PDA

View Full Version : What Aircraft would you have in your airforce in...



DomJScott
11-25-2006, 11:27 AM
39,41,43 45 - using aircraft in large scale squadron service and in combat (i.e. Russians and US and Japan not in war in 1939) in those years. Also taking into consideration their state of development at the time. For instance I'd stick with the Lancaster in 1945 as it was more reliable and could carry a better range of ordinance than the B29 at that point.

Here's my choices :-

1939
Fighter - Spitfire
Bomber intercepter - Me110
Bomber Escort - Spitfire/Me110
Ground attack - Ju87
Fast Bomber - None
Medium Heavy Bomber - Vickers Wellington
Fighter Bomber - None
Transport - JU52
Army Co-operation - Lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - None
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - None
Special Operations - Lysander
Anti-Shipping - Wellington

REASONABLY straight forward choices. Only German and UK aircraft in the mix at this point.

1941
Fighter - Spitfire
Bomber intercepter - Hurricane IIC
Bomber Escort - Spitfire/Me110
Ground attack - Il2
Fast Bomber - None
Medium/Heavy Bomber - Wellington
Fighter Bomber - Hurricane IIC
Transport - JU52 (not sure if the Dakota was in UK service at this time)
Army Co-operation - Lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Spitfire
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - Spitfire
Special Operations - Lysander
Anti-Shipping - IL2 (rocket/Torpedo equipped)

Russian's now able to be considered although most of their aircraft are inferior to the German and UK one's. Spitfire, whilst occasionally getting bettered by aircraft like the Fw190 constantly is improved and retakes it's crown. It's this constant upgradeability that means I'd keep it as a fighter.

1943
Fighter - Spitfire
Bomber intercepter - Mosquito
Bomber Escort - P51
Ground attack - IL2/Beaufighter
Fast Bomber - Mosquito
Medium/Heavy Bomber - Avro Lancaster
Fighter Bomber - Typhoon
Transport - C47
Army Co-operation - Lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Spitfire/Mosquito
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - Spitfire
Special Operations - Lysander
Anti-Shipping - Beaufighter

Yes I like british aircraft. Much of this is the fact that nothing came along that really was a vast improvement over what I have.

1945
Fighter - Spitfire/Tempest
Bomber intercepter - Mosquito
Bomber Escort - P51
Ground attack - Typhoon/Mosquito
Fast Bomber - Mosquito
Medium/Heavy Bomber - Avro Lancaster
Fighter Bomber - Typhoon
Transport - C47
Army Co-operation - Lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Spitfire/Mosquito
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - Spitfire
Special Operations - Lysander
Anti-Shipping - Mosquito

Tempest start's supplimenting the Spitire, rest fairly unchanged. Decided I would replace the IL2 because going for a fighter-bomber removes the need for fighter cover.

I know you guys will think I've missed roles for aircraft. Also I know we'll see differing opinion's. All part of the fun :P.

leitmotiv
11-25-2006, 11:36 AM
Good heavens!

F0_Dark_P
11-25-2006, 11:40 AM
just the Bf 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/Nahoj/monkysign.jpg

Haigotron
11-25-2006, 11:41 AM
im sure if you added a few blue planes, it would balance the RTS aspect of real life war mmmm?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/haigotron/il2banner.png
The End is Nigh: The World will END in two weeks...be sure!

LStarosta
11-25-2006, 11:48 AM
P-38 because it has fowler flaps and it can outturn Fw-190.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg
But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
-- Col. Carson, USAF


<A HREF="http://www.air-source.us/operations/logbooks/LOGFLIGHTS.asp?PILNO=450" TARGET=_blank>http://www.air-source.us/images/Ribbons/AAS.gif
</A>

Jaws2002
11-25-2006, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:


No Spitfires available in 1939 so...you'll have to settle for the poor BF-109E. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

1940 the Zero was the best fighter.

1942 Somehow you forgot this year http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Here FW-190 was supreme as fighter, interceptor, escort fighter, Jabo.

1943

Here there's competition for the fighter position. P-47, FW-190, Typhoon, La-5Fn could compete for the fighter role.As Bomber interceptor i'd take the FW-190 any day. The P-51 started flying combat late in December 1943. I wouuld exclude it from the aircraft available for 1943. So teh jug should do the long range escort.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

general_kalle
11-25-2006, 01:43 PM
i would take:

1939
Fighter - me109
Bomber intercepter - 109
Bomber Escort - 109
Ground attack - stuka
Fast Bomber - blenheim
Medium/Heavy Bomber - wellington/blenheim
Fighter Bomber - stuka/109/blenheim
Transport - C47
Army Co-operation - lysander/c47
Long Range Photo-Recce - blenheim
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - blenheim
Special Operations - lyander/C47
Anti-Shipping - Blenheim/Wellington

1941
Fighter - spitfire
Bomber intercepter - spitfire/me110
Bomber Escort - spitfire
Ground attack - me110
Fast Bomber - me110
Medium/Heavy Bomber - wellington/ju88
Fighter Bomber - spitfire
Transport - C47
Army Co-operation - C47/lyander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Spitfire/me110/blenheim(cos of range)
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce -spitfire/110

Special Operations - lysander/C47
Anti-Shipping - Me110/He111/stuka/ju88

1943
Fighter - Spitfire
Bomber intercepter - spitfire/me110
Bomber Escort - Spitfire
Ground attack - Me110
Fast Bomber - me110
Medium/Heavy Bomber - wellington//ju88
Fighter Bomber - me110/spitfire
Transport - C47
Army Co-operation - C47/lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Me110/spitfire/blenheim
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - Spitfire/me110
Special Operations - Lysander/C47
Anti-Shipping - Ju88/he111/stuka

1945
Fighter - me262/spitfire/tempest/mustang
Bomber intercepter - me262/spitfire/tempest/mustang

Bomber Escort -me262/spitfire/tempest/mustang
Ground attack - me262/spitfire/tempest/mustang/mosquito
Fast Bomber - mesquito
Medium/Heavy Bomber - B25/B17
Fighter Bomber - Mosquito/p39
Transport - C47
Army Co-operation - C47/lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Mosquito
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - mosquito/spitfire
Special Operations - Lysander/C47
Anti-Shipping - Mosquito/beufighter

there might be something im not totally sure off but overall<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

what have you got to lose?
You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!) -life of Brian

stathem
11-25-2006, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:


No Spitfires available in 1939 so...you'll have to settle for the poor BF-109E. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm?



By the 19th August 1939 the following units had received their Spitfire Mk I's and were also operational:-

* 19 Sqn Duxford
* 66 Sqn Duxford
* 41 Sqn Catterick
* 74 Sqn Hornchurch
* 54 Sqn Hornchurch
* 65 Sqn Hornchurch
* 72 Sqn Churchfenton
* 602 Sqn Abbotsinch
* 611 Sqn Speke
* 609 Sqn Yeadon


From here (http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/spitdev.htm)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

boxmike
11-25-2006, 01:50 PM
According the game or reality? Lagg and Wurger.

Rgds,
- box<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Walter Mitty from Hell.

SpartanHoplite
11-25-2006, 02:09 PM
Spitfire as bomber escort? Hrm? Maybe until the bombers got across the Channel and the Spitty pilots began to get nervous as they checked out their fuel.

Of course, I exaggerate somewhat, but the Spit was not a bomber escort plane. It was an interceptor.

This seems like a list for dogfight servers, rather than the building of an actual airforce. That being the case, I'd pick the Spitty for everything, too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SH<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/SpartanHoplite/rodinysig.jpg

DomJScott
11-25-2006, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by SpartanHoplite:
Spitfire as bomber escort? Hrm? Maybe until the bombers got across the Channel and the Spitty pilots began to get nervous as they checked out their fuel.

Of course, I exaggerate somewhat, but the Spit was not a bomber escort plane. It was an interceptor.

This seems like a list for dogfight servers, rather than the building of an actual airforce. That being the case, I'd pick the Spitty for everything, too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SH

Problem was early war ALL the fighter's where short legged but fortuntaly at that stage most bombing missions where also shortlegged. That said even a spit can get close to germany for escorts.

Stand corrected on the P51 service, naturally P47 is choice instead.

Blenheim - interesting choice and certainly quick enough to count as a fast bomber. Whether I'd bother with a fast bomber early war I'm not sure but certainly a consideration.

DomJScott
11-25-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
No Spitfires available in 1939 so...you'll have to settle for the poor BF-109E. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Hehe sadly wrong, admitadly there where less in service than I realised but just enough in service to qualify.


Originally posted by Jaws2002:
1940 the Zero was the best fighter.

Nah I'd put a spit against a Zero any day. Zero's an interesting fighter but wasn't heavily armed and had no armour.


Originally posted by Jaws2002:
1942 Somehow you forgot this year http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Here FW-190 was supreme as fighter, interceptor, escort fighter, Jabo.

Hehe well chose every other year because every year was a bit much. Does mean some aircraft don't get a look in although the FW-190, good as it was, was allways countered by an allied aircraft ( usually a spitfire ) reletavly quickly.



Originally posted by Jaws2002:
1943
Here there's competition for the fighter position. P-47, FW-190, Typhoon, La-5Fn could compete for the fighter role.As Bomber interceptor i'd take the FW-190 any day. The P-51 started flying combat late in December 1943. I wouuld exclude it from the aircraft available for 1943. So teh jug should do the long range escort.
FW190 is potential but I think spit has the edge by dint of it's ability to be upgraded and keep 1 step ahead. La5 is interesting but underarmed IMO. Typhoon was never a 'best fighter' although it's a superb fighter bomber and one of the war best low level fighters.

Jaws2002
11-25-2006, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
Hehe sadly wrong, admitadly there where less in service than I realised but just enough in service to qualify.

The Spitfires they had in 1939 were few and not really as good as they were during BOB. And not as good as the contemporary BF-109. And you can't make an airforce with 180 planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gifThat's why i said in 39 the BF-109 is the best choice.



Nah I'd put a spit against a Zero any day. Zero's an interesting fighter but wasn't heavily armed and had no armour.
We are talking about 1940. Spitfore Mk1 with eight small caliber MG's. Sorry but this is no match for the zero with it's 20mm cannons. The zero was at least as fast as the spit, Way longer range. It could outclimb and outturn the Spit Mk.1. I don't thing they are even close.




Hehe well chose every other year because every year was a bit much. Does mean some aircraft don't get a look in although the FW-190, good as it was, was allways countered by an allied aircraft ( usually a spitfire ) reletavly quickly.

I was talking about 1942 and there was nothing better in 1942 then the 190 A3/4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif




FW190 is potential but I think spit has the edge by dint of it's ability to be upgraded and keep 1 step ahead. La5 is interesting but underarmed IMO. Typhoon was never a 'best fighter' although it's a superb fighter bomber and one of the war best low level fighters.

The Typhoon was rushed in production because of the inability of the Spitfire to catch the jabo 190's at low altitude.Once in service it did great at low altitude. La-5F/FN has two center mounted 20mm Cannons with 200 rpg. That's rather good firepower. I'd say better then the Spitfire.( way more ammo on the cannons).<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

DomJScott
11-25-2006, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The Spitfires they had in 1939 were few and not really as good as they were during BOB. And not as good as the contemporary BF-109. And you can't make an airforce with 180 planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gifThat's why i said in 39 the BF-109 is the best choice.
Fair point, guess I should have included 1940 hehe.


Originally posted by Jaws2002: We are talking about 1940. Spitfore Mk1 with eight small caliber MG's. Sorry but this is no match for the zero with it's 20mm cannons. The zero was at least as fast as the spit, Way longer range. It could outclimb and outturn the Spit Mk.1. I don't thing they are even close.
I'd be VERY surprised if a Zero could outturn a Spit. Outclimb yes, outturn, not sure. The lack of armour though would allways work against the zero in my book. How comparable is the ingame zero though, because a 1940 IL2 zero is history against me in a 1938 hurricane.. let alone a 1940 spitfire.


Originally posted by Jaws2002:
I was talking about 1942 and there was nothing better in 1942 then the 190 A3/4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Fair point.



Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The Typhoon was rushed in production because of the inability of the Spitfire to catch the jabo 190's at low altitude.Once in service it did great at low altitude. La-5F/FN has two center mounted 20mm Cannons with 200 rpg. That's rather good firepower. I'd say better then the Spitfire.( way more ammo on the cannons).
to me a MINIMUM firepower for a fighter is 8 303's, 6 0.5's, 2 20mm+2 or 4 MG's or 4 20mm. Therefore the La-5 is underarmed in my book. Plus the cannon are compromised by interrupter gear. Naturally as the years go by the 303's are quickly ineffective but in 1939 a viable option.

Cajun76
11-25-2006, 08:52 PM
1945
Fighter - P-47N
Bomber intercepter - P-47N
Bomber Escort - P-47N
Ground attack - P-47N
Fast Bomber - P-47N
Medium/Heavy Bomber - Lanc or B-29, depending on target, load, opposistion and weather (day/night)
Fighter Bomber - P-47N
Transport - C47 (The classic Goony http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif)
Army Co-operation - Storch
Long Range Photo-Recce - P-47N
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - La-7 (The monster down low, strip it down and stick a camera in it)
Special Operations - C47
Anti-Shipping - P-47N

Did I mention I like the P-47N? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Good hunting,
(56th)'Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif Magnum-PC.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory (http://www.musicmagicusa.com/zupanaccordions.htm) and a mime school (http://www.le-mime.com/accueil.htm). Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

DIRTY-MAC
11-25-2006, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The Spitfires they had in 1939 were few and not really as good as they were during BOB. And not as good as the contemporary BF-109. And you can't make an airforce with 180 planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gifThat's why i said in 39 the BF-109 is the best choice.
Fair point, guess I should have included 1940 hehe.


Originally posted by Jaws2002: We are talking about 1940. Spitfore Mk1 with eight small caliber MG's. Sorry but this is no match for the zero with it's 20mm cannons. The zero was at least as fast as the spit, Way longer range. It could outclimb and outturn the Spit Mk.1. I don't thing they are even close.
I'd be VERY surprised if a Zero could outturn a Spit. Outclimb yes, outturn, not sure. The lack of armour though would allways work against the zero in my book. How comparable is the ingame zero though, because a 1940 IL2 zero is history against me in a 1938 hurricane.. let alone a 1940 spitfire.

The Zero could withought a doubt outturn any spit.
Spit has no chance in a turn fight agains a Zero,
be shure, there is no question about it.


besides lack of armour the Zero was pretty damn scary to come up against in the early years.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Otto may have been a weirdo, but he was a dam good fighterpilot.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/ohhbabyfinal.jpg
aka HOOTCHIE MAMA online

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
Special Operations - C47

Prey tell how are you going to get a C47 down in a 100m long field with a secret agent on board?


Originally posted by Cajun76:
Did I mention I like the P-47N? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
So it would appear :P

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
besides lack of armour the Zero was pretty damn scary to come up against in the early years.
Incedently.. the zero didn't enter the war till late 1941 :P

Either way I don't believe the zero was THAT good. Sure it was superior to US aircraft but since when was a P40 a match for a Spit? Yet they wheren't TOTALLY outclassed by the Zero. I'd definatly stick with the Spit over the Zero, lack of armour is just suicide IMO.

alert_1
11-26-2006, 10:59 AM
B 17s - 10000 of them and a few Stangs, 'cause they won teh war<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

I'm dislectic, so please bear with me...

Jaws2002
11-26-2006, 11:07 AM
The Zero was fighting in China way before BOB.

If one don't think the war in China was part of WW2, then you have to dismiss the "Flying Tigers" as heroes of WW2. Can't do that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


And when the veteran Spits Mk.V's were sent to burma to teach the Zeros a lesson they lost seventeen planes (out of twenty seven), in two engagements with Zeros.
They only shot down two.

Later in the war the Spits were faster and better, but we are talking about 1940, and in 1940 the Spit was not a match for the Zeke.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:If one don't think the war in China was part of WW2, then you have to dismiss the "Flying Tigers" as heroes of WW2. Can't do that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Technically it wasn't but point taken.

Leaves a bit of a quandry, go for the aircraft that on paper s currently better.. or the one you know is potentially better..

Think I'd work overtime on the Spit IX http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mynameisroland
11-26-2006, 11:32 AM
Dom the Spitfire was not the be all and end all.

The Fw 190 owned the Spitfire from September 1941 until beginning/mid 1943 when the Spitfire IX b (or Merlin 66 engine in real talk) came in to service in large enough numbers. Before that Britain relied on the Spitfire Vb L.F cropped and clapped, and the Typhoon to counter the Fw 190. Even once the Spitfire was introduced it only levelled out the performance gap. Not until the Mustang and the Spitfire XIV were introduced did the Allies truely peg the Fw 190 back, and by the the Fw 190 also has improved versions in the pipeline ie Fw 190 D9 and Ta 152 series.

The Zero always out turned the Spitfire except at high speed.

The Spitfire was never a 1st choice fighter bomber. Hurricane was better, P47, Typhoon and Fw 190 much better.

Spitfire was never a good escort fighter it was far too short ranged compared to others. There is a reason that the P47 and P38 are huge - they carry lots of fuel.

The Fiesler Storch was the best Army/Special forces co operation on any side.

The Wellington was a good steady performer, however Ju 88 has more chance of survival being faster and carrying just as many bombs. The Ju 88 is also more versatile.


Basically the Spitfire could claim to be the best interceptor and Photorecon, While the Mosquito was best light bomber, Night intruder, and the Lancaster was best Heavy and at a push the Typhoon/Tempest were best tactical support fighters in their respective year.

That is a generous asessment of the RAFs types.

Realistically there were many

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Dom the Spitfire was not the be all and end all.

Actually don't think I said it was, just it's constant upgradeability means it would be my choice in the airforce. Some would go for the Fw 190 and be just as effective.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Spitfire was never a 1st choice fighter bomber. Hurricane was better, P47, Typhoon and Fw 190 much better.

Didn't think I ever put the spitfire as my choice for fighterbomber. Went Hurri IIC and then Typhoon. P47 would have been an option but I prefer the 4 cannon and can also use the IIC for bomber interecept duties too where the cannon are better than the 0.5's.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Spitfire was never a good escort fighter it was far too short ranged compared to others. There is a reason that the P47 and P38 are huge - they carry lots of fuel.

Put the Spit as escort ONLY in 1939, P47 and 51 take over later.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fiesler Storch was the best Army/Special forces co operation on any side.

Storch was a usefull aircraft but it's very very slow and takeoff/landing pretty much matches the Lysander. What makes you say it's superior to the more sturdy and faster Lysander?



Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Wellington was a good steady performer, however Ju 88 has more chance of survival being faster and carrying just as many bombs. The Ju 88 is also more versatile.

The Ju88 suffered HORRENDOUSLY in BoB, the surviveability both in defensive armament and capability of the structure to survive damage was far better in the Wellington.

Whilst the 88 is DEFINATLY more versitile the medium bomber role is purely level bombing with 4500-6000lbs approxx of bomber to a decent range.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Basically the Spitfire could claim to be the best interceptor and Photorecon, While the Mosquito was best light bomber, Night intruder, and the Lancaster was best Heavy and at a push the Typhoon/Tempest were best tactical support fighters in their respective year.

Have to admit that the Fw190 was never far from consideration and certainly could replace the twin T's in people's airforces. That's the fun of such debates.

mynameisroland
11-26-2006, 12:15 PM
I could have swore you had Spitfire as fighter bomber choice in 41 now its Hurricane IIc ? Maybe I misread.

Ju 88s did not get mauled horrendously in BoB. No more than the Wellington did when it flew over Europe in daylight or even B17s on some raids. The Wellington, as I said was a good solid performer. It was like the Hurricane of Bombers. It was inferior in speed to the Ju88 so thats why Id pick it instead. Remember in the BoB after a Ju 88 had dropped its bombs it could shallw dive back to France often making it uncatchable for Hurricanes.

Spitfire wasnt an escort fighter in 1940, single engined planes, the Zero aside, didnt have the range. Your other choice the Bf 110 was a better escort fighter, that said it still couldnt dogfight single engined interceptors.

The Storch was simply the best, I wont go in to why but read around. Its a world famous aircraft and was a prized trophy by Allied Generals much like capturing a Luger for a infantry man was. Several nations even made them after WW2.

The Hurricane was a good fighter bomber - compared to the Spitfire - compared to the Fw 190 which could carry more and a more varied load over further distances, faster, better protected and a better fighter once it had dropped its load the Hurricane comes up short.

Even the Typhoon comes up lacking compared to Fw 190 Schlachtfliegers on the EasternFront.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I could have swore you had Spitfire as fighter bomber choice in 41 now its Hurricane IIc ? Maybe I misread.

Fraid you did.

[/QUOTE]Spitfire wasnt an escort fighter in 1940, single engined planes, the Zero aside, didnt have the range. Your other choice the Bf 110 was a better escort fighter, that said it still couldnt dogfight single engined interceptors.

Oh it was, the whole escort problem was that as the escort's neared germany they had to turn back. The escorts turning back being amongst other things spitfires. Even a combat range of 470mi (so 200-220 outbound) takes you a good way accross France. Not sure when drop tanks where available but of course that would extend the turn around point to about 450miles.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Hurricane was a good fighter bomber - compared to the Spitfire - compared to the Fw 190 which could carry more and a more varied load over further distances, faster, better protected and a better fighter once it had dropped its load the Hurricane comes up short.

Even the Typhoon comes up lacking compared to Fw 190 Schlachtfliegers on the EasternFront.
The Fw190 is definatly a consideration in 1942, seems missing out years is more critical than I realised as if the 190 is your fighter of choice in 1942 then it's likely to stay in 1943-45. Tricky one and interesting how the superiority ebbs and flow's. Think I'd stick with the spitfire supplimented with tempests and typhoon's (with the latter also doing FB duties ) but that's mainly because in 1939 I'd already have spitfire lines running and the upgreadability makes sense to me to keep evolving a solid design rather than bringing something brand new. That said of course the Typhoon and Temp are also new designs.. Mmmm yeah well ummm hehe...

I'll stick to the spit, but accept the Fw190 is a viable consideration and that I'm probably overly biased.

mynameisroland
11-26-2006, 12:56 PM
Hi Dom,

Ive often wondered what the impact would have been had the RAF developed the Fw 190 instead of the Typhoon.

If the Fw 190 was a British plane, in place of the Typhoon/Tempest series (Tempest being my favourite WW2 British fighter BTW) it would have meant that Britain would be sorted for a great medium to low fighter to dovetail nicely with the already great medium to high alt Spitfire.

The Typhoon was the British contemporary to the Fw 190 but it just didnt make the grade as a fighter. Thankfully the Spitfire could and did expand and grow otherwise Britain would have been up sh1t creek without a paddle had pinned all its hopes on the Typhoon.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

stathem
11-26-2006, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DomJScott:
Hehe sadly wrong, admitadly there where less in service than I realised but just enough in service to qualify.

The Spitfires they had in 1939 were few and not really as good as they were during BOB. And not as good as the contemporary BF-109. And you can't make an airforce with 180 planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gifThat's why i said in 39 the BF-109 is the best choice.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it seems from this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7801062505) that the majority of '39 109s were of the Dora variety - outclassed by Hawk 75s.
And the 1939 Emils mounted only 4*7.92mm.

Spitfire has double that armament. Spitfire ftw.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

JtD
11-26-2006, 01:37 PM
Since I'd be solely defensive I'd say:

Interceptor in 39: 8.8 Flak
Interceptor in 41: Radar guided 8.8 Flak
Interceptor in 43: Radar guided 8.8 Flak with proximity fuse
Interceptor in 45: Radar guided 8.8 Flak with proximity fuse plus occasional ground to air rocket

Oh well, I might as well be using larger guns.

And for what the AAA does not manage, I'd throw in a Focke Wulf or two.

Aaron_GT
11-26-2006, 01:59 PM
1945
Fighter - P-51
Interceptor - Tempest
Bomber Escort - P-51, Hornet
Ground attack - A26B
Fast Bomber - A26C, Ar 234
Medium/Heavy Bomber - Lincoln or B-29
Fighter Bomber - P-47 (or just combine with GA)
Transport - C54
Army Co-operation - Lysander
Long Range Photo-Recce - Mosquito, Hornet
Short Range Low Altitude Photo-Recce - P-51, Hornet
Special Operations - Lysander
Anti-Shipping - Something with stand off weapons

Friendly_flyer
11-26-2006, 02:42 PM
Aaron GT:

I'm not sure I share you preference for a fighter. At least in Europe, the need for range was decreased dramatically by 1945 as the Germans fought in the defensive and the Allies had forward airstrips. A "short legged" aircraft would do. The Spitfire was perhaps not a premium rough airstrip fighter, but the Mustangs best feature is its long legs, not it's fighting characteristics. Perhaps one of the late Russian fighters would have been a better choice?

In the Pacific, the Mustang would have been a logical choice.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Fly friendly!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/WhirlwindforBoB-II.jpg

Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF (http://www.gazzamataz.com/79vRAF/)

Petter B??ckman
Norway

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
1945
Bomber Escort - P-51, Hornet
Long Range Photo-Recce - Mosquito, Hornet
Anti-Shipping - Something with stand off weapons
Stand off weapons didn't really exist in 1945 and the Hornet entered service in 1946.

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Aaron GT:

I'm not sure I share you preference for a fighter. At least in Europe, the need for range was decreased dramatically by 1945 as the Germans fought in the defensive and the Allies had forward airstrips. A "short legged" aircraft would do. The Spitfire was perhaps not a premium rough airstrip fighter, but the Mustangs best feature is its long legs, not it's fighting characteristics. Perhaps one of the late Russian fighters would have been a better choice?

In the Pacific, the Mustang would have been a logical choice.

Even in the pacific Personally I think the Mustang would only be worthwhile for long range escort duties. Point defence/intercepter would be better off with a mix of Tempests and Spit's.

faustnik
11-26-2006, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
I'm probably overly biased.

We already established that in that your tank thread DomJ. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No big deal though, the Spitfire is a great choice for top fighter in any time period except late 1941-late 1942 (Spit IX introduction) were it was severly outclassed by the Fw190. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

You under-rate the US bombers I think. The B-17s and B-24s had the defensive firepower to fly daylight raids, the Lancaster, great as it was, didn't. By 1945, there was only one top bomber, the B-29, bigger, faster, better, and nuclear capable.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

DomJScott
11-26-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

You under-rate the US bombers I think. The B-17s and B-24s had the defensive firepower to fly daylight raids, the Lancaster, great as it was, didn't.
Not really, the only area they where better was the ball turret which in daylight was perhaps less of an issue as you could see anyone coming up rather easier. Rear defence was very good on a Lancy compared to a 17 with 4 guns vs two. The Top turret of course put two guns against beam attacks ( all be at it at the cost of only one side at a time ) and of course frontal defence was often better.

B17's and 24's went daylight because that's what the US decided to stick to but they suffered accordingly, especially unescorted. The RAF went nighttime because they learnt the cost of daylight bombing. A Lesson the Americans never learnt as even the 29 suffered heavily against the Japonese.

The altitude advantage of the 29 wasn't that great due to the fact that at that altitude bombing was inaccurate. They had to come down to lower level's where their defensive armament was proved inadequate to be effective. Speed was handy granted as was range but lost out with payload flexibility and reliability ( 25 hours per engine is dreadfull). Until they sorted the reliability issues I'd stick with the Lancy.

Yes the B29 carried a nuclear warload but certainly a Little Boy could fit in a Lancy. It was just never required to do so. Pretty irrelevent in 1945.

faustnik
11-26-2006, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:

Rear defence was very good on a Lancy compared to a 17 with 4 guns vs two.

The Lancaster had only .303 mgs compared to the B-17's .50 cal. The .50 cal had better range, accuracy and penetration, all imporatant factors against the Fw190s the LW was fielding against the daylight raiders. The bal turret was very important in protecting the lower rear quarter of the bomber, a handicap that resulted in a lot of Lancaster losses, right?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

jarink
11-26-2006, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
Stand off weapons didn't really exist in 1945

Actually, they did! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

The Germans used the Hs-293 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293) from 1943 onwards. They also had the Fritz-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X), which they used to sink the Italian battleship Roma. Both of these glide bombs (the Hs-293 had a rocket boost for extra range) used radio command guidance, which was easily and effectively jammed once the Allies cottoned to it.

The US Navy was also investigating guided anti-ship weapons, though they never saw widespread service. This was mainly because by the time they were deemed ready for service (1945), there was very little left to sink! The most well-known one is the Bat (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/batasmn2.htm), which used active radar seeking and, unlike the German weapons, required no input from the operator once dropped.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

berg417448
11-26-2006, 09:46 PM
The TDR-1 Assault Drone was another:


The U.S. Navy???s first tactical precision guided weapon, the Interstate TDR-1 Assault Drone made some 100 successful attacks against anti-aircraft facilities in the South Pacific."

"Over the course of a month, VK-11 and VK-12 expended 46 TDRs in combat. Of these, 37 reached target areas, and at least 21 successfully executed precision attacks."


http://www.stagone.org/ns.html

WTE_Moleboy
11-27-2006, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The Zero was fighting in China way before BOB.

If one don't think the war in China was part of WW2, then you have to dismiss the "Flying Tigers" as heroes of WW2. Can't do that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


And when the veteran Spits Mk.V's were sent to burma to teach the Zeros a lesson they lost seventeen planes (out of twenty seven), in two engagements with Zeros.
They only shot down two.

Later in the war the Spits were faster and better, but we are talking about 1940, and in 1940 the Spit was not a match for the Zeke.

Suggesting that the Spitfire is inferior to the Zero because of one encounter report proves very little.I would take the 350 MPH Spitfire Mk 1 over the 330MPH A6M2 any day. For Fighter vs Fighter combat in 1939 the .303s were still quite effective, note that the complaints about the Spitfire being underarmed mostly resulted from failed attempts to shoot down Bombers. The Zero would have the advantage in terms of turn and range, the Spitfire in Speed and probably climb(not 100% sure there). All in all it is a pretty even match up.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f173/aceking47/junkers-1.jpg

HellToupee
11-27-2006, 12:34 AM
Ju 88s did not get mauled horrendously in BoB. No more than the Wellington did when it flew over Europe in daylight or even B17s on some raids. The Wellington, as I said was a good solid performer. It was like the Hurricane of Bombers. It was inferior in speed to the Ju88 so thats why Id pick it instead. Remember in the BoB after a Ju 88 had dropped its bombs it could shallw dive back to France often making it uncatchable for Hurricanes.


Wellington daylight bombing raids were much smaller than the bob daylight raids.

In a sense the ju88 did get mauled

"The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its faster speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. "

GerritJ9
11-27-2006, 04:23 AM
Yet another stand-off weapon was the He-111/V1 combination, which unfortunately is not included in FB/PF.
Early war escort fighter for the Allies: Brewster Buffalo. Even when limited to 60% fuel load as was done in the later stages of the Malaya campaign, it had greater endurance than the Hurri IIB on full fuel load. The KNIL actually used their B-339-C/D as a long-range escort fighter for the Glenn Martins over Borneo in December 1941/January 1942, and escorts for the Singapore convoys in the same period, operating from Palembang (Sumatra) and Semplak (West Java). Maximum range for the B-339C/D was about 1700 km.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

The KNIL is dead. Long live the KNIL!

mynameisroland
11-27-2006, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Ju 88s did not get mauled horrendously in BoB. No more than the Wellington did when it flew over Europe in daylight or even B17s on some raids. The Wellington, as I said was a good solid performer. It was like the Hurricane of Bombers. It was inferior in speed to the Ju88 so thats why Id pick it instead. Remember in the BoB after a Ju 88 had dropped its bombs it could shallw dive back to France often making it uncatchable for Hurricanes.


Wellington daylight bombing raids were much smaller than the bob daylight raids.

In a sense the ju88 did get mauled

"The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its faster speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. " </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you agree that a Ju 88 that has dropped its load could escape from Hurricanes if spotted in time>? Considering the majority of fighters in BoB going after bombers were Hurricanes being able to run away from your main enemy is a great advantage.

And you also agree that the Wellington did get hammered when it ventured over occupied Europe in daylight? The Bf 110 and Bf 109 E were better at shooting down RAF mediums than the Hurri and Spit were at shooting down He 111s and Ju 88s<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

DomJScott
11-27-2006, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
But you agree that a Ju 88 that has dropped its load could escape from Hurricanes if spotted in time>? Considering the majority of fighters in BoB going after bombers were Hurricanes being able to run away from your main enemy is a great advantage.

If both aircraft where working from a 'standing start' then yes this may well be the case. Of course in practice the Hurricanes USUALLY manage d to start from an advantage and also USUALLY engaged the bombers incoming. Plus of course heading home escorts are usually already heading home or split from the bomber force so the Spitfires could engage anything the 'cane couldn't catch.


The RAF where hit hard daylight although most losses where Battles, Blenheims, Whitley's and Hampden's. The Wellington survived longer in the war than these types. Also as you point out the JU88 suffered to the hands of 8x.303's - the Brit's to 20mm and higher caliber weapons.

HellToupee
11-27-2006, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Ju 88s did not get mauled horrendously in BoB. No more than the Wellington did when it flew over Europe in daylight or even B17s on some raids. The Wellington, as I said was a good solid performer. It was like the Hurricane of Bombers. It was inferior in speed to the Ju88 so thats why Id pick it instead. Remember in the BoB after a Ju 88 had dropped its bombs it could shallw dive back to France often making it uncatchable for Hurricanes.


Wellington daylight bombing raids were much smaller than the bob daylight raids.

In a sense the ju88 did get mauled

"The Battle of Britain proved very costly. Its faster speed did not prevent Ju 88 losses exceeding those of its Dornier Do 17 and Heinkel He 111 stablemates, despite being deployed in smaller numbers than either. " </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you agree that a Ju 88 that has dropped its load could escape from Hurricanes if spotted in time>? Considering the majority of fighters in BoB going after bombers were Hurricanes being able to run away from your main enemy is a great advantage.

And you also agree that the Wellington did get hammered when it ventured over occupied Europe in daylight? The Bf 110 and Bf 109 E were better at shooting down RAF mediums than the Hurri and Spit were at shooting down He 111s and Ju 88s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

generally the wellingtons were employed completly without escort. Even defiant would have little issue intercepting unescorted bombers :P

Xiolablu3
11-27-2006, 06:55 AM
On the Zero VS Spitfire turning argument, read up on what happened when the Aussies first met Zeros in their Spitfires.

Pay particular attention to the tactics they had to develop to win, which goes totally against what you would usually do in a Spitfire.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

mynameisroland
11-27-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by DomJScott:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
But you agree that a Ju 88 that has dropped its load could escape from Hurricanes if spotted in time>? Considering the majority of fighters in BoB going after bombers were Hurricanes being able to run away from your main enemy is a great advantage.

If both aircraft where working from a 'standing start' then yes this may well be the case. Of course in practice the Hurricanes USUALLY manage d to start from an advantage and also USUALLY engaged the bombers incoming. Plus of course heading home escorts are usually already heading home or split from the bomber force so the Spitfires could engage anything the 'cane couldn't catch.


The RAF where hit hard daylight although most losses where Battles, Blenheims, Whitley's and Hampden's. The Wellington survived longer in the war than these types. Also as you point out the JU88 suffered to the hands of 8x.303's - the Brit's to 20mm and higher caliber weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That the Ju 88 was up against rifle calibre bullets is a huge factor and one that I inferred to in a previous post. Being fast enough to run away from your main opponent also is a huge bonus.

It cant be overstated how important speed is to survivability. In 1940 a Ju 88 headed for home after dropping its bombs was a fast aircraft. The Wellington was slow on the way to targets and slow on the way home.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Friendly_flyer
11-27-2006, 07:53 AM
Woulnerability is also a matter of the opositions aircrafts. Againstv Bf 110s, most bombers would have trouble, right up to the B-17. I guess it only goes to show that the 110 deserves a mention as bomber interceptor.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Fly friendly!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/Friendly_flyer/WhirlwindforBoB-II.jpg

Visit No 79 Squadron vRAF (http://www.gazzamataz.com/79vRAF/)

Petter B??ckman
Norway

Aaron_GT
11-27-2006, 09:30 AM
Not really, the only area they where better was the ball turret which in daylight was perhaps less of an issue as you could see anyone coming up rather easier.


Many RAF types also did (at some point in their history) have ventral guns - the Hampden, Wellington, Stirling, Whitley, Lancaster and Halifax all had them at various points. Often they were of draggy designs and it was felt that it wasn't worth the weight and drag when operating at night as you couldn't often see the approaching nightfighters against the ground anyway. Some crews didn't agree and added additional mounts. H2S got mounted in the ventral mount positions on the heavies, which somewhat stopped the debate.

On the Lancaster the most common official ventral mount was a single flexibly mounted M2 50 cal in a blister halfway between in size/shape the earliest B17s and the -D version. Sometimes homemade mounts of 20mm guns were used. Most RAF ventral mounts were either a single .303 (pre war) or twin .303s (during the war) except where noted above.

Pirschjaeger
11-27-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
just the Bf 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Can we have 2 planes? I like the 109 too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Sig11.jpg

Valhalla Kittens (http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm)

"I furiously yelled an ancient Anglo-Saxon single syllable word referring to the act procreation about a dozen times." Blakduk as he was looking for Ctrl + E in his Ford Falcon XT

NekoReaperman
11-27-2006, 10:17 AM
You all forget out the piss-poor range of the BF109 and spitfire... bad bomber escorts! (i noticed it was popular)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d136/Nekoreaperman/reperma.jpg

jarink
11-27-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
Yet another stand-off weapon was the He-111/V1 combination, which unfortunately is not included in FB/PF.

Hey, that's right! Also worth noting is the G4M/MXY-7 combo that we do have in the game. It certainly would qualify as a guided standoff anti-ship weapon.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

DomJScott
11-27-2006, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:Many RAF types also did (at some point in their history) have ventral guns - the Hampden, Wellington, Stirling, Whitley, Lancaster and Halifax all had them at various points.
Oh I knew that, wasn't aware that some crews retrofitted them. Am I right in thinking some of the radar setup's picked up fighters below the bomber?

HellToupee
11-27-2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
It cant be overstated how important speed is to survivability. In 1940 a Ju 88 headed for home after dropping its bombs was a fast aircraft. The Wellington was slow on the way to targets and slow on the way home.

ultimatly the ju88 was not fast enough, it suffered much more than the other types because it had much fewer defensive guns to dive away would also probly break up the formations leave them to be picked off by fighters and usually they would intercept them on the way in not chase them over the channel.

DomJScott
11-27-2006, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
It cant be overstated how important speed is to survivability. In 1940 a Ju 88 headed for home after dropping its bombs was a fast aircraft. The Wellington was slow on the way to targets and slow on the way home.

ultimatly the ju88 was not fast enough, it suffered much more than the other types because it had much fewer defensive guns to dive away would also probly break up the formations leave them to be picked off by fighters and usually they would intercept them on the way in not chase them over the channel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very good point, I'd rather have a slower aircraft with 4 gun's able to fire at any rear quadrant than 2 with limited traverse ( and inability to fire both at the same target accuratly).

gotha_g.IV
11-27-2006, 05:37 PM
Only one fokker gI, pwns them all!

*waving my little flag*<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img3.photobucket.com/albums/v13/juicejfs/sig635678.jpg

Pirschjaeger
11-27-2006, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by NekoReaperman:
You all forget out the piss-poor range of the BF109 and spitfire... bad bomber escorts! (i noticed it was popular)

But they're pretty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ok, I'm flexible. How about a couple 109s and the rest of my fighter force can be 190s.

For special ops I want Cessnas. No one ever suspects a Cessna. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Sig11.jpg

Valhalla Kittens (http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm)

"I furiously yelled an ancient Anglo-Saxon single syllable word referring to the act procreation about a dozen times." Blakduk as he was looking for Ctrl + E in his Ford Falcon XT

jarink
11-27-2006, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
For special ops I want Cessnas. No one ever suspects a Cessna. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Only when they land in Red Square!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

Aaron_GT
11-28-2006, 02:24 AM
For special ops you really want that 1950s inflatable one-seater plane. It was suggested that this could be airdropped to down pilots and they could fly themselves home!

Pirschjaeger
11-28-2006, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
For special ops you really want that 1950s inflatable one-seater plane. It was suggested that this could be airdropped to down pilots and they could fly themselves home!

That's gotta be good for morale.

Step one: Carefully unwrap your inflatable rescue. No box-cutters please.

Step two: Inflate your rescue either by lung(allow 78hours) or by compressor. If using compressor, be sure you are 100 miles away from the enemy. Once inflated, beware of sharp and semi-sharp objects.

Step three: Study flying manual (12 days for those without experience.

Step four: sign waiver removing anyone one from any responsibility

Step five: good freakin luck. You'll need it.

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

Step four:<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/FritzFranzen/Sig11.jpg

Valhalla Kittens (http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm)

"I furiously yelled an ancient Anglo-Saxon single syllable word referring to the act procreation about a dozen times." Blakduk as he was looking for Ctrl + E in his Ford Falcon XT