Thanks, Brem. A very gracious response. I much prefer debates that generate light on the subject rather than generate heat between the debaters.
I still can't believe this argument is talking purely about P51's escorting B17's helping to shorten the war. What about everything else that was going on? Did you all forget about the RAF? Such a narrow view it's shocking. Not a narrow, view, danjama, it's a narrow subject. If one were forced to tip one's hat to the Spitfire every time one got into a wrangle about the contributions of the Mustang, one would risk serious repetitive stress injury in the affected joints.

But here's the tip of the hat anyway:

1. It isn’t about Mustangs helping B-17s win the war; it’s about Mustangs helping finalize the destruction of the LW as an effective fighting force. The Mustang’s range took away the LW fighter arm’s last refuge, and the bombers forced those fighters (and their pilots) into the air.

2. The RAF and the P-47s drove the LW’s bombers effectively out of the Channel front and its fighter arms into that refuge out of their reach. Think of it as two dogs chasing a mouse, one a Labrador Retriever and the other a Yorkshire Terrier. The mouse may get out of the reach of the Lab, but the Yorkie will get into the narrow spaces where the Lab can’t go. The mouse is trapped. He can stay and try to deal with the Yorkie, or he can go out and face the Lab (actually saw something like this happen in my brother’s house—the Lab sent kitchen chairs scattered in his wake, and both dogs were skidding and fishtailing across the linoleum, but that mouse was toast in no time).

Germany was the mousehole that the Jagdewaffe fled into out of the reach of the RAF and the P-47 groups. They were damned if they were going to come out to face the big dog, and that required the little dog to come in and force them out.

3. One shouldn’t always have to point out that by late 1943 that the LW’s bomber defense force was concentrated where they were safe from the shorter ranged Allied fighters based in Britain and the Med. The Germans couldn’t afford to maintain a classic defense in depth because they were getting nibbled to death from the edges, so they were apparently committed to stopping the bombers once they were out of the range of the vast majority of Allied fighters.

4. Supreme Allied Headquarters had required the destruction of the LW as an effective force before they could commit to Overlord (the invasion of Normandy). It is my understanding that there was only the one short period in early June of 1944 when the tides and phase of the moon were suitable for an amphibious assault combined with an airborne attack the night before, and the next time that combination would occur would be in spring of 1945.

By my math, without the Mustang, Overlord has to wait for almost another year, and Patton might have been racing to beat Zhukov to the liberation of Paris…

cheers

horseback

RockyAlexander
03-31-2009, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Segwin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:

My Band



I gave a listen to the "My Band" link. Sounds pretty good! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awesome! Thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, good music, bro. I'm a rocker myself.

www.myspace.com/rockyalexander (http://www.myspace.com/rockyalexander)

danjama
04-01-2009, 08:42 AM
Horseback, what about Bomber Commands role in the 1943-1945 period? I'm not just talking about Spitfires here. I just want people to look at the bigger picture.

But it seems that's impossible. The P51 flyboys ended the war single handedly, lesson over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

joeap
04-01-2009, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Romanator21:
Pilots in biplanes and glued plywood did more damage to Germany than spitfires and fortresses.



Good post I just disagree with this point...come on, it was the Red Army as a whole that inflicted most of the damage (artillery and T-34s too remember) on the German Army.

I don't recall biplanes bombing German industry or wiping out the Lutfwaffe. Heck the Soviets started building better planes that shot down more LW planes in the east than their early stuff...

joeap
04-01-2009, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
But it seems that's impossible. The P51 flyboys ended the war single handedly, lesson over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I thought it was Biggles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

danjama
04-01-2009, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
But it seems that's impossible. The P51 flyboys ended the war single handedly, lesson over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I thought it was Biggles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

R_Target
04-01-2009, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
Horseback, what about Bomber Commands role in the 1943-1945 period? I'm not just talking about Spitfires here. I just want people to look at the bigger picture.

But it seems that's impossible. The P51 flyboys ended the war single handedly, lesson over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

You're free to start you're own "Bomber Command Roxxorz" thread.

Romanator21
04-01-2009, 03:00 PM
"Good post I just disagree with this point...come on, it was the Red Army as a whole that inflicted most of the damage (artillery and T-34s too remember) on the German Army.

I don't recall biplanes bombing German industry or wiping out the Luftwaffe. Heck the Soviets started building better planes that shot down more LW planes in the east than their early stuff..."

This is true, but I was making more of a generalization, and I should have picked my words more carefully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif . And I shouldn't have forgetten about the Zis-3, considered the best artillery piece of the war, some are still being used today. On the other hand, the T-34 was a great design, poorly constructed, but made more cheaply and in greater numbers,which accounted for its success. But this is for another thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The Fortresses and Lancasters effectively smashed Germany's war industry, and the Spits had great success at destroying the German planes. Of course the Soviet equipment did not do quite the same thing, and the losses were much heavier, but it was still very destructive. The Po-2, for instance, is only second to the Cessna 172 in numbers manufactured, and they flew vital scouting and recon missions that allowed the Sturmoviks and Peshkas to do their jobs, and even carried out demoralizing night raids. It did not shoot down any 109 to my knowledge, but it is a very significant piece of the war effort, arguably just as much as the Mustang. I was shocked to find that a design from 1933 continued to be built into the 1950s and even served in Korea and beyond.

The majority Russian planes were in my mind excellent in design. However, because of pressure from Stalin, lack of resources, and poor working conditions, the quality of the planes made them junk. Pilots had no basic necessities like radios, Yaks would just fall apart without warning even before being hit by German guns, and planes never performed to specifications. Even the "mighty" La5 and Il-2 would have suffered from these problems; Sturmovik pilots received "Hero of the Soviet Union" award after only ten missions, because the life expectancy was so low. If random failure of components/manufacturing quality was modeled in this game, no one would ever take up a Russian plane, but it's not, and this is partly why everyone thinks the other planes are purposely downgraded, but I won't get into this either. However, by sheer numbers of these planes and the will, pride, and stuff that I cannot even imagine, going through these pilots and soliders, the effect is, well, history.

"Germany was the mousehole that the Jagdewaffe fled into out of the reach of the RAF and the P-47 groups. They were damned if they were going to come out to face the big dog, and that required the little dog to come in and force them out."-Horseback

I agree with this, and this scenario makes much more sense to me than "Mustangs did it all by themselves" or "the Mustang can do anything" that I see all too often. It was a team player, just like every other plane/vehicle/soldier, a cog in the machine.

"They didn't, and I shed no tears for that fact, or for the people who for whatever reason served that system."

But I cannot share your view here. Nazism is abhorrent, and sometimes it's weird to imagine anyone fighting under that banner. But imagine if you were that 18 year old kid, naive and unable to fully understand death, being forced to fight. They were no different than our good ol' boys fighting, or soviet kids. Their reason was homeland and family rather than government and leader. Imagine what it is like to live with constant fear of bombs falling on your house, because in this war, even civilians are considered "game". The US never (except Pearle Harbor and a few random balloon attacks) had a bomb dropped on its soil. You can't just expect the young soldiers and citizens to just lay every tool and weapon down and say, "Hitler and Nazism is evil, I have a conscience, I won't serve this evil" even though they may have thought this (at least by war's end)? Could you really do it if you were in that situation? In social experiments people willingly applied painful/nearly lethal electrocutions to animals and to a man (actor) simply because they were told to by a person with a position of authority, ie doctor/scientist. That's just one reason why war is the way it is: the "right thing" or the "good guy" is never clearly defined. Americans probably shot just as many chutes as Germans, and Germans probably saluted to their adversary with jammed guns and let him go home as often as the Americans did.

horseback
04-01-2009, 06:25 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"They didn't, and I shed no tears for that fact, or for the people who for whatever reason served that system."</span>

But I cannot share your view here. Nazism is abhorrent, and sometimes it's weird to imagine anyone fighting under that banner. But imagine if you were that 18 year old kid, naive and unable to fully understand death, being forced to fight. They were no different than our good ol' boys fighting, or soviet kids. Their reason was homeland and family rather than government and leader. Imagine what it is like to live with constant fear of bombs falling on your house, because in this war, even civilians are considered "game". The US never (except Pearle Harbor and a few random balloon attacks) had a bomb dropped on its soil. You can't just expect the young soldiers and citizens to just lay every tool and weapon down and say, "Hitler and Nazism is evil, I have a conscience, I won't serve this evil" even though they may have thought this (at least by war's end)? Could you really do it if you were in that situation? In social experiments people willingly applied painful/nearly lethal electrocutions to animals and to a man (actor) simply because they were told to by a person with a position of authority, ie doctor/scientist. That's just one reason why war is the way it is: the "right thing" or the "good guy" is never clearly defined. Americans probably shot just as many chutes as Germans, and Germans probably saluted to their adversary with jammed guns and let him go home as often as the Americans did. Here’s my problem with that view: Those guys were in the main, dupes of an evil system, no doubt about it, BUT they were also military assets that had to be eliminated if the war was to be won. I have great respect for their effort and skills, BUT I’m freakin’ ecstatic that they lost. I spent some of my first few grade school years in Britain while my career Air Force Dad was stationed there (Jan. 1961-June 1964), and there were still neighborhoods in many English cities that were showing the effects of the German Blitz twenty years later. Whole blocks of London had yet to be rebuilt, because as an Ally the United Kingdom got relatively few of the benefits of the Marshall plan that Germany and France received. The fields around the various houses we lived were spotted with carefully sited blockhouses which were intended to serve as strong points if the Germans managed to make a successful landing. Our neighbors in Ipswich had lots of stories about that time, and some of them were frankly horrifying for a boy of seven.

The Germans started a war and waged it ruthlessly against civilians and soldiers alike. The stories about strafing columns of French civilians so that the confusion would slow the progress of British and French reinforcements heading to the front in 1940 aren’t all propaganda, and the practice was even more common in the East. The razing of Coventry is not a myth, any more than the bombing of Warsaw, or any of a dozen others in Europe and the former Soviet Union, all of which preceded by a year or two the Allied bombings of German cities.

The majority of those young men who grew up under the Nazi system saw it on newsreels and heard it on the radio and approved of it because they were taught and believed that that was the way the strong treated the weak. They weren’t nearly so much like those good ole boys who had been working in American fields and factories a couple of years before as you might think. Have you read about what they were taught in their schools and public institutions at all?

Knoke’s book was reasonably frank about it, although most German memoirs about their war experiences and upbringing tend to skip over that aspect of German life and culture during that period.

The only way that most of them were disabused of that upbringing was seeing their country taking a thorough beating, and then having their conquerors extend a hand to lift them back up to their feet.

Now, here’s a little news for you. I’m a child of the fifties and sixties, a military dependent right up to the day that I raised my own right hand and swore an oath to protect and serve during the Cold War. I know damned well what it means to live under the threat and constant fear of bombs falling on my home, and I had the added ‘advantage’ of seeing people and places who were damaged by the last war first hand. I have an uncle who fought his way across the Pacific and gave up his life long ambition to be a missionary because he never got over his hatred for the Japanese, and even though he realized it wasn’t what God required of him, he just couldn’t let it go (one of his jobs at the end of the war was helping get US and Allied PoWs back from the Phillippines and Japan—he understood brutality in combat, but treating another human being like that…).

I won’t pretend to you that I would have been a conscientious objector had I been born and raised in Nazi Germany; it doesn’t matter what I would have done. What matters is that they were propping up a vicious and evil system, and that it had to be stopped. I have no sympathy for them because far too many better raised and morally responsible men died or were physically and emotionally damaged while stopping them. I’m glad as can be that they were stopped, but I deeply resent the cost, especially when I think that we might never have had a Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Jimmy Carter in the White House had better men lived through that war.

We can ponder all we want about how it isn't all black and white, but the reality is that once the gray gets past a certain shade, you have to draw a line and be ready to pay the price. If we as a people aren't prepared to do that we don't deserve all the goodies we have today as a result of our ancestors' earlier sacrifices.

cheers

horseback

danjama
04-01-2009, 07:11 PM
good post

Romanator21
04-01-2009, 07:48 PM
Firstly, I wasn't calling you out, or trying to be offensive to you. I made the great blunder of forgetting about the US experiences during the Cold War, and I forgot to consider that possibly you did have those terrifying experiences. It is especially wrong on my part because in the East we had similar fears and precautions, and I apologize.

Of course it is great that Nazism ultimately fell, and I am aware of the horrible things that the people under it did. I hope to make it clear that not everyone was innocent, or not unaware of their government's policies. But to me it seems that normal, morally good people were utterly brainwashed. I have seen some reels of the propaganda, and indeed it is disturbing and even revolting. The government essentially shaped the views of the children of its nation, showing reels in classrooms, and creating "Hitler youth" programs to essentially create mindless, desensitized and inhumane soldiers. I don't feel sorry that Nazi Germany lost the war, but still one must feel something for the needless loss of life, and barbaric tactics to turn citizens into machines. The Fascists were evil, and I resent their ways, but I do not resent the men who died, nor do I resent the Germany of today. Being a Ukrainian by birth, and after hearing countless stories of the brutality of the Germans, and the utterly inhumane treatment of millions of my own people, I vehemently despise Nazism, but I do not resent those men. I feel that although under the banner of Nazism, they were still normal people, who only did these things because of brainwashing, propaganda, desensitization, etc which was sometimes beyond their control. And yes, I never saw the war, I was never there, so I understand my opinion doesn't matter. But no one I know feels resent either. No veteran of Ukraine, or from Poland that I know feels resent against the ordinary soldier or citizen of Germany, despite what they endured, and despite what they saw.

I have little knowledge about the Pacific theatre, but I am aware of the great brutality the Japanese had toward their prisoners of war. But it was a similar issue. The culture of Japan was so vastly different from that of the West. It was isolated for hundreds of years, and went from a medieval warring society to one of the greater technologically advanced nations in mere decades. But old habits die hard, and the ancient and in this case, brutal traditions remained. There was no concept of surrender, men preferred to die than to be taken prisoner, or to be shamed. In their eyes it was honorable to die, in ours it was honorable, and I personally think, more courageous to live. The Japanese because of their culture alone thought of Americans and westerners as cowards. I think it is a great shame that that aspect of culture had to manifest itself in such a way that it led to Japanese men violently and mercilessly torturing Americans, and flying sealed up planes into ships. Despite this, I can't say I hate the men, or I hate Japanese.

Now, our way of doing things was much different. I am not trying to say that Americans were not brave, and that they were on the same level as a nazi or Japanese soldier. It is indeed a terrible loss, that many good men were killed. It does bring me sadness to think about it, and sometimes I feel a strange sort of guilt, that I glorify the war by playing this game a little too enthusiastically. But the situations were different for each nation, and there was more behind the brutality of that war than just hate, or evil. Even the innocent were corrupted, and I feel sorry for those that were and that had to do what they did.

"We can ponder all we want about how it isn't all black and white, but the reality is that once the gray gets past a certain shade, you have to draw a line and be ready to pay the price. If we as a people aren't prepared to do that we don't deserve all the goodies we have today as a result of our ancestors' earlier sacrifices."

I agree with this entirely, and the line must be drawn, and I feel that we ought to pay tribute to our own forces who made great sacrifices for our cause, men who didn't return to their mothers, wives, and children. But I don't think that we should resent the men who ended up on the other side of the line. Resent will just breed more hatred and anger, rather than gaining understanding, and maybe the wisdom to not repeat our mistakes.

Again, it was not my intention to insult you or belittle your beliefs, sometimes I don't say what I mean to, and please do not take my comments the wrong way. I respect your opinion, but I am only offering my own.

Von_Rat
04-02-2009, 03:24 AM
I am aware of the great brutality the Japanese had toward their prisoners of war. But it was a similar issue. The culture of Japan was so vastly different from that of the West. It was isolated for hundreds of years, and went from a medieval warring society to one of the greater technologically advanced nations in mere decades. But old habits die hard, and the ancient and in this case, brutal traditions remained.


actually during the 1905 russo japanese war the japanese were a model of correctness in dealing with prisoners. they treated them strictly according to the conventions of war that were accepted at the time.

the differance beteewn their behavior then and later, was that in ww2 japan was ruled by a brutal military dictorship that encouaged the mistreatment of prisoners.

in a nutshell i blame the japanese goverment for the artocitys, not japanese culture.

Romanator21
04-02-2009, 06:23 PM
actually during the 1905 russo japanese war the japanese were a model of correctness in dealing with prisoners. they treated them strictly according to the conventions of war that were accepted at the time.

the differance beteewn their behavior then and later, was that in ww2 japan was ruled by a brutal military dictorship that encouaged the mistreatment of prisoners.

in a nutshell i blame the japanese goverment for the artocitys, not japanese culture.

Fair enough. I know less about the Russo Japanese War than the Pacific War, so I stand corrected, thank you.