PDA

View Full Version : For those who insist P-47 wasn't competitive



XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:24 AM
Salute All

For all of those who keep insisting that the P-47 is correctly modelled as it is, and that it was not competitive as a fighter during WWII, a little Historical reality check:

In December 1944 the Germans launched their last significant Offensive effort versus the American 1st Army of the U.S. 12th Army group. Location, the Ardennes. As part of that effort, they dedicated nearly all their Fighter and Bomber resources in the West, (which were the majority of the Luftwaffe, West or East) to support the Offensive.

In mid December, the Luftwaffe's strength was at its highest in nearly 2 years. The reforms of Reichs Marshall Speer in streamlining and improving Germany's industries had resulted in the greatest output of Fighter aircraft during 1944 of any year.

Strength of Luftwaffenkommando West was:

Single engined Fighters: 1770

Ground Attack aircraft: 155

Night Ground Attack aircraft: 135

Twin Engined Fighters: 140

Reconnaisance aircraft: 55

Level Bombers: 55

Jet Aircraft: 40

Total Available: 2360 aircraft

Of these aircraft, all the fighters were committed to support of the "Wacht Am Rhein" (as the Ardennes Offensive was codenamed) with the exception of two fighter Groups, Jagdgruppes 300 and 301 which were retained for Reichs Defence against the American Strategic Bombing Campaign. The remaining 12 Fighter Jagdegruppes, (assigned to JagdKorps II) plus 8 Gruppes of Jabos, Nightfighters, Bombers and Jet Aircraft were committed to the Offensive.

The prime directive as issued by ReichsMarshall Goring to his Fighters was:

"Main Task fighter protection to assure freedom of movement of troops."

Ie., they were to act as an umbrella to prevent U.S. and British Fighter Bombers and Medium Bombers from attacking the spearheads of Panzers and Infantry as they fought their way west towards the Meuse Crossings and their ultimate objective, Antwerp.

At this time USAAF and British Strength was as follows:


9th US Tactical Air Force (dedicated to ground support from North to South, American 9th, 1st, 3rd and 7th Armies and Free French 1st Army)

Fighters: 1,502 (all P-47's or P-38's except for one Group of P-51's)

Medium Bombers: 1,111


Recon: 111

8th US Strategic Air Force (dedicated to attacks on German industrial targets)

Fighters: 1,234 (all P-51's except one Group of P-47's)

Heavy Bombers: 2,710


2nd British Tactical Airforce (dedicated to ground support British 21st Army Group )

Fighters: 999

Med Bombers: 293

Recon: 194


RAF Bomber Command (dedicated to attacks on German Industrial targets)

Heavy Bombers: 1,871


Of all these assets on December 16th 1944, most were committed elsewhere than the Ardennes. Only a portion of the US 9th Airforce were assigned to support American troops in the Ardennes.

All of the Fighter Groups assigned to the Ardennes area were tasked with ground attack and carried full loads of bombs and rockets on their missions.

An analysis of the assets available to both sides at the start of the Offensive would show the Germans in numbers equal or greater in aircraft present over the battlefield. The Allies did not react immediately to the Offensive, thinking it was only a small local counterattack.

December 16th was foggy and overcast, and missions were generally not possible.

December 17th was the first day when air assets could be deployed. None of the U.S. 8th Air Force aircraft could fly missions that day as their bases were fogged in, only the American 9th and some British 2nd TAF were in action on the NW European front. Additionally, Medium bombers were limited by the overcast. An analysis of what occurred that day is very revealing of what the abilities of the P-47, and Americans in general, was in combat.

During that day each side's official records admitted the following losses: (the sides had a different system of reporting losses.)

U.S. 9th Air Force: 27 aircraft shot down.

German: 55 pilots killed or missing, 24 wounded.

Here is a typical example of a Combat during that day as recorded by German sources:

9:30 AM, II/JG2 allocates 24 109G14's to escort 10 FW190A8's of III/JG2 which are assigned ground attack. At 15,000 ft near Monschau, they are attacked by what the Germans estimated as 15 P-47's. Result: 3 109's admitted lost from II Gruppe, one 190 admitted lost from III Gruppe, no P-47's claimed.

All the German Staffels were equipped with the latest fighter types, including FW190A8's and A9's, FW190D9's, 109G10's, G14's and K4's.

As the battle progressed and the Allied side became aware that it was a major German offensive, more Allied assets were committed, including from the British 2nd TAF and US 8th AAF. As that occurred, German losses skyrocketed. By January 27th, the Luftwaffe records admitted losses of 700 pilots killed or missing. In contrast, the US 8th, 9th AAF's and British 2nd TAF admitted losses of 197 aircraft, (including bombers, and including aircraft shot down by AAA).

There were many occasions when P-47's encountered German aircraft, when the P-47's were in inferior tactical positions, and sometimes loaded with bombs. Yet they often emerged victorious. Here is an account by Capt. Bernard J Sledzick, a P-47 pilot of the 514th Squadron of a December 23rd Ground Attack Mission:

"I was in a flight of six aircraft that took off in the early morning hours to support the embattled 101st at Bastogne. We arrived over the town in 20 minutes and received instructions from the Ground Controller, ("Ripsaw" XIX TAC). Four of the planes led by Lt. Miles Jones went down on the target with 500 lb bombs and left me with my wingman, Lt Fuller to provide top cover. Twelve Me-109's appeared in the skies above us, approaching from the direction of Trier, Germany. We alerted the flight that 'bandits' were coming down on us, jettisoned our bombs and turned into them in a steep climbing turn. Ten of the enemy fighters went down on the four that were attacking the target, leaving two Me109's to attack Fuller and myself. I maneuvered my plane onto the tail of one of them, fired and saw strikes on him which caused a fire, but the fire went out although the plane was smoking badly. I gave him another burst and the pilot turned the plane over on its back and bailed out. In the meantime the other 109 had got on my tail and Lt Fuller promptly disposed of it. I saw two tracers hit the 109 and it exploded in the air. Below us the aerial battle was raging. Everytime we saw an Me-109 on the tail of a P-47 we dove down on it causing it to break away. Lt Jones received a hit in the cockpit and three of his toes were blown off by a 20mm burst. Lt McLane and Lt Price were shot down and both bailed out. Lt Sickling shot down three Me-109's before the aerial battle ended. Lt Jones made it back to Mourmelon and crashed on landing due to his injuries. Lt McLane bailed out over enemy territory and became a prisoner of war. (the other pilot bailed over friendly territory) It seemed like the battle only lasted a few minutes and parachutes of downed pilots filled the sky."

Final tally: 5 109's claimed shot down, 2 P-47's lost, 1 damaged in crashlanding. And this with numerical odds of 2-1 for 109's.

Here's another one, this one reported by a Lt Donald Stoddard of the 362th Squadron ,also flying P-47's on a ground attack mission:

"We were circling Arlon Belgium at approximately 4,000 ft. Twelve FW190's approached from about 12 o'clock about 200 ft above us. I called in on the R/T saying there were FW190's overhead. I dropped my belly tank and wing bombs, turning to the left with a FW190. I got strikes. He straightened out and then hit the deck. I followed him down firing short bursts. My guns went wild, (ie. some of his guns began to fire uncontrollably) but I followed him on the deck to about Diekirch, Belgium where they opened up on me with light flak. I got two hits on the canopy. One hit on the left wing and a 20mm in the right wing. I pulled up taking evasive action." Stoddard returned to base and landed successfully. (another example of a P-47 shrugging off flak hits) The 362nd lost two aircraft, one pilot bailing out and returning to base. They claimed 3 190's shot down.

These quotes are from the book: "TO WIN THE WINTER SKY" by Danny Parker, a detailed examination of the airwar over the Ardennes in 1944/1945. Parker is a well known historian who has written other books on the Ardennes including: "BATTLE OF THE BULGE", and "HITLER'S SPEARHEAD: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JOCHEN PEIPER".

Parker's sources in this book included original Luftwaffe loss records as well as USAAF and British records.

The fact is, the P-47 was competitive.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:24 AM
Salute All

For all of those who keep insisting that the P-47 is correctly modelled as it is, and that it was not competitive as a fighter during WWII, a little Historical reality check:

In December 1944 the Germans launched their last significant Offensive effort versus the American 1st Army of the U.S. 12th Army group. Location, the Ardennes. As part of that effort, they dedicated nearly all their Fighter and Bomber resources in the West, (which were the majority of the Luftwaffe, West or East) to support the Offensive.

In mid December, the Luftwaffe's strength was at its highest in nearly 2 years. The reforms of Reichs Marshall Speer in streamlining and improving Germany's industries had resulted in the greatest output of Fighter aircraft during 1944 of any year.

Strength of Luftwaffenkommando West was:

Single engined Fighters: 1770

Ground Attack aircraft: 155

Night Ground Attack aircraft: 135

Twin Engined Fighters: 140

Reconnaisance aircraft: 55

Level Bombers: 55

Jet Aircraft: 40

Total Available: 2360 aircraft

Of these aircraft, all the fighters were committed to support of the "Wacht Am Rhein" (as the Ardennes Offensive was codenamed) with the exception of two fighter Groups, Jagdgruppes 300 and 301 which were retained for Reichs Defence against the American Strategic Bombing Campaign. The remaining 12 Fighter Jagdegruppes, (assigned to JagdKorps II) plus 8 Gruppes of Jabos, Nightfighters, Bombers and Jet Aircraft were committed to the Offensive.

The prime directive as issued by ReichsMarshall Goring to his Fighters was:

"Main Task fighter protection to assure freedom of movement of troops."

Ie., they were to act as an umbrella to prevent U.S. and British Fighter Bombers and Medium Bombers from attacking the spearheads of Panzers and Infantry as they fought their way west towards the Meuse Crossings and their ultimate objective, Antwerp.

At this time USAAF and British Strength was as follows:


9th US Tactical Air Force (dedicated to ground support from North to South, American 9th, 1st, 3rd and 7th Armies and Free French 1st Army)

Fighters: 1,502 (all P-47's or P-38's except for one Group of P-51's)

Medium Bombers: 1,111


Recon: 111

8th US Strategic Air Force (dedicated to attacks on German industrial targets)

Fighters: 1,234 (all P-51's except one Group of P-47's)

Heavy Bombers: 2,710


2nd British Tactical Airforce (dedicated to ground support British 21st Army Group )

Fighters: 999

Med Bombers: 293

Recon: 194


RAF Bomber Command (dedicated to attacks on German Industrial targets)

Heavy Bombers: 1,871


Of all these assets on December 16th 1944, most were committed elsewhere than the Ardennes. Only a portion of the US 9th Airforce were assigned to support American troops in the Ardennes.

All of the Fighter Groups assigned to the Ardennes area were tasked with ground attack and carried full loads of bombs and rockets on their missions.

An analysis of the assets available to both sides at the start of the Offensive would show the Germans in numbers equal or greater in aircraft present over the battlefield. The Allies did not react immediately to the Offensive, thinking it was only a small local counterattack.

December 16th was foggy and overcast, and missions were generally not possible.

December 17th was the first day when air assets could be deployed. None of the U.S. 8th Air Force aircraft could fly missions that day as their bases were fogged in, only the American 9th and some British 2nd TAF were in action on the NW European front. Additionally, Medium bombers were limited by the overcast. An analysis of what occurred that day is very revealing of what the abilities of the P-47, and Americans in general, was in combat.

During that day each side's official records admitted the following losses: (the sides had a different system of reporting losses.)

U.S. 9th Air Force: 27 aircraft shot down.

German: 55 pilots killed or missing, 24 wounded.

Here is a typical example of a Combat during that day as recorded by German sources:

9:30 AM, II/JG2 allocates 24 109G14's to escort 10 FW190A8's of III/JG2 which are assigned ground attack. At 15,000 ft near Monschau, they are attacked by what the Germans estimated as 15 P-47's. Result: 3 109's admitted lost from II Gruppe, one 190 admitted lost from III Gruppe, no P-47's claimed.

All the German Staffels were equipped with the latest fighter types, including FW190A8's and A9's, FW190D9's, 109G10's, G14's and K4's.

As the battle progressed and the Allied side became aware that it was a major German offensive, more Allied assets were committed, including from the British 2nd TAF and US 8th AAF. As that occurred, German losses skyrocketed. By January 27th, the Luftwaffe records admitted losses of 700 pilots killed or missing. In contrast, the US 8th, 9th AAF's and British 2nd TAF admitted losses of 197 aircraft, (including bombers, and including aircraft shot down by AAA).

There were many occasions when P-47's encountered German aircraft, when the P-47's were in inferior tactical positions, and sometimes loaded with bombs. Yet they often emerged victorious. Here is an account by Capt. Bernard J Sledzick, a P-47 pilot of the 514th Squadron of a December 23rd Ground Attack Mission:

"I was in a flight of six aircraft that took off in the early morning hours to support the embattled 101st at Bastogne. We arrived over the town in 20 minutes and received instructions from the Ground Controller, ("Ripsaw" XIX TAC). Four of the planes led by Lt. Miles Jones went down on the target with 500 lb bombs and left me with my wingman, Lt Fuller to provide top cover. Twelve Me-109's appeared in the skies above us, approaching from the direction of Trier, Germany. We alerted the flight that 'bandits' were coming down on us, jettisoned our bombs and turned into them in a steep climbing turn. Ten of the enemy fighters went down on the four that were attacking the target, leaving two Me109's to attack Fuller and myself. I maneuvered my plane onto the tail of one of them, fired and saw strikes on him which caused a fire, but the fire went out although the plane was smoking badly. I gave him another burst and the pilot turned the plane over on its back and bailed out. In the meantime the other 109 had got on my tail and Lt Fuller promptly disposed of it. I saw two tracers hit the 109 and it exploded in the air. Below us the aerial battle was raging. Everytime we saw an Me-109 on the tail of a P-47 we dove down on it causing it to break away. Lt Jones received a hit in the cockpit and three of his toes were blown off by a 20mm burst. Lt McLane and Lt Price were shot down and both bailed out. Lt Sickling shot down three Me-109's before the aerial battle ended. Lt Jones made it back to Mourmelon and crashed on landing due to his injuries. Lt McLane bailed out over enemy territory and became a prisoner of war. (the other pilot bailed over friendly territory) It seemed like the battle only lasted a few minutes and parachutes of downed pilots filled the sky."

Final tally: 5 109's claimed shot down, 2 P-47's lost, 1 damaged in crashlanding. And this with numerical odds of 2-1 for 109's.

Here's another one, this one reported by a Lt Donald Stoddard of the 362th Squadron ,also flying P-47's on a ground attack mission:

"We were circling Arlon Belgium at approximately 4,000 ft. Twelve FW190's approached from about 12 o'clock about 200 ft above us. I called in on the R/T saying there were FW190's overhead. I dropped my belly tank and wing bombs, turning to the left with a FW190. I got strikes. He straightened out and then hit the deck. I followed him down firing short bursts. My guns went wild, (ie. some of his guns began to fire uncontrollably) but I followed him on the deck to about Diekirch, Belgium where they opened up on me with light flak. I got two hits on the canopy. One hit on the left wing and a 20mm in the right wing. I pulled up taking evasive action." Stoddard returned to base and landed successfully. (another example of a P-47 shrugging off flak hits) The 362nd lost two aircraft, one pilot bailing out and returning to base. They claimed 3 190's shot down.

These quotes are from the book: "TO WIN THE WINTER SKY" by Danny Parker, a detailed examination of the airwar over the Ardennes in 1944/1945. Parker is a well known historian who has written other books on the Ardennes including: "BATTLE OF THE BULGE", and "HITLER'S SPEARHEAD: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JOCHEN PEIPER".

Parker's sources in this book included original Luftwaffe loss records as well as USAAF and British records.

The fact is, the P-47 was competitive.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:25 AM
" Ten of the enemy fighters went down on the four that were attacking the target..."

Wow. Could you imagine ten Bf109s attacking four P-47s below them in FB? The Jugs wouldn't last 5 minutes.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:35 AM
Its the pilot not the plane/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Luftwaffe had tons of planes in late 44, but crap left for pilots. Not taking anything away from the Jug, it is a good aircraft. I have never flown one, but from stuff I have read it seems like the plane closest to reality in this game(aside from the roll). I think the whole problem in FB is other planes being a little too good, and especially light planes acting like heavy ones in dives and zooms.

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:38 AM
Ten of the enemy fighters went down on the four that were attacking the target...[/i]"

Wow. Could you imagine ten Bf109s attacking four P-47s below them in FB? The Jugs wouldn't last 5 minutes .................................................. .................................................. ............................ THATS BECAUSE THE P-47 IS UNDERMODELLED. THIS ISNT EVEN THE M MODEL WHICH WAS SUPREMELY BETTER THAN THE P47 IN FB!!!.... jugs are porked plain and simple. anytime they get below 6000 meters a Conga line of enemy fighters appears behind it!"place conga music here". because the jug is too slow and it cant turn and its end of story for jug. NOT IN REAL LIFE !...ive read more than one book on just jugs and none of these books show the jug to be such a poor dogfighter....it turns the stomach

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:46 AM
I think its a high altitude bird. Huge aircraft like this have a disadvantage in any low altitude close in dogfight. I worry about the Pacific sim, as there will be whining and pulling of teeth if the P~47 can't out turn the...Zero. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:53 AM
the jug is big heavy, high wingloading with lower power to weight ratio than the lighter planes, of course its gona get beat, plane performance isnt often reflected in pilot stories or statistics.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:58 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- the jug is big heavy, high wingloading with lower
- power to weight ratio than the lighter planes, of
- course its gona get beat, plane performance isnt
- often reflected in pilot stories or statistics.


Thanks, professor.

Since when is power/weight ratio the only important aspect of fighter performance?




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:59 AM
---Since when is power/weight ratio the only important aspect of fighter performance?

Power/weight is the most important thing for the online dogfight simmers. In real life, other things were important too.

After all, look at the poor thrust/weight of the early jets.


Message Edited on 06/19/0301:04AM by LEXX_Luthor

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:06 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- After all, look at the poor thrust/weight of the
- early jets.


The 262 is by far the best plane in FB. It is absolutely unbeatable if flown properly, mainly because of the fact its dive and zoom are close to accurate.

If the P-47 could enjoy its real life advantages, it would be far more formidable than it is. Power/weight ratio is really not all that important.




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:10 AM
Wow the p47 is so bloody good it makes you wonder why we even needed the other planes during the war.

Oh hang on could it be that most of the german pilots at this time in the war sucked so bad that even with the advantage of hight and numbers they still found it imposable to win a dogfight.

Come on it's time to smell the coffee boys sure the p47 was a good airplane but in the end it comes down to the pilots just ask the Finns who had to fly brewsters

( I hear they kicked some but in them even when out numbered /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:13 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- the jug is big heavy, high wingloading with lower
- power to weight ratio than the lighter planes, of
- course its gona get beat, plane performance isnt
- often reflected in pilot stories or statistics.
-

Here is the wingloading for the P-47D(normal) 48.7lb/f^2.

For the P-51(normal) it was 43.3.

For the D-9(normal) it was 233.3 kg/m^2 or 47.8lb/f^2(if my math is correct)


power/weight ratios

P-47 > 5.8lb/hp

P-51 > 5.9lb/hp

D-9 > 3.38kg/kW(someone else will have to do the conversion)




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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:16 AM
cowace2 wrote:
- Thanks, professor.
-
- Since when is power/weight ratio the only important
- aspect of fighter performance?

it has a big affect on accleration climb and sustained turn.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:18 AM
Did anyone read the book about Hartmann? He was orderd to Berlin, at the airfield he saw a group of pilots- and he thought they are all looking so damn young (he was 21...).

He returned one or two weeks later to the same Airfield noone of this pilots where still alive.. noone died in combat, but they was send out to search for enemy bombers, the weather was to bad for them... crashed while start/landing lost orientation in clouds. crashed into ground...

I think this surly shows the superiortiy of late war allies weather and athmospherical conditions. 109 and 190 where clearly outperformed by the weather... no doubt.

I think such pilots are no real threat for a experianced pilot in any plane...


JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/pikasbanner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:22 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Although I think the original P~47 did sacrifice some online dogfighting capabilities over the internet, unlike all other fighters (including Fw190), P~47 could win the WAR all by itself, as it could perform almost all missions except (maybe /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ) strategic bombing--and without escort!! That is where its strength lies, a strength that matters little to the Ace online dogfighters.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:25 AM
Like the 190 of the allies. If the 190 (or Jug) can't do it, you dont need it done!

--lbhkilla--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:26 AM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

Parker's book is full of great information, and not an easy read. You've taken some time to put this post up, and it's a good one.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:28 AM
If you fix the roll, bump the speed up a notch, put the dive speed higher than anyting in the game ( I've heard of them catching diving Me-262s), fix the engine, stiffen the dm, and fix the 50 cal spread, this plane would be alot closer to what these guys are saying.


How do you put skill in the equatio when a plane gets nailed by two 20mm flak guns and still makes it home??? And what about the plane getting to near mach speeds in a dive???

<img src=http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/219643/GCS0705copy.JPG>

<Center> I had a cool signature here, but obviously the word document is vulgar.</Center>


<Center> In case you need it spelled out, I am still a Blitzpig. That's B-L-I-T-Z-P-I-G</Center>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:28 AM
LEXX_Luthor wrote: Although I think the
- original P~47 did sacrifice some online dogfighting
- capabilities over the internet, unlike all other
- fighters (including Fw190), P~47 could win the WAR
- all by itself, as it could perform almost all
- missions except (maybe /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ) strategic bombing--and without
- escort!! That is where its strength lies,



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif sure it could

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:28 AM
Very good post.

I recommend "To Win The Winter Sky"to anyone interested in the western airwar. It's an amazing, highly detailed work.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1580970060.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:31 AM
When I fly the P-47 I usually make sure I have at least 2K meters altitude on the enemy (something not hard to do in HL dogfights /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ) and I B&Z through the furballs looking for targets of opportunity...although I usually end-up causing serious damage to my prey, another T&B dood usually gets the kill...

If flown in the numbers that the Allies flew the 47, I'm sure they would be lethal to most low to medium altitude fighters. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://www.richard-cooke.com/fap/new%20folder/fap%20jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0304:54AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:11 AM
OK, we need to get this straight. I keep hearing guys say there were nothing but crap pilots left for the LW, and that's why it doesn't matter if you beat them. (sort of like the Russians in the beginning of the war huh?)

I want to see how many German aces lived through the war. There were an alot of them. I thought I read 60-70% of them made it. We know they all had to fight to the end. So if they lived, they were flying.

The LW guys crack me up. If it's not the crap planes they have, it's the crap pilots. Won't you ever admit that somebody might have been better?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:15 AM
Dont forget the P-47s in FB are the ones that were sent to the Soviets through Lend Lease. Not the ones we used throughout the war.

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:18 AM
Oh, oh, now I am scared for the Spitfire.


Bearcat99 wrote:
- Dont forget the P-47s in FB are the ones that were
- sent to the Soviets through Lend Lease. Not the ones
- we used throughout the war.
-
-

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:23 AM
Compare it to a FW-190A8.

With half fuel, a P-47D27 weighs 6 tons, has a wingloading af 220kg/m2, and a power loading of 2.6kg/hp (using 2300hp WEP).

The FW-190A8 weighs 4 tons, has a wingloading of 215kg/m2 and a power loading of 2.2kg/hp (using 1750hp) or 1.95kg/hp (using 2050hp WEP).

So the acceleration and climb of the P-47 would be markedly inferior to that of the FW-190A8. Instantaneous turn would be similar, and sustained turn would be slightly worse.

The same would be true for zoom climb. At high speeds it can gain an advantage using inertia to overcome drag, but at lower speeds its again a matter of poor T/W ratio. At 300km/h, an I-153 can zoom better.

So essentially its a plane that has worse climb, acceleration and turn than the heaviest thing the LW has to offer. Its main selling points are its durability (which is modelled to a T, if not exaggerated), high speed dive performance, and firepower.

In my experience with the P-47 online, a single P-47 vs a single 109 is not even a fight. But I ran an 8 vs 8 P-47 vs 109G6 mission 3 times, and the result was always a wide US victory. If you are familiar with the tactics and dynamics of combat on the Pacific front, you will understand why this is.

-----

As for actual specs, I've tested everything I can on the P-47 and can't find anything undermodelled (save for the roll rate of course). Turn time is overmodelled, stall speed is overmodelled, and climb rate is overmodelled to a huge degree (6000m in 7.5 minutes, should be 11.5 minutes). I've tested the dive acceleration, and it is predictably poor at low speed, and good above 500km/h. The zoom climb is equally unimpressive, except when done at speeds over 600km/h. I will also be testing it after the patch as well, and will probably be publishing the results on a website. So if you have any numbers showing it to be undermodelled in any way, I would love to read them.







Message Edited on 06/18/0308:42PM by StG77_Fennec

The_Blue_Devil
06-19-2003, 03:23 AM
Hittson wrote:
--
-
- How do you put skill in the equatio when a plane
- gets nailed by two 20mm flak guns and still makes it
- home??? And what about the plane getting to near
- mach speeds in a dive???
-
If I remember correctly some versions of the Jug actually did break Mach speed when diving.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>

<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.angelfire.com/art2/devilart/361FGsmall.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>
&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#F0CE41";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#000000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:21 AM
Who cares how many planes were assigned to each side? If you want something to compare, do a comparison for number of sorties per role on each side. Not only that overall the allies had much more sorties than the germans, but also most of the german fighters were used as jabos, meaning that they had heavy external load, cripling their performance (like on any other fighter used for bombing missions). So how many more sorties had the allies in pure fighter role than the germans?
Without an answer to this question there no need to reopen an dead old subject. P-47 was crap as a fighter. Also crap was LW strenght at that time. This has nothing to do with the quality of planes but with insurmountable lack of fuel. Lack of well trained pilots was also an factor but not the most important.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:24 AM
Right on time.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:32 AM
Salute Fennec

You need to do some research.

I think its time some of the myths about the P-47 were exploded with some facts.

Myth #1: The P-47 had high wingloading and poor powerloading.

The first thing we need to look at is the actual design intention of the P-47.

In the late '30's, the U.S. Army had originally called for the design of a lightweight, maneuverable interceptor, to defend the continental United States. Republic Aircraft, led by designer and expatriate Russian, Alexander Kartveli was one of the companys which competed for the contract. Many of the ideas of Republic had come from the company's original owner, Alexander de Seversky. Seversky was a Russian Czarist Fighter pilot in WWI, shooting down 13 German aircraft for the Russian Naval Air Service. After the Communists came to power, Seversky became an American citizen.

Seversky had produced the P-35, and other aircraft of the prewar years. In 1939, the U.S. Army Air Corps was looking for what all the other potential combatants wanted, an interceptor.

Republic's AP-4/P-44 was a successful design from this period, having a speed of 400+ mph, climb of 4,000 feet per minute, and excellent maneuverability.

http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/ap4-xp-41comp.jpg


http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/P-44comp.jpg


However, like other interceptors of this design period, (like the Spitfire and Bf109) it had very short range. It was totally unsuited to long range escort.

With the events in Europe, a shift in thinking in the U.S. Army Air Corps occurred. They realized the limitations of a short range aircraft and completely revised their contract requirements.

They then authorized a new contract to design and develop a new fighter that would be designated the XP-47B. The fighter had to meet a number of requirements, some of which were:

1. The aircraft must attain at least 400 mph at 25,000 feet.
2. It must be equipped with at least six .50 caliber machine guns, with eight being preferred.
3. Armor plate must be fitted to protect the pilot.
4. Self sealing fuel tanks must be fitted.
5. Fuel capacity was to be a minimum of 315 gallons.

It was clear at this point, that the USAAC was looking for an aircraft to escort its heavy bomber fleets, one which had the range to accompany them most of the way to the target. Performance at the altitudes at which the heavy bombers were expected to operate was a requirement.

Republic won the contract and produced the P-47B, using the new Pratt and Whitney double row Radial R2800.

Let's take a look at the specs for the first model which actually was produced in numbers, the P-47B: (all figures from official U.S. documents)

Weight unloaded: 10,500 lbs.

Weight fully loaded: 13,477 lbs. Of that, 1730 lbs is fuel. 205 US gallons (each gallon is 3.5 litres) in the main tank, 100 US gallons in the auxiliary tank. This weight includes 8 .50 calibre gun installation, and the full 3400 rounds of ammunition. If the lesser amount of ammunition of 200 rounds per gun is selected, then weight drops by 540 lbs to 12,937 lbs. No drop tank installation was possible on the P-47B.

Normal Combat Weight: 12,877 lbs. This is the weight with the auxiliary tank empty and the main tank full. Otherwise, the same as above, with full 3400 rounds of ammo.

Wing Area: 300 Sq/Ft

Wingloading

Fully loaded: 44.92 lbs per Sq/ft

Normal Combat Weight: 42.92 lbs per Sq/ft

Engine: 2000 hp Pratt and Whitney R 2800-21, no water injection.

Powerloading:

Fully loaded: 6.73 lbs per hp

Normal Combat weight: 6.43 lbs per hp

Range fully loaded: 750 Statue miles. This compares very favourably to aircraft such as the 109G6 which had a range without drop tank of 450 miles, or a 109K4, which had a range of 365 miles. The 109K4 was rated at an endurance of 50 minutes, which is an incredibly short time for a fighter. At Combat Weight, the P-47B had a longer range than the 109 fully fueled internally. The P-47B never saw combat, in fact never was overseas.


The P-47C and P-47D1-D9 models only differed very slightly in weight from the P-47B as they had a bracket and strengthening required for a belly tank to be attached. The C's also had some frame modifications to improve maneuverability which I will discuss later. The early D's also had a bit more pilot armour added.

Fully loaded: 13, 677 lbs

Normal Combat: 13,077 lbs

With 200 gallon belly tank: 15,000 lbs

Wingloading

Fully loaded: 45.59 lbs per Sq/ft

Normal Combat Weight: 43.59 lbs per Sq/ft

Engine: 2000 hp R 2800-21

Powerloading

Fully loaded: 6.83 lbs per hp

Combat Weight: 6.54 lbs per hp

Range has now gone up to 1250 miles with the belly tank.


P-47D10 - D24 Razorbacks

The biggest change with these models was the addition of Water injection which raised hp to 2300. Earlier model P-47's were retrofitted with this. The engine installation was standardized with the R 2800-63. Otherwise there was not much change, except to see an improvement to the powerloading. In the D15 models the wing pylons were added plus belly mount strengthening, increasing the weight by around 200lbs. In models beginning with the D22, the paddle blade prop was added which may have added a few pounds.

Engine: Pratt and Whitney R 2800-63

Maximum 2300 hp at 2700 rpm from Sea Level to 27,000 ft

Military Power 2000 hp at 2700 rpm from Sea Level to 25,000 ft

Maximum Continuous 1625 hp at 2550 rpm from Sea Level to 29,000 ft

Powerloading

Fully loaded: 5.94 lbs per hp

Combat Weight: 5.68 lbs per hp


P-47D25-D40

Change here was the addition 2600 hp R2800-59, plus extra fuel capacity in form of additional 65 gallon auxiliary tank, plus bubble canopy, plus stronger belly shackles, extra oxygen bottles, dorsal fin for D27 onwards, dive flaps on D30 onwards.

Normal Loaded Weight: 14,441 lbs

Combat Weight: 13,451 lbs (with Auxiliary tanks empty)

With 300 gallon drop tanks: 16,596 lbs

Wingloading

Fully loaded: 48.14 lbs per Sq/ft

Normal Combat Weight: 44.83 lbs per Sq/ft

Engine: 2600 hp R 2800-59

Powerloading

Fully loaded: 5.55 lbs per hp

Combat Weight: 5.17 lbs per hp

Range has now gone up to 1135 miles with internal fuel, and tanks.


Some comparison with German aircraft may be helpful at this point.


Messerschmidt Bf109G6 (Data is from Finnish manual for late G6 seen here:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-Manuals.html and may be too high)


Weight Fully loaded: 3500 kgs, 7700 lbs

Wing Area: 172.75 Sq/ft

Wingloading: 44.57 lbs per Sq/ft

Engine: Daimler Benz DB605A

Rated at 1475hp at Sea Level

Rated at 1355hp at 5,700 metres

Maximum continuous power, 1080 hp

Powerloading:

5.08 lbs per hp at Sea Level Maximum power

5.53 lbs per hp at 5700 metres Maximum power


Focke-Wulf 190A8 (Data from "Focke Wulf FW190 by Gordon Swanborough and William Green")

Empty Weight: 7652 lbs

Normal Loaded weight: 9660 lbs

Wing Area: 196.98 Sq/ft

Wingloading: 49 lbs per Sq/ft

Engine: BMW 801D

1700 hp at Sea level

1,440 hp at 18,700 ft

Powerloading

5.68 lbs per hp at Sea Level

6.7 lbs per hp at 18,700 ft


The powerloading of the P-47 would suggest that it would not be as good as the 109, but is comparable or better than the 190 at low altitudes, but would eventually gain the advantage on both the 109 and 190 at higher altitudes.

The wingloading of the P-47 is actually superiour to the FW190A8, and is not that much different from the 109G6 if we use the Finnish figure.

Now I realize that a larger heavier aircraft, will require a larger force exerted on it to change direction than a smaller lighter aircraft. Even if it has the same wingloading.

For that reason, the logic of a 7700 lb Bf109 being able to turn more quickly than a 13,500 lb P-47 is obvious.

At low speeds, this is certainly the case. A P-47 without a speed advantage should not be able to outturn a 109 at lower speeds. Especially at lower altitudes, when the 109 has better powerloading.

Plus the drag of the P-47's larger airframe would cause more speed bleed.

However, at high speeds, when the effects of airflow over the control surfaces reduce their effectiveness, these arguments only apply if the forces which can be applied to change the aircraft's direction are proportionately equal.

At higher speeds, the P-47 would not have the same problems as it would at low speed with the onset of a stall in a high G turn. At higher speeds a pilot would be able to pull higher G turns before approaching the point of an accelerated stall.

The P-47 also had all metal coverings on its control surfaces, ie. ailerons, elevators and rudder. This was an advantage over aircraft with fabric covered control surfaces, which were subject to distortion at high speeds, ballooning etc. Both the 109's and 190's had fabric coverings. The P-47 did not have this problem at high speeds.

The book "America's Hundred Thousand" says that the P-47 had very light controls at most speeds, in fact the stick forces became lighter at higher speeds. According to this source, a modern evaluation gave a stick force of 7.5 lbs per G.

The P-47 had modifications to the elevator controls which designed to give better response at high speeds.

The first P-47C (41-6066) was completed on September 14, 1942. Even though the
P-47C incorporated strengthened tail surfaces, the P-47C still had some problems in
recovering from the very high dive acceleration and terminal speeds which could be achieved with the P-47. The aircraft was rated capable of diving to 500 mph, (800kph) safely. However because the aircraft accelerated so fast, it could reach speeds beyond 500 mph. Beyond that speed, recovery from power dives was hazardous, with the elevators being unable to respond because of compressibility forces.

(note: Many German or Soviet Fighter aircraft could not even reach 500mph without disintegrating. The fact that the P-47 was able to maneuver up to 500mph is indicative of its excellent high speed characteristics even in the early P-47C model)

The engineers at Republic took a number of steps to improve the aircraft's ability to respond at high speeds.

The P-47C-1-RE production block differed by having an extra 8-inch section added
to the fuselage forward of the firewall to change the center of gravity and giving improved flight characteristics.

Additionally, Bob weights or counterbalance weights were installed in the elevator control system, to help to overcome the compressibility problems that had made high speed dives in the earlier P-47C dangerous.

These bob weights allowed additional leverage to be applied to the P-47's elevators, leverage which was enough to move them, at 500mph or higher despite compressibility effects.

The P-47, like the FW190 also had its aileron, elevator and rudder surfaces moved by control rods, not wire cables. These allowed more leverage to be applied and were no subject to stretching.

On November 13, 1942, Test Pilots Lts. Harold Comstock and Roger Dyar managed to reach airspeeds of 725 mph during high-speed dives in their later model P-47Cs. This was beyond the speed of sound, which, if accurate, would have made them the first pilots to break the sound barrier. However, it is likely that the airspeed
readings were inaccurate, since the terminal velocity of the P-47 is
about 600 mph. Still it is clear they reached the 600mph range. (960 kph)

The fact that they were able to reach these very high speeds, and recover safely from them, shows the effectiveness of the Elevators on the modified P-47C-1RE.

In some cases P-47's would enter compressibility at high altitudes in a dive, but would always recover elevator control when more dense air at lower altitudes was encountered.

The fact that the P-47 had good response from its elevators, is in direct contrast to aircraft such as the Bf109, which had very poor high speed elevator response.

Various tests of different models of the 109 tested showed poor response at high speeds.

Following is an excerpt from a British AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT test of a 109E3 for which I have the original document scan, and which I can send you if nessesary. It deals with control response.

>>>>>>>>>>

"Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definite resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons become heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees bank, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below:
Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf.109 stick 40 lbs.

Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th.
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds.
Deduced balance factor Kb2 - 0.145

Several points of interest emerge from these tests:
a. Owing to the cramped Bf.109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room.
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmaneuvrable in roll at high speeds.
Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive."

<<<<<<<<<<<

It is true that later models of the 109 were improved, most notably with the re-design of the 109F, but the problems continued. Following is an excerpt from an AFDU test of a 109G6 which confirms this problem existed with later model 109's. There was a basic lack of leverage, which limited control surface movement.

>>>>>>>>>>>

"The ailerons became increasingly stiff as speed was increased and were especially so at speeds in excess of 350mph. The Elevators became increasingly difficult to operate as speed increased, and above 350mph this unpleasantness was accentuated as the elevator trim was practically impossible to operate."

<<<<<<<<<<<

The Finnish Air Force Handbook which I have referred to earlier on their late model 109G6 also shows that the elevator response of these planes went down considerably at higher speeds.

Turning time for the aircraft was stated as follows in the manual:

At 400 kph turn time was 13 seconds for a 180 degree turn.

At 450 kph turn time was 14 seconds for a 100 degree turn.

This shows that with only a 50 kph increase in speed, the turn time became much worse, and indicates the elevator response was decreasing quickly.

The Finns also listed a maximum dive speed of 750 kph for the late model 109G6. That is only 468 mph and indicates the chances of recovery with the aircraft decreased considerably at higher speeds.

According to a recent interview with Franz Stigler, a Luftwaffe pilot who had over 400 sorties in 109's, the G6's handling at higher speeds was not good.

http://icebreakers.compart.fi//WW2History.html ( <A HREF=)" target=_blank>http://icebreakers.compart.fi//WW2History.html</a>

He was asked a direct question about dive speeds:

What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?

I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pulls it out of the dive.

Pilots who exceeded the reccommended dive speed had extreme difficulty in recovering:

Finnish Pilot Jussi Huotari from recent interview

http://icebreakers.compart.fi//WW2History.html

I lost my speed, I had to turn below them. I had to push the stick to get behind them, and as they dived at me I dived right down. I turned with ailerons a couple of times, and had full power on.
Then I started recovery from the dive, of course in the direction of home, then checked the dials, the reading was eight hundred plus kmh. Then I started pulling the stick, pulled harder as hard as ever: never in my life did I pull so hard. I pulled with right hand and tried to trim the horizontal rudder with my left hand. But it did not budge, as if it had been set in concrete. But by the by the nose began to rise, but terribly slowly. As my angle was about 45 I heard over the radio as Onni Paronen said, "hey lads, look, a Messerschmitt is going in the sea!" I wanted to answer back but I could not afford to do anything put pull with two hands. As soon as I had returned to level flight and had been able to breath normally for a while, I in a way regained consciousness. I pushed the transmitter key and said "not quite". It was a close shave.

(in all these accounts it is likely that the actual speeds in the dives were slower than the pitot tubes were indicating. Most of the time such instruments exagerrated as was the case with the P-47 test dives)

<<<<<<<<<<<

The later mode P-47 from the C-1RE onwards suffered from no such problems at high speeds.

It had an official maximum allowable dive speed of 550mph IAS (880 kph) below 10,000 ft listed in its manual.

With the advent of the bubble top P-47, and its higher horsepower engine, dive acceleration increased again. Again a redesign with the addition of dive recovery flaps allowed for recovery from even very high speed dives in these models.

How does the P-47 compare to the FW190?

Comparisons of wingloading show that the P-47 had either comparable or better wingloading than the FW190's of its era.

The FW190 did have better lateral high speed maneuverability than the Bf109. Reports show that its aileron effectiveness remained good even at higher speeds, although it declined from its best speed range of 250mph. The 190 had the best rollrate of any WWII era aircraft at low and medium speeds, but was matched by the P-47 and P-51 at very high speeds. (see the chart I have listed earlier)

Elevator effectiveness on the 190 was also quite good, although not as good at high speeds. In fact a USAAF test of a 190A5 versus a P-47D4 with fuel injection showed that the P-47 had the advantage at speeds over 250mph, although at low speeds, where the 190's elevators remained fully effective, that it was capable of outturning the P-47.

A test was conducted between a 190A5 and a P-47D4 with Water injection in December 1943. The 190 was in excellent condition. Following is an excerpt of the document of which I have a scan of the original if anyone wishes to look at it I will e-mail them.

>>>>>>>>>

3) Turning

a) Turning and handling in excess of 250mph. The two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible and alternating the turns first left then right. The P-47 easily out-turned the FW190 at 10,000 ft and had to throttle back in order to keep from overrunning the FW190. The superiority of the P-47 in turning increased with altitude. The FW190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively and tended to black out the pilot.
b) Turning and handling below 250mph. Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the airplanes to accelerate. In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang on its propellor and turn inside the P-47.

<<<<<<<<<<<

What these comparisons between the P-47, the 109 and the 190 show, is that the P-47, while inferior at low speeds, had distinct advantages in high speed maneuver, something which particularly suited it for combat at high altitudes or in maneuver which occurred in high speed dives from altitude.

During 1943, the primary American Fighter Groups used in escort missions for the B-17 were equipped with the P-47C and D, primarily the early D models. (comparable to the D-10) Yet they were able to fight very effectively against the Luftwaffe interceptors, at a time when the Luftwaffe had a quite favourable ratio of interceptors to escorts. The U.S.A.A.F only had 3 Fighter Groups during the summer of 1943, which were the 4th, 56th and 78th Fighter Groups, all equipped with P-47's. These Groups totalled approximately 150 fighter aircraft. The number of P-47 groups increased to 7 by November of 1943. That would be approximately 350 aircraft. Compare that to the number of interceptors available to the Germans.


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943

NorthWest Europe (France, Belgium, Holland and Germany, does not include Mediterranean) : 1045 aircraft


While it is clear that not all these Luftwaffe fighters would be available for interception, it is also clear that the Germans were not outnumbered. Neither did they have the disadvantage of inferior pilots as they did later in the war. These were experienced well trained pilots.

Between the first missions of the P-47's on April 8th 1943, and November of 1943, the USAAF official records have the P-47's with a claimed record of 237 enemy aircraft shot down for a loss of 73 P-47's. Even if we accept that there was some overclaiming, we can still see that the P-47's are being successful in combat. And this is with models similar to the P-47D-10, without the paddle blade propellor or higher horsepower engine.

The P-47's remained the main escort aircraft through the rest of 1943, and into the first six months of 1944. The first P-51 Fighter Group did not arrive until mid December 1943, and there was only two P-51 Groups in February and March of 1944 when the intensity of combat between the USAAF escorts and the German interceptors was the highest. 85% of the USAAF escorts were P-47's during this period. Most of them were the early 'Razorback' D models, upgraded with water injection and paddle blade propellors.

The combats that were fought at this time occurred at the altitude that the B-17's bombed from. The B-17's normally flew at between 18,000 and 26,000 ft, depending on how deep within Europe their target was. The average was 24,000 ft. At these altitudes, the P-47's were very successful. It was not a case of the P-47 only performing well up at 35,000 ft. According to the records of the Fighter Groups involved, they inflicted more than 10 times the losses on the German escorts, as they suffered in return.

The leading USAAF Fighter pilots flew P-47's. Among those were Francis 'Gabby' Gabreski who scored 28 kills, and Robert Johnson who scored 27. Both of these pilots flew during the period March 1943 to May-July 1944, when the Luftwaffe was still very strong and when its pilots had the most experience. Both of these U.S. pilots were finished with combat by July, so they did not have the opportunity to shoot down the young poorly trained Luftwaffe pilots in late 1944 and 1945. A very large number of the U.S. Aces were P-47 pilots.

Salute RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:44 AM
What a load of crap! I have rarely seen such a collection of distorted facts. If I have the time I may respond, though I don't think it's necessary.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:49 AM
First you don't mention that P-47B was not considered combat ready. It had a lot problems resulting in at least 40 aicraft lost and many pilot lives. Also it was redesignated as RP-47B, were "R" stood for "Restricted", meaning it should not be used in combat.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:54 AM
Salute Huck

Go back and read the post.

No where do I say the P-47B was used in combat.

And in any case, the comparison is made between later model early to mid 1944 P-47's and early to mid 1944 109's and 190's.

If you have any facts to disprove my post, please provide them.

My sources for the P-47 are official USAAF documents and 'AMERICA'S HUNDRED THOUSAND".

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:56 AM
Also you say that USAAF realized the limitations of short range fighters. When did that happen Buzzsaw? At that time USAAF firmly believed that its armada of heavily armed bombers could do the job without escort fighters. And they tried (even in '43!) with catastrophic losses on their own side.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:58 AM
You do not use the correct weights. We already had that discussion and you still insist on these numbers. I'll post the correct data soon.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:09 AM
Message Edited on 06/19/0304:10AM by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:18 AM
I am completely overwhelmed, there is not a single proposition without something distorted, misleading or plain wrong.

Again Bf-109G6 weights from finish sources with external tank attached (and probably with outboard cannons too). It weights 350kg more!!. Then data for A8. 1700hp??!, that was only the first batch, all of them had 2050hp at 1.65ATA. Also all of the A8 intended for high altitude use had GM-1 installed. High alt G6 had GM-1 also (in '43). But since you want a comparison for '44 aircraft compare Bf-109G6/AS and later with your beloved but underperforming plane.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:20 AM
Hey Huck, if you get the Bf-109's "numbers" right, will it change the fact that the P-47 defeated it historically?




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:24 AM
cowace2 wrote:
- Hey Huck, if you get the Bf-109's "numbers" right,
- will it change the fact that the P-47 defeated it
- historically?

Yes P-47 defeated Bf-109 historically when outnumbered it by 10 to 1.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:33 AM
Salute Huck

I've already proved with the first post on this thread that the Luftwaffe wasn't outnumbered on the first days of the Ardennes Offensive, and also had surprise on their side.

Yet they got their butts kicked.

You keep complaining about my figures, well post something, and quote a source.

Yes, the weight figure for the G6 may be high, but that was the only original document online source available. If you want to provide another, then fine, provide it.

In any case, the issue is high speed maneuverability when the 109 is considered, and I have already clearly documented that the P-47 had an advantage at high speeds.

Provide some facts.

Unless I am mistaken, and the Luftwaffe really did win the war, but kindly handed over their planes to the Allies in a fit of generosity... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:40 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Yes P-47 defeated Bf-109 historically when
- outnumbered it by 10 to 1.


It has been very clearly documented in this thread that this is not the case. I'll take the word of a published source over yours, as you have not even tried to substantiate your laughable claims.

You're just going to end up embarassing yourself in this thread as you do in most, arguing turn times and aspect ratios in a desperate attempt to change in historical truth that the P-47 was a vastly superior war machine to the Bf-109.



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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

Message Edited on 06/18/0311:41PM by cowace2

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:43 AM
The numbers used aren't reflecting the reality of Operation Bodenplatte. The majority of those German losses occured from their own AAA. Seems command forgot to coordinate, secrecy seemed more important, so many attacking air units were hammered with fatalities on the way too and from their targets by freindly ground forces. They weren't told to avoid their heavy flack, many made a huge mistake that morning. Can't blame their gunners, how often did they see their own forces overhead, let alone flying low level attack. Quite a collossal blunder.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:48 AM
One thing i've discovered about Huck. You can debate (kind word) with Huck, and at some point, he'll just stop posting. He will never, ever, admit he's wrong.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:54 AM
Somebody fix the damn broken record, oh, it's only Huck. My bad.

Apples anyone? Peaches give me gas.

<img src=http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/219643/GCS0705copy.JPG>

<Center> I had a cool signature here, but obviously the word document is vulgar.</Center>


<Center> In case you need it spelled out, I am still a Blitzpig. That's B-L-I-T-Z-P-I-G</Center>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:57 AM
BfHeFwMe wrote:
- The numbers used aren't reflecting the reality of
- Operation Bodenplatte. The majority of those German
- losses occured from their own AAA. Seems command
- forgot to coordinate, secrecy seemed more important,
- so many attacking air units were hammered with
- fatalities on the way too and from their targets by
- freindly ground forces. They weren't told to avoid
- their heavy flack, many made a huge mistake that
- morning. Can't blame their gunners, how often did
- they see their own forces overhead, let alone flying
- low level attack. Quite a collossal blunder.


I was waiting for someone to point that out /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:11 AM
Salute

Someone better wake up and smell the coffee.

Don't like the fact that the Luftwaffe Flak shot down some German Fighters during Bodenplatte?

Gee, and I thought we were talking about war.

That's right, each side makes its plans and takes their chances.

The Luftwaffe was stupid enough to try to destroy the US 9th and British 2nd TAF on the ground and got its nose bloody.

Shouldn't count? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Right...

Plenty of Allied pilots were shot down by their own AA too. Including by the way, the leading P-51 Ace of the European Theater, George Preddy.

http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/preddy.htm


Salute Buzzsaw





Message Edited on 06/19/0305:17AM by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:24 AM
Hittson wrote:
- Somebody fix the damn broken record, oh, it's only
- Huck. My bad.


You could have the same kill record with crop dusters. Doesn't matter what plane you have when you enjoy an overwhelming superiority in numbers.
USAAF ETO fuel consumption in January '45 was roughly 208.000 thousand liters. I don't know the numbers for RAF or VVS in the same period. Germany production from october till the end of war was less than 55.000 thousand liters each month (all fuel types together), and there were no fuel stocks from September '44. I don't know what procent from total production was available to LW but I imagine it was very small, surely less than half, let's say 20.000 thousand liters (though that's much anyway).
In conclusion in January '45 with less than 20.000 thousand liters available LW had to face USAAF, RAF and VVS, when USAAF alone consumed 208.000 thousand liters in the same time span. 10 to 1 in the sky? NO, probably 20 to 1.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

Message Edited on 06/19/0312:39AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:24 AM
BuzzU wrote:

- I want to see how many German aces lived through
- the war. There were an alot of them. I thought I
- read 60-70% of them made it. We know they all had to
- fight to the end. So if they lived, they were
- flying.


Buzz think of it like this if the p47,p51 and so on were so good how is it that so many aces did survive should they not have been shot down and killed by the uber p- fighters?

Could it be that the skills of the pilot realy is what makes the differance and not the plane itself?

Placeing one ace in a flight of rookies wont help one little bit just look at the example from Hartman,he survived but the rest of the group was killed.

Just how many American pilots went to war with less than 20hr's training ?

Come on be honest I dare you to say that if the americans whent to war with so little training the result would still be the same.No aeroplane ever built can make up for a lack of skills.

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:51 AM
Salute

Have a look at my post again Huck and consider once more how many aircraft were opposing each other on December 17th over the Ardennes.

>>>>>>>


Strength of Luftwaffenkommando West was:


Single engined Fighters: 1770

Ground Attack aircraft: 155

Night Ground Attack aircraft: 135

Twin Engined Fighters: 140

Reconnaisance aircraft: 55

Level Bombers: 55

Jet Aircraft: 40

Total Available: 2360 aircraft. All except to Jagdgruppes, JG300 and JG301, committed to "Wacht Am Rhein".


Allied


9th US Tactical Air Force (dedicated to ground support from North to South, American 9th, 1st, 3rd and 7th Armies and Free French 1st Army)

Fighters: 1,502

Medium Bombers: 1,111

Recon: 111


8th US Strategic Air Force

Fighters: 1,234

Heavy Bombers: 2,710


2nd British Tactical Airforce


Fighters: 999

Med Bombers: 293

Recon: 194


RAF Bomber Command (dedicated to attacks on German Industrial targets)

Heavy Bombers: 1,871


<<<<<<<<<<<

Ok so what were the odds?


Add the fighters


German:

1770 Fighters in Jagdgruppes + 155 FW190's in Ground attack Staffels + 140 Twin engined Fighters + 40 Me262's.

Subtract the approx. 240 aircraft, call it 250 aircraft in Jagdgruppes 300 and 301 assigned to homeland defence. (a generous OOB for these)

What do we get: Approx. 1855 German Fighter aircraft.


Allied

1502 Fighters in 9th Air Force + 1234 Fighters in 8th Air Force + 999 Fighters in British 2nd TAF.

What do we get: 3735 Allied Fighter aircraft.


My,my, that's almost 2-1 odds. Where do you get your 10-1?

Plus the fact was, on December 17th, the day in question, the 8th Air Force was grounded. So subtract 1,234 Allied Fighters, that leaves 2501 Allied Fighters.

Now the odds are barely over 1.5 - 1

Now subtract all the British and U.S. Aircraft which were occupied with other areas of the front other than the US 1st Army on December 17th. Remember, of all these Air units, only the 9th USAAF is actually tasked to support the 1st Army front in the Ardennes. Plus the 9th was also supporting Patton's 3rd Army drive towards the Roer dams, and the 7th Army in the Saarland.

What do we end up with? At best 1-1, more likely an advantage for the German side.

And yes, the Luftwaffe got its butt kicked.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:56 AM
Once again Buzzsaw, count sorties on each side not the planes available on the ground. LW never lacked planes.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:07 AM
Salute Huck

The figures I quoted are for aircraft available, piloted, and ready in combat Staffels. Not empty aircraft in warehouses.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:08 AM
I can provide the number of sorties flown by USAAF in January '45 in ETO. You give me the number of sorties flown by the LW. Sorties made by RAF and VVS will be nice to know too, but numbers on german side will be good enough for a rough comparison.
It's not important how many aircraft were combat ready on the ground, air combat is not fighting inside hangars. Count those in the air.


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

Message Edited on 06/19/0301:12AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:10 AM
Well how many sorties for the LW Huck? Or are you going to have someone else do the work for you, again?


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Once again Buzzsaw, count sorties on each side not
- the planes available on the ground. LW never lacked
- planes.
-




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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:16 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Well how many sorties for the LW Huck? Or are you
- going to have someone else do the work for you,
- again?


No buddy, Buzzsaw said that LW outnumbered the allies in the air without providing the numbers. I can bring the sorties for USAAF, somebody bring the them for LW. I made a rough comparison for fuel consumption, and it clearly indicates that Allies had an overwhelming air superiority. But if still there are doubts let's see the numbers of sorties compared. Can you do such comparison?

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:17 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-
- Hittson wrote:
---
--
-- How do you put skill in the equatio when a plane
-- gets nailed by two 20mm flak guns and still makes it
-- home??? And what about the plane getting to near
-- mach speeds in a dive???
--
- If I remember correctly some versions of the Jug
- actually did break Mach speed when diving.
-

In the thread about marceles mark .9 dive in the spitfire was full of people sayin its impossible to reach that in a prop plane :P, dont expect anyone to belive it brake march speed which i assume u mean mark 1.



http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:24 AM
I saw in this book somewhere that there was, like, this German guy.

And it said he like, shot down, like, 68 Spitfires or something.

And I like, thought, like, "wow, that's an awful lot of Spitfires for one person to like, shoot down."

Why didn't he like, share or something?


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:27 AM
I always heard that the opening attack of Bodenplatte consisted of around 400-500 German planes in total, although most of these were fighters, and that they lost over 100 to their own AAA. But then what do i know about this.

Another thing to point out about USAAF vs. LW anti bomber missions was that the LW fighters were often tasked and told not to engage the fighter escorts but the bombers only, which may partially describe 10-1 k/l ratios. I think its also clear that a very good percentage of LW fighters were brought down by the massed bomber formations themselves during these raids. Also remember many of the kills being reported were obsolete LW planes being 'used up' as heavy fighters, such as the 110/220s.

Off topic, but whats the biggest problem with the flight models IL2 (imo) is that they take a very 'Soviet' view of aircraft development and don't seem to consider engine output as much as overall weight. If a plane is light, unarmored, and aerodynamic, its fast and maneuverable. If its heavily armed and armored, its slow and unmaneuverable. It doesn't seem to matter if the Yak3 has a 1200 hp engine or the FW a 1500 or the Jug a 2000.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 09:20 AM
- Doesn't matter what plane you have when you
- enjoy an overwhelming superiority in numbers.
- USAAF ETO fuel consumption in January '45 was
- roughly 208.000 thousand liters. I don't know the
- numbers for RAF or VVS in the same period. Germany
- production from october till the end of war was less
- than 55.000 thousand liters each month (all fuel
- types together), and there were no fuel stocks from
- September '44. I don't know what procent from total
- production was available to LW but I imagine it was
- very small, surely less than half, let's say 20.000
- thousand liters (though that's much anyway).
- In conclusion in January '45 with less than 20.000
- thousand liters available LW had to face USAAF, RAF
- and VVS, when USAAF alone consumed 208.000 thousand
- liters in the same time span. 10 to 1 in the sky?
- NO, probably 20 to 1.


So let me get this straight, Huckeroo. Let's just assume for the hell of it that all your figures are correct. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, your proposition that the Allied fighters only defeated the Luftwaffe because they had enormously superior numbers and fuel and all that.

So what you're saying, then, is that these Germans you admire so much started a war and took on a bunch of countries with overwhelmingly superior production facilities and natural resources.

So what does that make your beloved Herrenvolk?

Everything you're saying adds up, logically, to this: "The Germans built great airplanes but they were really, really STUPID."

Are you sure that's what you want to say? Because that's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from your argument: These guys were so damn dumb that they started a war they were mathematically bound to lose.

I'm really surprised to hear you say that, but I certainly won't argue the point with you. Whatever you say.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 09:36 AM
This thread is incredible...

Alot of people dont realize that single pilots dont determine the outcome of a war.

War is determined pretty much by strategic prewar planning and, in the case of WWII, sheer strength and amount of production (Neither of which Germany had, and dont say the 1000 year reich was a plan, it was a farce and YOU KNOW IT!) shortly after comes the training and mindset of individual soldiers:

Are they motivated? Do they want to win? Are they willing to violently kill their enemy and are they willing to risk death to do it?

There was a point to this post but I've lost it I think, I just hope you get some idea of what I'm trying to say.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 09:43 AM
Blind_Joe_Death wrote:

- So let me get this straight, Huckeroo. Let's just
- assume for the hell of it that all your figures are
- correct. Let's grant, for the sake of argument,
- your proposition that the Allied fighters only
- defeated the Luftwaffe because they had enormously
- superior numbers and fuel and all that.
-
- So what you're saying, then, is that these Germans
- you admire so much started a war and took on a bunch
- of countries with overwhelmingly superior production
- facilities and natural resources.
-
- So what does that make your beloved Herrenvolk?
-
- Everything you're saying adds up, logically, to
- this: "The Germans built great airplanes but they
- were really, really STUPID."
-
- Are you sure that's what you want to say? Because
- that's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn
- from your argument: These guys were so damn dumb
- that they started a war they were mathematically
- bound to lose.
-
- I'm really surprised to hear you say that, but I
- certainly won't argue the point with you. Whatever
- you say.


Most people would agree that the german people were Very badly lead at the top.

But this does not mean the men in the air were stupid from what I understand they kept on fighting to save what they could of thier homeland.Most understood that if they failed to beat the english only bad would come of it.And then to take on the russians as well that was the last nail in the coffin

IMHO the war was lost the day the battle of brittan finished.

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 10:25 AM
Maybe you guys are right - maybe P47 was a great fighter superior to Me109.


IMO there`s no point in discussing real life.I don`t think P47 will change "strongly" after the patch.Dive speed,roll rate and zoom climb need fixing.Ok.But the fact that FB has a ceiling(not the real ceiling - above 9000m every plane loses performance at the same rate) of 9000m where P47 wasn`t the best.


Tell me Yankwhiners.Are you going to continue ranting if 1.1v P47 won`t fly like in your books?



So I will rant some too.
FIX THE DAMN MK108 - IT WAS ONE-TWO SHOT KILLER IN RL!!!LW MGs ARE FECKING USELESS - FIX IT!!!FIX MG151/20!!FIX THE FW190 - IT`S FECKING PATHETIC!!

Thank you.

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 10:31 AM
Blind_Joe_Death wrote:

- So let me get this straight, Huckeroo. Let's just
- assume for the hell of it that all your figures are
- correct. Let's grant, for the sake of argument,
- your proposition that the Allied fighters only
- defeated the Luftwaffe because they had enormously
- superior numbers and fuel and all that.
-
- So what you're saying, then, is that these Germans
- you admire so much started a war and took on a bunch
- of countries with overwhelmingly superior production
- facilities and natural resources.
-
- So what does that make your beloved Herrenvolk?
-
- Everything you're saying adds up, logically, to
- this: "The Germans built great airplanes but they
- were really, really STUPID."
-
- Are you sure that's what you want to say? Because
- that's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn
- from your argument: These guys were so damn dumb
- that they started a war they were mathematically
- bound to lose.
-
- I'm really surprised to hear you say that, but I
- certainly won't argue the point with you. Whatever
- you say.
-


Well Goering was really really really STUPID. When You look at the weird missions he always promised to Hitler he'll fullfil lol. BoB for instance. They wasted a big part of their airforce because this guy had absolutely no idea what he was doing. the Stalingrad air suppot. Goering said in the trials later he was to afraid to tell Hitler that he can't do it. and so on. Has nothing to do with the Jug but i just wanted to support your idea of a stupid LW command.

As for the German planes. If you are honest you have to say that they had a nice quality. The german engines were great no doubt. another thing is that the ordered planes were sometimes weird. In the beginning they didn't produce any good bombers cause hitler said every new built bomber has to have 2 engines and be able to divebomb. when they realized that they would have needed bigger ones it was too late for them. same thing about the 262. it was produced years after it would have been flyable because they thought they don't need it lol.

As for the Jug: It IS a nice plane. can do nearly everything. perfect allround plane. just like the FWs.but to be honest the high kill ratio of the JUG IS a result of inferior numbers of german planes in the air. Most german fighters were destroyed by Jugs, but on the ground. In 44 the german LW never appeared in great numbers in the air simply cause they had no resources to do so. The story about the 4 planes shooting all the attacking Me is nice but doesn't tell anything about overall combat situation. There are many stories of some pilots reporting that they shot many enemy planes thou they were a minority in that combat. You'll find such stories from german, russian, british and american pilots. they were lucky at that moment. this is no defence of the LW. just trying to show that the combat situation was different. many american pilots in 44 said they never saw any LW planes because they were not operating in big numbers. all they did was attacking bombers even ignoring the escort. they had really low numbers operating. and once again. Most planes shot by the JUG were planes on the ground! it was a great plane but not THE plane and i think it is modelled quite nicely. except for the rollrate.

I got the impression everyone started to scream around lately if he gets shot online. First this FW cockpit visibility simply got out of hand. and everyone started to whine it is impossible to fly it. I fly tthe A8 every day online and i have no problems with visibility. Now it's time to start to whine about the Jug? come on, just because a plane does not perform like you'd dream it to do. I can't wait for the Pony. There will hardly be any post which is not like: the p51 is a UFO why not modelled in FB?


http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 10:43 AM
Gershy wrote:
-
- Blind_Joe_Death wrote:
-
-- So let me get this straight, Huckeroo. Let's just
-- assume for the hell of it that all your figures are
-- correct. Let's grant, for the sake of argument,
-- your proposition that the Allied fighters only
-- defeated the Luftwaffe because they had enormously
-- superior numbers and fuel and all that.
--
-- So what you're saying, then, is that these Germans
-- you admire so much started a war and took on a bunch
-- of countries with overwhelmingly superior production
-- facilities and natural resources.
--
-- So what does that make your beloved Herrenvolk?
--
-- Everything you're saying adds up, logically, to
-- this: "The Germans built great airplanes but they
-- were really, really STUPID."
--
-- Are you sure that's what you want to say? Because
-- that's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn
-- from your argument: These guys were so damn dumb
-- that they started a war they were mathematically
-- bound to lose.
--
-- I'm really surprised to hear you say that, but I
-- certainly won't argue the point with you. Whatever
-- you say.
--
-
-
- Well Goering was really really really STUPID. When
- You look at the weird missions he always promised to
- Hitler he'll fullfil lol. BoB for instance. They
- wasted a big part of their airforce because this guy
- had absolutely no idea what he was doing. the
- Stalingrad air suppot. Goering said in the trials
- later he was to afraid to tell Hitler that he can't
- do it. and so on. Has nothing to do with the Jug but
- i just wanted to support your idea of a stupid LW
- command.
-
- As for the German planes. If you are honest you have
- to say that they had a nice quality. The german
- engines were great no doubt. another thing is that
- the ordered planes were sometimes weird. In the
- beginning they didn't produce any good bombers cause
- hitler said every new built bomber has to have 2
- engines and be able to divebomb. when they realized
- that they would have needed bigger ones it was too
- late for them. same thing about the 262. it was
- produced years after it would have been flyable
- because they thought they don't need it lol.
-
- As for the Jug: It IS a nice plane. can do nearly
- everything. perfect allround plane. just like the
- FWs.but to be honest the high kill ratio of the JUG
- IS a result of inferior numbers of german planes in
- the air. Most german fighters were destroyed by
- Jugs, but on the ground. In 44 the german LW never
- appeared in great numbers in the air simply cause
- they had no resources to do so. The story about the
- 4 planes shooting all the attacking Me is nice but
- doesn't tell anything about overall combat
- situation. There are many stories of some pilots
- reporting that they shot many enemy planes thou they
- were a minority in that combat. You'll find such
- stories from german, russian, british and american
- pilots. they were lucky at that moment. this is no
- defence of the LW. just trying to show that the
- combat situation was different. many american pilots
- in 44 said they never saw any LW planes because they
- were not operating in big numbers. all they did was
- attacking bombers even ignoring the escort. they had
- really low numbers operating. and once again. Most
- planes shot by the JUG were planes on the ground! it
- was a great plane but not THE plane and i think it
- is modelled quite nicely. except for the rollrate.
-
- I got the impression everyone started to scream
- around lately if he gets shot online. First this FW
- cockpit visibility simply got out of hand. and
- everyone started to whine it is impossible to fly
- it. I fly tthe A8 every day online and i have no
- problems with visibility. Now it's time to start to
- whine about the Jug? come on, just because a plane
- does not perform like you'd dream it to do. I can't
- wait for the Pony. There will hardly be any post
- which is not like: the p51 is a UFO why not modelled
- in FB?
-

Amen mate! (Except for I believe they should fix the 190-gunsight.. raise the pilot head a couple of inches and it would do miracles!
)

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:21 PM
RedDeth wrote:.
- ............................ THATS BECAUSE THE
- P-47 IS UNDERMODELLED.

It's roll rate is, but it seems fairly capable, just
tricky to use as it is such a BnZ machine, and it is
fairly slow and vulnerable in the low level TnB fests
that DF servers often are. DF servers tend to be an
undiscplined mess of what is, in many ways, poor
tactics. The P47 just seems to suffer worst from poor
tactics at low level that some other aircraft.
.
- jugs are porked plain and simple. anytime they get
- below 6000 meters a Conga line of enemy fighters
- appears behind it!"place conga music here". because
- the jug is too slow

The jug should be slow at low level, about 30mph
behind the P51B at sea level.

- and it cant turn

It doesn't turn well, but it will turn if you are
careful with it. It doesn't turn quite as well as
the Fw190, though.

Basically if you are on your own, and not winging
in a squadron, then going down low is not a good
plan in a P47. Doing so alone wasn't a smart move
in WW2, and similarly it isn't in FB either.

Comparing a well trained unit at high level where
the P47 does best, and comparing the results with
a rabble at low level is comparing chalk and cheese.
You can get chewed to pieces in Yaks at low level
in FB by a well-organised group.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:24 PM
Hittson wrote:
- If you fix the roll, bump the speed up a notch, put
- the dive speed higher than anyting in the game

Hmmm - the RAF felt that the Tempest V outdived
anything else they tested it against...

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 12:26 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- OK, we need to get this straight. I keep hearing
- guys say there were nothing but crap pilots left for
- the LW, and that's why it doesn't matter if you beat
- them. (sort of like the Russians in the beginning of
- the war huh?)
-
- I want to see how many German aces lived through
- the war. There were an alot of them. I thought I
- read 60-70% of them made it. We know they all had to
- fight to the end. So if they lived, they were
- flying.

That a few exceptional pilots managed to survive
tells us little about the average quality of the pilots.
It's like saying that because the Rolling Stones are
still going, all 1960s bands were as good.

- The LW guys crack me up. If it's not the crap
- planes they have,

They tend to say the reverse.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 01:25 PM
Once again, this board has to witness the efforts of Buzzspawn to prove how bad LW aircraft was... Once again he tries to present "facts" based on uneven comparisons, and with bad data.

In the following, I will attempt to correct all his errors . It`s a long process, but one cannot just pass along so much of dishonesty.



-
- Myth #1: The P-47 had high wingloading and poor
- powerloading.
-

Not myth, a fact. Below, Buzzspawn attempts to prove this by doing strange comparisons, grantedly with wrong data for German fighters, and comparing late, heavier German types with early, lighter P-47 types... very strange comparison one must say!

Still, if we compare power to weight ratios, and wingloading of contemporary 109s and P-47s, the latter gets the low end of stick every time:

109G-2 of 1942/43:

Weight, TO: 3100 kg / 6828 lbs
Wing area: 16.05 m2 / 172 sq.ft.
Power: 1475 HP

thus:
Wingloading: 39.7 lbs/sqft
Powerloading: 4.63 lbs/HP

P-47D-10 of 1942/43 (using Buzzspawns data for simplicity)


Weight, TO: 13 677 lbs
Wing area: 300 sq.ft
Power: 2300 HP

thus:
Wingloading : 45.59 lbs / Sq/ft
Powerloading 6.83 lbs / HP


and a late 109K-4 and P-47D-40 from 1944:

109K-4

Weight: 3362kg / 7405 lbs
Wing area: 172 sq. ft.
Power: 2000 HP

thus
Wingloading: 43 lbs / sq. ft.
Powerloading: 3.7lbs / HP


P-47D25-D40
Weight, TO: 14,441 lbs
Wing area: 300 sq. ft.
Power: 2600 HP

thus:
Wingloading: 48.14 lbs per Sq/ft
Powerloading : 5.55 lbs per hp



In both cases the powerloading is approx. 50% (!!!) higher for the 109, and wingloading is also better by approx. 15%.

Not a myth, but a well developed FACT.



- Range fully loaded: 750 Statue miles. This
- compares very favourably to aircraft such as the
- 109G6 which had a range without drop tank of 450
- miles, or a 109K4, which had a range of 365 miles.

Wrong, Bf 109K-4 had a range of 450 miles as well without droptank, and a range of 780 miles with droptank (G-6 range with droptank similiar). If the rear fuel tank of K-4 was also used together with a single droptank, range was 910 miles.

You shouldn`t keep repeated wrong data, since you were told dozens of times about this. Thus mislead others, buzzspawn. Is that intended?

-
- The 109K4 was rated at an endurance of 50 minutes,
- which is an incredibly short time for a fighter.
-

Again we have Buzzspawn`s "strange" data... Endurance of the 109K-4 was 90 minutes w/o droptank, 150 minutes w. a sngle droptank, 185 minutes with droptank and rear aux. tank used for fuel.

It`s not hard to understand why Buzzspawn uses such wrong data... to fit his arguement (and to kick LW planes a bit, he enjoys that it seems).



- Some comparison with German aircraft may be helpful
- at this point.

Under this section, Buzzspawn has these very strange errors:

-He qouted 3500 kg takeoff weight instead of the real 3150 kg for the 109G-6, in order to get worser powerloadings and wingloadings.

-He had also claimed higher weigth for the FW190A-8 (4385 kg instead of the real 4300kg). In addition, he had also made a ridiculus claim about the A-8 having only 1700HP - whereas in reality it had 2100HP (he simply left out standard boosters for 190A-8s...)



-
- (note: Many German or Soviet Fighter aircraft could
- not even reach 500mph without disintegrating. The
- fact that the P-47 was able to maneuver up to 500mph
- is indicative of its excellent high speed
- characteristics even in the early P-47C model)
-


This is complete rubbish, 500mph dive limits, and distintegration... ridiculus! Buzzspawn often makes such blanket statements.

In dive test a Me 109F already reached 906 km/h (562mph).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109F%20dives.jpg


As an indicative of high-speed elevator control, it took 1300m altitude to pull up this 109 from a 70-80 degree vertical dive at 900+ km/h, after the pullout was initiated.



British ADFU tests on FW 190A-3 tell about 934 km/h (580 mph) reached in dives without problems.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/pro_190_dive.jpg



I cannot think any other of the "many" German fighters than 109s and 190s... Both of these showed great capability to reach high speeds in dives.


It would be better in the future if Buzzspawn could support his unfounded statements with documents like these so at least he`s statements would have some little credibility!


-
- The Finns also listed a maximum dive speed of 750
- kph for the late model 109G6. That is only 468 mph
- and indicates the chances of recovery with the
- aircraft decreased considerably at higher speeds.
-

Another half-truth of Buzzspawn... true that the dive speed limit of the 109 was 750 km/h - INDICATED AIR SPEED, and not TRUE airspeed!

TRUE airspeed is always much higher than indicated airspeed, as altitude increases. For example, at 10 000 ft, true airspeed is already 20% higher


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

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

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

Message Edited on 06/19/0306:09PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:20 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You could have the same kill record with crop
- dusters. Doesn't matter what plane you have when you
- enjoy an overwhelming superiority in numbers.
- USAAF ETO fuel consumption in January '45 was
- roughly 208.000 thousand liters. I don't know the
- numbers for RAF or VVS in the same period. Germany
- production from october till the end of war was less
- than 55.000 thousand liters each month (all fuel
- types together), and there were no fuel stocks from
- September '44. I don't know what procent from total
- production was available to LW but I imagine it was
- very small, surely less than half, let's say 20.000
- thousand liters (though that's much anyway).
- In conclusion in January '45 with less than 20.000
- thousand liters available LW had to face USAAF, RAF
- and VVS, when USAAF alone consumed 208.000 thousand
- liters in the same time span. 10 to 1 in the sky?
- NO, probably 20 to 1.


Fuel consumption is completely irrelevant. The Luftwaffe was not operating thousands of 4 engined heavy bombers on a daily basis, and its fighters were not flying thousand mile sorties.

Given the 109's tiny fuel tank and the fact that they were flying in a purely defensive role (meaning their sorties were very short), it is very natural to assume that Luftwaffe fuel consumption would be much smaller than the USAAF's.

That is laughably inconclusive proof that the Luftwaffe was outnumbered. I also like how you didn't bother to provide a source. In fact, you haven't provided one in this entire thread.




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 02:24 PM
I once read in an interview of some P-47 pilot that even attemting to dogfight a BF109 1on1 was suicide. Using good tactics with a wingman was needed to even stand a chance.

Can't seem to find the link anymore...

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:19 PM
Hi guys!

Interesting discussion....

Just for the record, the Germans didn't PLAN to take on the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the United States ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It just ended up that way.

Precisely how this happened is a fascinating subject in its own right, one to which I have already committed more than three decades of study. And I'm still learning!

I shouldn't digress from the topic of this thread, should I?

Could make a good subject for another thread!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:20 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Once again, this board has to witness the sad
- efforts of Buzzspawn`s revisionist history.
-

Buzzsaw was very up front with his sources for data. He even said the P-47's power loading was not as good as the 109s.


Why did you leave out the stats on the Dora-9?

wing loading > 233.33kg/m^2
power ratio > 3.38kg/kW



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


Message Edited on 06/20/0304:24AM by Tully__

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:48 PM
Great stuff Buzzsaw. And excellent research.

The amount of bull some pilots are posting here is amazing. No wonder there seems to be so much confusion as to the real performance characteristics of these aircraft.

For you guys who were wondering, the P-47 was the first U.S. frontline fighter in the European theater.

Gabreski, Robert Johnson and the 56th flew this FM in '43 against many of the best pilots in the Luftwaffe at the time(JG 2 and JG 26, Abbeville).

As a matter of fact Robert S. Johnson's 5th victory was an Fw-190 piloted by none other than Hans Philipp, a 206-victory ace from the Russian Front and the leader of JG.1.

Only 0.7 per cent of P-47's dispatched against the enemy were lost in combat. It's air to air kill to loss ratio by the end of the war was 11-1.


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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 03:55 PM
James_Gang wrote:
-
- As a matter of fact Robert S. Johnson's 5th victory
- was an Fw-190 piloted by none other than Hans
- Philipp, a 206-victory ace from the Russian Front
- and the leader of JG.1.

That's a nice story to tell your kids, but Hans Philipp was shot down by bombers.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:12 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

"James_Gang wrote:
-
- As a matter of fact Robert S. Johnson's 5th victory
- was an Fw-190 piloted by none other than Hans
- Philipp, a 206-victory ace from the Russian Front
- and the leader of JG.1.

That's a nice story to tell your kids, but Hans Philipp was shot down by bombers."


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

No need to spread disinformation Huck. Let's read it from someone who was there that day.


Not long before he passed away in December, 1998, Robert S. Johnson was interviewed by Colin D. Heaton, of Military History magazine. Excerpts of that interview follow:


MH: I understand that Oberstleutnant Hans Philipp, leader of JG.1, was one of your victories?

Robert S. Johnson: That was on October 8, 1943. My wingman and I had become separated, as sometimes happens in combat. We were trying to find some friendly airplanes to fly home with. I had just shot down a Messerschmitt Bf-110, which was my fourth kill. As I pulled up from that dive I saw four FW-190s attacking the bombers. I rolled over until I was upside down so I could watch them, as they were some 5,000 feet below me. I was inverted and continued my dive, shooting while pushing the nose forward to give the necessary lead for my bullets to intercept one of the planes. I was shooting at the leader, and his number three or four man pulled his nose up, shooting at me as I was coming down. I continued the attack, and just as I hit the leader, knocking him down, I felt a thump in my airplane. How badly I was hit I didn't know, as I was very busy. I leveled out after that, and I found out 50 years later that my fifth victory was Hans Philipp, a 206-victory ace from the Russian Front. I pulled up right in the path of a group of Bf-110s and FW-190s coming in behind the four I had engaged. I immediately threw the stick left and dropped the nose. Nothing happened when I hit left rudder, and then I knew that my rudder cable was shot away. I had no rudder control at all, only trim tabs.



http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_rsj.html



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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:17 PM
On October 8th, 1943 while leading JG1 against a daylight raid by USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress's, Philipp was shot down by escorting Republic P-47 Thunderbolts of the USAAF 56th Fighter Group. Details are sketchy as to who shot him down and how it happened. From one historian - "Re-knowned P-47 ace Robert S. Johnson followed four Focke-Wulf Fw-190's into a bomber formation and fired on the lead plane. Several hits were scored and plane started going down. Johnson was then attacked by two of the other Focke-Wulf's, and was shot up bad himself. Johnson then dove away from the enemy fighters and ran for home. "

And then there is this version - " Several years ago someone tried to establish that Hans Phillip had been shot down by P-47 ace Robert Johnson. I ran this by several Luftwaffe historians. They discount it as their info, apparently Luftwaffe loss records, indicate that Herr Philipp was shot up quite heavily by the American bombers he was attacking. If any P-47 finished him off, it was while his plane was already descending and out of commission. So the German version. "

Well we know which version Huck believes.

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:23 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- Fuel consumption is completely irrelevant. The
- Luftwaffe was not operating thousands of 4 engined
- heavy bombers on a daily basis, and its fighters
- were not flying thousand mile sorties.
-
- Given the 109's tiny fuel tank and the fact that
- they were flying in a purely defensive role (meaning
- their sorties were very short), it is very natural
- to assume that Luftwaffe fuel consumption would be
- much smaller than the USAAF's.
-
- That is laughably inconclusive proof that the
- Luftwaffe was outnumbered. I also like how you
- didn't bother to provide a source. In fact, you
- haven't provided one in this entire thread.


Fuel consumption is very relevant. It means how many planes could be lifted off the ground by each airforce. Sure a 4 engine bomber consumes more than a fighter, but you have to consider that each bomber packs 12 MGs, meaning that LW fighters were terribly outgunned in intercept missions. All german pilots considered bomber attack the most hazardous mission. Bombers crew fire was the biggest danger since no evasive maneuver could guard you against gunners crossfire. Just shot at angle and at range then dive away. So if you want a comparison you have to have the big picture. German fighters were not fighting allied fighters but allied bombers.

Though if you want a pure fighter to fighter comparison you have to compare the patrol/fighter sweep sorties made by both sides. Then compare the kill ratio in those missions. Overall kill ratio comparison is as meaningless as overall fuel consumption comparison.

My data comes from official "Army Air Forces Statistical Digest" archived by AFHRA.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:28 PM
sdreyer wrote:
-
- I once read in an interview of some P-47 pilot that
- even attemting to dogfight a BF109 1on1 was suicide.
- Using good tactics with a wingman was needed to even
- stand a chance.

Bravo! .....

Here is a reason why all the dispute flying back and forth about the combat virtues of the P47 versus the Bf109 is far more entertaining than it is valuable.

True combat value is not -
"plane".

The correct expression of combat value is -
"plane + pilot + tactics + operational environment".

For an interesting example of what this can mean, consider what Lundstrom's fine book THE FIRST TEAM has revealed. During the early Pacific carrier battles (Coral Sea and Midway) the lowly F4 Wildcat, outclassed in almost every major performance category by the A6M2 series Zero-sen, actually enjoyed a superior exchange rate in fighter-versus-fighter combats. What was the cause of this? Certainly not superior pilots, as Japanese naval aviation was at the height of its powers during that period. And certainly not operational environment, as both sides faced essentially the same conditions. It can be argued that it all came down to good tactics - making best use of the virtues of one's aircraft and finding ways to minimize its vulnerabilities.

For the P47, its virtues were prodigious dive, superior zoom climb, and excellent high-speed roll rate. By the use of tactics which favored these virtues, its poor sustained turn and climb rates were minimized to a great degree. In the REAL WORLD (not an on-line flight sim furball) where 80 percent or more of air-to-air kills were the result of bounces, the P47 was quite admirably suited to perform its function as a fighter aircraft. The fact that the Bf109 could outperform the P47 in horizontal sustained turns or in climb rate or in level speed within certain altitude bands was nice, but relatively immaterial to the outcome of a REAL WORLD engagement, where the P47 would generally refuse to dogfight on the 109's terms. Unless caught low and slow, the P47 always retained the option of accepting or declining combat by diving away. This is, in many respects, the same tactical formula used by the Germans in North Africa - bounce from a superior height; dive away; refuse to dogfight the more maneuverable Hurricanes and Hawks. Did such tactics make the Bf109 an "inferior" aircraft?

Tactics, tactics, tactics. The tactics must suit the aircraft and the aircraft must suit the tactics. Different aircraft employ different tactics.

A very reasonable comparison of the virtues of the P47 versus German fighters can be found in the engagements over the French coast during the second half of 1943 and early 1944. The first active P47 groups were pitted against JG26, a well equipped Geschwader of skilled veterans. After a short "breaking-in" period, suffered by all rookies entering real combat for the first time, the P47's gave at least as good as they got in air-to-air combat against the Jagdwaffe's first string. No rookie German pilots. No 10-1 odds against the Germans. No "vulching" over the airfields. No fuel shortages. In fact, the Germans enjoyed a considerable advantage in tactical environment, flying over their own territory with effective radar guided ground control support. Isegrim and Huckebein may feel free to check the numbers for themselves.

IMO, all the lengthy arguments about the experten and their technically superior fighters simply being overwhelmed by countless numbers of dullard opponents flying "inferior" aircraft is largely a pantload of crap. With full citation acknowledgements to the great Manfred von Richtofen, the job of any fighter aircraft is to shoot down its opponents; anything else, including any sort of fancy scientific sounding number spouting sophistry, is crap.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:28 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- On October 8th, 1943 while leading JG1 against a
- daylight raid by USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress's,
- Philipp was shot down by escorting Republic P-47
- Thunderbolts of the USAAF 56th Fighter Group.
- Details are sketchy as to who shot him down and how
- it happened. From one historian - "Re-knowned P-47
- ace Robert S. Johnson followed four Focke-Wulf
- Fw-190's into a bomber formation and fired on the
- lead plane. Several hits were scored and plane
- started going down. Johnson was then attacked by two
- of the other Focke-Wulf's, and was shot up bad
- himself. Johnson then dove away from the enemy
- fighters and ran for home. "
-
- And then there is this version - " Several years ago
- someone tried to establish that Hans Phillip had
- been shot down by P-47 ace Robert Johnson. I ran
- this by several Luftwaffe historians. They discount
- it as their info, apparently Luftwaffe loss records,
- indicate that Herr Philipp was shot up quite heavily
- by the American bombers he was attacking. If any
- P-47 finished him off, it was while his plane was
- already descending and out of commission. So the
- German version. "
-
- Well we know which version Huck believes.

We all know who are those trying to embellish the truth (and sell some books in the process).

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:35 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

"We all know who are those trying to embellish the truth (and sell some books in the process)."

---------

The truth is he got fried.

And he wasn't alone.





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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain


Message Edited on 06/19/0311:36AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:38 PM
BLUTARSKI

Good post. To bad it will fall on deaf ears.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:38 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- sdreyer wrote:
--
-- I once read in an interview of some P-47 pilot that
-- even attemting to dogfight a BF109 1on1 was suicide.
-- Using good tactics with a wingman was needed to even
-- stand a chance.
-
- Bravo! .....
-
- Here is a reason why all the dispute flying back and
- forth about the combat virtues of the P47 versus the
- Bf109 is far more entertaining than it is valuable.


Now that you mentioned it, even Gunther Rall, which held important positions in post war military hierarchy, and had no real inclinations for critical comments on ww2 american equipment, told that P-47 was an easy kill.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

Message Edited on 06/19/0310:41AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:43 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:



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

Here's another excerpt from the interview with Johnson, which indicates the excellent capabilities that the P-47 possessed.


"The RAF fliers helped orient them to combat in the ETO, and on one memorable day, Johnson out-maneuvered a Spitfire pilot,using the Thunderbolt's superior barrel-roll and diving capabilities to get behind the more agile Spitfire. Shortly, the Group moved over to Kings Cliffe airfield, and flew it first combat missions in mid-April, 1943."


If one tries such moves in FB, the P-47 completely leaves controlled flight.




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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:47 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

"Now that you mentioned it, even Gunther Rall, which held important positions in post war military hierarchy, and had no real inclinations for critical comments on ww2 american equipment, told that P-47 was an easy kill."

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

Didn't Hitler state the U.S. was but a paper tiger prior to WW2?

And that razor blades and refrigerators were the only things the Americans were capable of designing, certainly not airplanes.

Must have come as quite a shock to see those B-17's and P-51's over Berlin instead of razor blades and refrigerators, as Goring exclaimed, 'the gig is up'.






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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain



Message Edited on 06/19/03 11:49AM by James_Gang

Message Edited on 06/20/0304:33AM by Tully__

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:48 PM
James_Gang wrote:
- BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
-
-
-------------
-
- Here's another excerpt from the interview with
- Johnson, which indicates the excellent capabilities
- that the P-47 possessed.


P-47 had miserable flying characteristics. Just one more: it had one of the smallest CLmax from all the fighters at that time (only P-39 had a similar one). This is one of the reasons P-47 stalls so easily.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

"P-47 had miserable flying characteristics. Just one more: it had one of the smallest CLmax from all the fighters at that time (only P-39 had a similar one). This is one of the reasons P-47 stalls so easily."


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

The reason it stalls so easily in FB?

Don't waste your time comparing the P-47 modeled in FB with reality.






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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain


Message Edited on 06/19/0311:51AM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:51 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Fuel consumption is very relevant. It means how many
- planes could be lifted off the ground by each
- airforce. Sure a 4 engine bomber consumes more than
- a fighter, but you have to consider that each bomber
- packs 12 MGs, meaning that LW fighters were terribly
- outgunned in intercept missions. All german pilots
- considered bomber attack the most hazardous mission.
- Bombers crew fire was the biggest danger since no
- evasive maneuver could guard you against gunners
- crossfire. Just shot at angle and at range then dive
- away. So if you want a comparison you have to have
- the big picture. German fighters were not fighting
- allied fighters but allied bombers.
-
- Though if you want a pure fighter to fighter
- comparison you have to compare the patrol/fighter
- sweep sorties made by both sides. Then compare the
- kill ratio in those missions. Overall kill ratio
- comparison is as meaningless as overall fuel
- consumption comparison.
-
- My data comes from official "Army Air Forces
- Statistical Digest" archived by AFHRA.



Man, your arguments are such BS. You attempted to argue that the Luftwaffe was outnumbered fighter to fighter because of the disparity in fuel usage...despite the obvious fact that the vast majority of USAAF fuel in the ETO was used by bombers. I called you on that, and now you're saying that fuel usage is still a valid measure of fighter sorties because "bombers have lots of machine guns". That IS NOT RELEVANT.

Your argument doesn't make sense at all, and you know it. I also like how you've "threatened" to post sources/comparisons in this thread already, but never actually do it. You've done that with me a few times before...remember your ludicrous claim that the Luftwaffe had "the best medium bombers and twin engined planes in general"? You really copped out on that claim after I called you on it.


I'm really curious to know why you seem to have this undying need to prove that Luftwaffe aircraft were "better" than everything else. It is absolutely bizarre. I don't see how you can consider yourself a competent historian when EVERYTHING that you say here is so biased.


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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com


Message Edited on 06/19/03 10:54AM by cowace2

Message Edited on 06/20/0304:35AM by Tully__

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 04:52 PM
James_Gang wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
- "P-47 had miserable flying characteristics. Just one
- more: it had one of the smallest CLmax from all the
- fighters at that time (only P-39 had a similar one).
- This is one of the reasons P-47 stalls so easily."
-
-
----------------
-
- The reason it stalls so easily in FB?
-
- Don't waste your time comparing the P-47 modeled in
- FB with reality.


That won't change the fact that P-47 stalled easily.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:00 PM
Huckebein said:
-
-
- You could have the same kill record with crop
- dusters. Doesn't matter what plane you have when you
- enjoy an overwhelming superiority in numbers.
- USAAF ETO fuel consumption in January '45 was
- roughly 208.000 thousand liters. I don't know the
- numbers for RAF or VVS in the same period. Germany
- production from october till the end of war was less
- than 55.000 thousand liters each month (all fuel
- types together), and there were no fuel stocks from
- September '44. I don't know what procent from total
- production was available to LW but I imagine it was
- very small, surely less than half, let's say 20.000
- thousand liters (though that's much anyway).
- In conclusion in January '45 with less than 20.000
- thousand liters available LW had to face USAAF, RAF
- and VVS, when USAAF alone consumed 208.000 thousand
- liters in the same time span. 10 to 1 in the sky?
- NO, probably 20 to 1.
-
-

You contradict yourself.

First you say that large masses of heavily armed bombers couldn't possibly stand the mighty Luftwaffe, then you say that They could be crop-dusters and win with sheer numbers.

*ahem*, your Bias is showing.




<img src=http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/219643/GCS0705copy.JPG>

<Center> I had a cool signature here, but obviously the word document is vulgar.</Center>


<Center> In case you need it spelled out, I am still a Blitzpig. That's B-L-I-T-Z-P-I-G</Center>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:01 PM
cowace2 wrote:
. You've done that with me a
- few times before...remember your ludicrous claim
- that the Luftwaffe had "the best medium bombers and
- twin engined planes in general"? You really copped
- out on that claim after I called you on it.


I maintain that affirmation. LW had the best light and medium bombers by far. I did not post the specs because I did not have the time to do it. Maybe I'll post them this weekend.


_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:08 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I maintain that affirmation. LW had the best light
- and medium bombers by far. I did not post the specs
- because I did not have the time to do it. Maybe I'll
- post them this weekend.



That's what you always say. You never actually do.

You make ludicrous claims and blatant trolling statements, then back off when someone calls you on it. That is the lowest common denominator. But, if you're comfortable down there, more power to you.


Are you going to respond to the rest of my post, or ignore it like you usually do?




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:21 PM
cowace2 wrote:
- Man, your arguments are such BS. You attempted to
- argue that the Luftwaffe was outnumbered fighter to
- fighter because of the disparity in fuel
- usage...

Actually (and I am not a LW fan or anti US) he
is correct on this point. The LW was critically
short of fuel. In fact quite a proportion of late
1944 and early 1945 fighter production was destroyed
at the factory by bombing as the combination of
lack of fuel and transport infrastructure made it
hard to transport them to be used in service.


- despite the obvious fact that the vast
- majority of USAAF fuel in the ETO was used by
- bombers.

The majority was indeed used by bombers. The relevant
point, however, is that the USAAF had no great problem
(apart from the occasional supply hiccup) in providing
sufficient fuel for its fighter sorties.

- I called you on that, and now you're
- saying that fuel usage is still a valid measure of
- fighter sorties because "bombers have lots of
- machine guns". That IS NOT RELEVANT.

That I agree with you on! That part of Huckebein_FW's
argument made no sense.

- I'm really curious to know why you seem to have this
- undying need to prove that Luftwaffe aircraft were
- "better" than everything else. It is absolutely
- bizarre.

There also seems to be a desire from USAAF-fans,
VVS-fans, etc, to prove that the P47 was best, the
La7, etc, etc. Lots of people are guilty here. There
seems to be quite a bit of bias going on.

Of course as everyone knows all the best planes
were British (by the way I am JOKING here!)

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:24 PM
Best is a matter of opinion.

It was obviously not the intention of the topic starter to declare the P-47 the best at anything, even though like many WW2 warplanes of many different nationalities it was in certain areas. But only to document its actual performance in reality compared to what is promoted and modeled in FB.

Refer to the title of the topic again.



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

"Loyalty to the country always, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

Mark Twain


Message Edited on 06/19/0312:25PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:27 PM
AaronGT wrote:
- Actually (and I am not a LW fan or anti US) he
- is correct on this point. The LW was critically
- short of fuel. In fact quite a proportion of late
- 1944 and early 1945 fighter production was destroyed
- at the factory by bombing as the combination of
- lack of fuel and transport infrastructure made it
- hard to transport them to be used in service.


I never disagreed with this point. I disagree with the fact that using fuel usage as a measure of the # of fighter sorties is not a useful measurement.


- There also seems to be a desire from USAAF-fans,
- VVS-fans, etc, to prove that the P47 was best, the
- La7, etc, etc. Lots of people are guilty here. There
- seems to be quite a bit of bias going on.


I've been posting here a long time. The dynamic that I've observed the most is someone saying something positive about a USAAF or RAF plane and then a few Luftwaffe fanboys going to the ends of the earth to provide straw-man arguments about the superiority of Luftwaffe aircraft.

I personally love the German planes. I fly Luftwaffe aircraft 90% of the time and certainly have a considerable personal interest in seeing them modeled properly. but I often find myself arguing against the most fervent Luftwaffe fanboys simply because the fact they're using strawman arguments and personal bias to "prove" that Luftwaffe equipment was "better".




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:41 PM
Hehe Yanks - your "sources" prove that P47 was even better than Me109.I haven`t got any idea if it`s true or not.

I must say I find it strange that such a big,heavy aircraft could be more agile than a nimble fighter like Me109.Me109,taking FM into account, is VERY good.I just can`t imagine P47 shooting Me109 down.Maybe at 15000m but not at 5000m for example.



Maybe some Luftwhiners are just affraid of P47 becoming a better oppponent.Don`t flame me,it really looks like it.

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:45 PM
carguy_ wrote:
-
-
- Maybe some Luftwhiners are just affraid of P47
- becoming a better oppponent.Don`t flame me,it really
- looks like it.


No, far from it. I want P-47 to be as good and as bad as it was in reality. But for yankwhinners no FM will be good if they can't replicate the 11:1 kill ratio in each mission.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

michapma
06-19-2003, 05:58 PM
cowace2,

Sorry I haven't been following this thread, but I'd be interested in reading your thesis.

chapman@eeh.ee.ethz.ch

Cheers,
Mike

Edit: heh, grammar

&lt;script>c2="#99ae6a";c3="#556b2f";c4="#515e2f";c5="#3e463b";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=c2;a[a.length-3].bgColor=c3;a[a.length-4].bgColor=c4;a[a.length-5].bgColor=c5;a[a.length-8].bgColor=c5;image="http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/images/userbar1.jpg";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundImage="url("+image+")";oa.backgroundPosition="left center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"; var CobraAvatar='http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/images/p39n1avatar.jpg'; var a=document.all.tags("img"); for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=CobraAvatar;a=document.all.tags["td"); for[i=0;i<a.length;i++) if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf["michapma")!=-1)ii=i;a[ii+2].innerHTML="Yefreytor SKULLS_Chap";</script>

<table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tr valign="top"><td height="40" colspan="3" align="center">The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide project</font> (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/)</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%">FB engine management:
Manifold Pressure sucks (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182081-1.html)
Those Marvelous Props (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html)
Mixture Magic (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html)
Putting It All Together (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182085-1.html)
Those Fire-Breathing Turbos (Part 1 of 6) (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182102-1.html)</td><td align="center">

SKULLS_Chap

<a href="http://www.skulls98.netfirms.com/il2/index.html" target="_blank" style="color: #191970; font-size: medium">The
SKULLS</a></p></td><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">Hardware issues:
Sound Can Be Hazardous for Games (http://www6.tomshardware.com/game/20030405/index.html)</td></tr></table>

Message Edited on 06/19/0306:58PM by michapma

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 05:58 PM
(1) Most aerial victorys were achieved by pouncing the enemy while he got his pants down. It should be safe to assume that most kills didn´t occur during dogfights, were both sides pushed the flight envelope to the max.

(2) The pilot is the decisive factor, not the aircraft. You can give an insufficently trained the best aircraft, if he fails to capitalize on the machines capabilities, it will be ineffective. At the beginning of 1944 U.S. combat pilots were sent to front flying units with having 400 flight hours, german combat pilots at that time were commanded to front units with having barely 150 flight hours, of which only 10 - 30 hours were on the aircraft they were actually assigned to. This was largely due to lack of fuel, and because of the bomber stream that was pouring around the clock into germany.

(3) With beginning of Operation Overlord the Allied enjoyed total air supremacy, which goes far beyond air superiority.
While the Luftwaffe was occupied with relocation and fighting a hopeless battle against the bomber stream that was pouring into the Germany, U.S. and GB units had the resources for a far greater mission spectrum, which included ground attacks on german Luftwaffe installations and supplys, fighter sweeps, etc. Allied Bomber formations were escorted by close- and additional extended fighter escorts, whith additional Fighter formations flying in front. At that time about 7 USAAF fighters came on one German Fighter, as a result hardly a german ground- or air unit could move unscathed in daylight conditions. Only every 5th german combat pilot would survive his 10th mission, most young pilots however didn´t came back from their 1st or 2nd mission. As the casualtys, due to these conditions, were downright atrocious, german fighter schools couldn´t catch up with training and delivering new pilots as replacements, so the fighter training had to be cut even more than it already was, which ultimately resulted in even more losses. The chance of survival for young 19 or 20 year old Luftwaffe pilots was very small to put it mildly.

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:00 PM
Awesome post. Right on the money.

stubby

BlitzPig_Rock
06-19-2003, 06:28 PM
This thread seems to have lost the plot ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Shall I do my "Jackbooted thug" routine ?

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/rock2.jpg
<center><FONT COLOR="Red">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator</FONT>
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines

Zayets
06-19-2003, 06:33 PM
Now this goes way off topic! How about you guys grab a beer and talk somewhere else. Of course there are crimes , there will always be! No need to dig up again for those stuffs. Enough is (was) enough.
Now , in a desperate attept to keep this thread on the topic I will say that I have tried to do again the stuff with rudder while in my P-47 against 4 Pe-8 aces. They ate me alive although I downed one. They must learnt my tactic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
I would say that P-47 is a great plane , yesterday night I have tried to down that La-7 , dunno who fly it. Set the guy to ace. Tried to run , run , run and run again. This guy waited until I was slow enough. 6 miliseconds burst and my tail goes down to earth. Is impossible to kill that guy in the La-7 while you fly a P-47.Impossible. That makes me sad. Oleg , when you gonna release da patch. I'm really bored , this patch affected my life. My wife said I'm not that happy anymore so she plan to call Oleg on this issue. Hope she'll get some luck with it...

&lt;script>a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor="#0000FF";oa=a[a.length-2].style;oa.backgroundPosition="center center";oa.backgroundRepeat="no-repeat"</script>
http://www.emicad.nl/~justdoit/il2/logo.jpg

BlitzPig_Rock
06-19-2003, 06:36 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Let it go Rock. It's fun seeing Huck make a fool of
- himself.
-
- Da Buzz

aye but the piss and vinegar is spilling over ! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I would leave it alone if the argument was heated but friendly, but its obvious there is no love lost here.


I`ll have a ciggie and watch for a bit, might make me laugh as much as "Dex pwns RBJ screenie thread".

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/bpstuff/rock2.jpg
<center><FONT COLOR="Red">UBI/IL2 Forum Moderator</FONT>
http://www.ubi.com/US/CommunityZone/Forums/guidelines

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:41 PM
James,

That citation did not come from me.

Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:43 PM
Well Huck,


It seems that Gunther Rall "veteran stories" are just fine when they support your particular opinion.

You are a superb intellectual hypocrite.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:44 PM
Huck,

I do not love you any more.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are either (a) a complete moron incapable of any sort of objective thinking; (b) about twelve years old and too insecure to imagine that anyone else might have a valid opinion about anything; (c) an uncontrollable serial troller who deserves to win the fisherman of the year award; (d) emotionally immature. I'm betting on (d).

It's a waste of time to attempt to discuss anything with you. You are either unable or unwilling to conduct a civil discussion with anyone who takes a different viewpoint. Any point which disputes your personal view of things elicits nothing but abuse and insult. No one knows anything but you the master analyst of the Luftwaffe. You remind me of nothing less than poor Adolf sequestered in his Fuhrerbunker, poring over all his elaborate maps and reports which bear absolutely no relationship to the true state of affairs outside his own dream world.

Maybe someday you will finally discover that it's not all in the numbers.

I'm all done here. Good luck to you.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 06:58 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Well Huck,
-
-
- It seems that Gunther Rall "veteran stories" are
- just fine when they support your particular opinion.


No they are not. I don't like veteran stories no matter what side they fought on. I put it because the rest of the posters rely solely on veteran stories. They of course know very well that performance numbers make a solid case against P-47.

_______________________________________________&lt;sc ript language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script> &lt;script>newIcon('single','http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bogdandone/Bf109.JPG');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:02 PM
- A very reasonable comparison of the virtues of the
- P47 versus German fighters can be found in the
- engagements over the French coast during the second
- half of 1943 and early 1944.


Good point!



- The first active P47
- groups were pitted against JG26, a well equipped
- Geschwader of skilled veterans.


They were also pitted against JG2.

Also, was JG26 really "a Geschwader of skilled veterans"?

Only the group and staffel leaders were really skilled veterans at this time. The majority of JG26 was in fact, made up of the replacement pilots of mid-late 1942.

JG26 tried to establish a "Endausbildungstaffel", or operational training squadron but were unable to do so and these newly arrived trainees were thrown straight into battle in early 1943.

In continuous combat for nearly three years at this time, JG26 had already experienced 100% attrition of it's original numerical strength by the time the P-47 showed up.


Many of the veterans had been transferred to other fighter groups to provide leadership there, as the Luftwaffe was always short of proffesionally trained officers.

As a matter of fact, JG26 by mid-late 1944 had practically zero proffesionally trained officers in it's ranks to provide leadership, and one of it's greatest leaders was an inlisted pilot by the name of Addi Glunz, who I believe became the only enlisted pilot to recieve the Knight's
Cross in the west.


But JG26 was certainly well equipped. In 1943 they had the best fighter aircraft in western Europe with the FW190.






http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:07 PM
FW190fan

Quick question. Were all the American pilots aces? No rookies?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:38 PM
Just a quick thought here, from my understanding of the thread's topic, this was only to show that the P-47 was competitiveJust a quick thought here, from my understanding of the thread's topic, this was only to show that the P-47 was competitive, no where have I read 'it was the best' or 'it won the war', but some seemed to have lost that point and turned it into a 'my planes better than your plane' debacle. Worse still (adding more fuel to the flaming) weaving in a topic that, is not only waaaay off-topic, but is going to insense and outrage others, all the while arguing the morality of it's 'right's and wrongs'.

So coming back on-topic, I see no reason why using veteran accounts of actual P-47 drivers should not indicate that it was a competitive aircraft. Also, although stats can provide useful information, I think it is worth mentioning that this type of information is usually acquired in non-combat conditions, and I think that most would agree that combat conditions bring in a great number of other factors which can help decide an outcome. This is one reason why actual pilot's accounts can be useful.

I don't think it's that useful to put to much focus on singular points, as it can make you blind to the overall picture.

I have also read material from both side's view points (meaning allied and axis, not the posters here), and I agree with Buzzsaw on this, the P-47 was competitive, but neither does that state it was the better or worse than LW planes, as some have turned this thread into.

As for the subject matter of the more recent posts in this thread, do we really need to go into that here?, not the time or the place so to speak IMHO.

Regards

Rook

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:55 PM
Speaking of the arrival of the P-47 Thunderbolt and JG26 in the west, I've compiled an admittedly incomplete record of JG26 in the first several months following the introduction of the P-47.

Unfortunately I have not been able to nail down the *specifics* of victories and losses for JG26 in either the Dueren or Munster raids by the 8th AF that fall within the given time period.

Anyway, I've compiled an incomplete victory/loss list from the dates of May 14, 1943 to November 14, 1943 - a six month period.JG26 at this time was tasked primarily with the interception of allied heavy bombers.

In this ~six-month period JG26 lost in aerial combat *at least* the following number of fighters destroyed in aerial combat:

34 - FW190

14 - Me109

At least 2 109s were shot down by bomber defensive fire during the Muenster raid of Oct. 10, 1943.

In addition, 9 JG26 aircraft were lost in the Dueren raid of Oct. 20, 1943. I don't know how many of each type though.

I'm not aware of the exact victory count for JG26 in these raids.


JG26 confirmed victories for this time period go something like this:


69 - B-17 Fortresses and B-24 Liberators

1 - B-26

1 - Douglas Boston

1 - Lockheed Ventura

1 - Dehavilland Mosquito

22 - P-47 Thunderbolts

13 - Spitfires

6 - Hawker Typhoons


Good sources for this include:

"JG26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe"

Janes - "Battles with the Luftwaffe"


In many cases for the allied losses we can establish names of the aircrew, serial numbers of the aircraft, as well as what group the Allied aircraft belonged to.


The greatest single source of losses for JG26 during this time period was due to defensive fire from heavy bombers.






http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 07:55 PM
- Just for the record, the Germans didn't PLAN to take
- on the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and
- the United States ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

They didn't? Then why did they do it?

- It just
- ended up that way.

The hell it did.

They didn't plan to fight the British, no, that was a genuine mistake and Hitler was amazed at how that turned out. But they did attack the Soviet Union while they were still at war with Britain, and that wasn't something that "just ended up that way"; it was a deliberate and carefully planned invasion. Hitler simply assumed he could knock the USSR out quickly before the British could do anything about it.

As for the US, it should have been obvious to anyone with a three-digit IQ that the Americans were going to get involved sooner or later. Well before Barbarossa was launched, the US was openly supporting the British; Lend-Lease had begun and the US navy and the Kriegsmarine were snarling at each other in the Atlantic. Roosevelt was putting on the pressure to increase US involvement and it should have been obvious he was going to succeed.

Besides, I'll remind you that Germany declared war on the US first. Not much more than a detail by that time, but a fact all the same.

The truth is that the German leadership consistently underestimated their most dangerous opponents. They didn't think the British would fight for Poland, then they assumed they'd sue for peace after Dunkirk, then they thought they could bomb them into submission. They thought they could defeat the Soviet Union in a quick campaign, and they didn't take the US seriously at all until it was too late - Goring liked to say Americans could make cars but not planes.

Which proves they were stupid, and/or insane; and what does that make the German people for following a bunch of fools and psychos?

Anyway, my original point was that these people like Huck and Issy are always screaming that the Germans only lost because they were hopelessly outnumbered; and if that's so then they must have been pretty dumb to get themselves into a situation like that.

If I go out and start a fist fight with ten guys and they stomp my ***, does that entitle me to brag about how brave I was? "Yeah, but their technique was really lousy, you know, and they were out of shape, they only whipped me because they had me outnumbered!" Uh huh, right.







Message Edited on 06/19/0307:01PM by Blind_Joe_Death

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:05 PM
Buzz:

Of course they had rookies, what is your point?

Are you running short of peaches?

I live in Georgia and can send you all of the peaches you want if you like.

Most of the 8th AF veterans I've had the priviledge to talk to arrived in combat with 600 hours of flight training.


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

Tully__
06-19-2003, 08:06 PM
Sorry to interrupt your cigarette Rock, but I've put on my jackboots. The ethical debate is out of here and I expect it to stay out (along with a few other posts that weren't contributing).

Cowace, Huck, take it to email or PM's.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#004B28";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#42524E";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#42524E";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:11 PM
Would everyone PLEASE read BLUTARSKI's post of page three of this insane thread. It pretty much says it all.

Posting a bunch of specs and stats means nothing in terms of proving a given fighters effectiveness. Aerial combat is not a aerobatics competition. It makes no sense to say: "Well if the P-47 had any guts and stuck around to mix it up with ______(insert fave plane here) then we'd see how the numbers would prove it superior."

ALL the major fighters had their STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES. The trick is to train pilots and develope tactics that play into the strengths and away from the weaknesses.

The P-47 was indeed a very capable fighter. It was fast, tough, packed a brutal punch, and was very agile at high alt. and also turned into one of the best ground attack a/c of the war.

Anybody who says that the P-47 is a piece of crap is an imbecile. Just as anybody who would say the same for the 109/190 would be.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:11 PM
190 fan,

My point is simple. Guys talk about the LW having only rookie pilots, so they were easy to beat. They fail to mention that the US/Russians had rookie pilots too.

Now for that peach.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:25 PM
Oak_Groove wrote:
- (1) Most aerial victorys were achieved by pouncing
- the enemy while he got his pants down. It should be
- safe to assume that most kills didn´t occur during
- dogfights, were both sides pushed the flight
- envelope to the max.

Thank you for posting this. Two quick back-ups to this, Mike Spick and, aw rats, the author of "the Mighty Eighth", is it Freeman? that 2/3 to 3/4 of all aeril kills are after an unobserved bounce.

So. You wanna build a nice light plane that lives in the dogfight envelope, or a big fat one with high wing loading that lives in the bounce envelope?

One can get a list of bounce attributes as surely as one can a set of dogfight attributes.

The P-47 (and P-51 for that matter) show extremely well for a late 1943 early 1944 "bounce"style fighter.

Kills from bounces count, don't they? We as simmers forget what worked in the real world, IMHO.

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:25 PM
Tully__ wrote:
(along with a few other - posts that weren't contributing).


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ........../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

&lt;script>color="#B22222";a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor=color;</script>

&lt;script>color="#004477";a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-4].bgColor=color;a[a.length-5].bgColor=co
lor;a[a.length-8].bgColor=color</script>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/survivors/images/T42-103831.jpg'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 08:31 PM
Party poopers.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 09:12 PM
FW190fan wrote:


- They were also pitted against JG2.

..... Quite so. Forgot about them. They flew 109's IIRC.


-
- Also, was JG26 really "a Geschwader of skilled
- veterans"?
-
- Only the group and staffel leaders were really
- skilled veterans at this time. The majority of JG26
- was in fact, made up of the replacement pilots of
- mid-late 1942.
-
- JG26 tried to establish a "Endausbildungstaffel", or
- operational training squadron but were unable to do
- so and these newly arrived trainees were thrown
- straight into battle in early 1943.
-
- In continuous combat for nearly three years at this
- time, JG26 had already experienced 100% attrition of
- it's original numerical strength by the time the
- P-47 showed up.

..... Everything you say is true, I'm sure. But 100 percent attrition over three years of combat is actually extremely low. And the replacement pilots of 1942 were still receiving good instruction. There was no fuel shortage and no concerted day/night bombing campaign over Germany yet. JG26 was a very effective organization, giving good results in fighter versus fighter engagements as late as early 1945, when it was D9 equipped - or at least so says the JG26 book.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 10:11 PM
Salute Lilhorse

I'm glad you and a few people seem to be getting the point of the post.

Which was not to say the P-47 was an uberplane, capable of beating any Luftwaffe plane hands down, but that it did have some advantages, and it was competitive in most situations.

As an example, Yes, most 109's would have advantages over a P-47 in a low speed knifefight, where the lower wingloading, better climb and better acceleration of the 109 would be an advantage.

But in a high speed contest, the P-47 would have its advantages too, both in aileron and elevator response.

Let's imagine a P-47, pursued by a 109. If the P-47 put its nose down, accelerated to 350+ mph IAS speed, and then rolled or applied elevator, its ability to change direction should be superior to the 109. That is a fact supported by the documentation I have filed in the above posts, and it is a fact supported by pilot anecdotes. Of course, if the P-47 maintains a turn too long, and bleeds its speed off, then it will be stuck in the low speed turnfight its pilot doesn't want, and the 109 pilot does.

The high speed maneuver advantage of planes like the P-47 is also supported by every other reputable flight Sim out there. EUROPEAN AIR WAR, ACES HIGH and WARBIRDS all model these characteristics.

As much as I respect Oleg for the quality of FORGOTTEN BATTLES, (and FB is the best Flight Sim ever created) he seems to have neglected the differences between low and high speed handling in portraying aircraft flight models. I am hoping he rectifies this shortcoming in the upcoming patch.

This issue in not limited to the P-47. It is also a factor which relates to the poor performance of the current FW190 and the the potential future performance of the P-51. If the effects of high speed on handling is not modelled for the patch version of FB, and the P-51 is portrayed as it handles at low speeds, then this debate will look like a stroll in the park.

There are also issues in regards to the effect of altitude on performance, as well as dive acceleration and speed bleed in zoom climbs.


Salute RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:05 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Yes P-47 defeated Bf-109 historically when
- outnumbered it by 10 to 1.


This is positively the stupidest thing I've read in this thread.

When did the P-47 outnumber Germans? When green pilots first flew it over France in 1943?

When the 9th AF used it FG strength for ground attack?

You argument is idiotic, Huck. The mere presence of superior numbers of fighters in the theater doesn't mean that's that the all encounters were. You know that. But its just another silly argument you use to further you agenda.

I know you are loathe to do any research of your own, but a perusal of even a few credible sources will reveal that the P-47 gained most of its aerial victories before 1944, well before there was a definitive numerical edge for the USAAF.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:06 PM
BfHeFwMe wrote:
- The numbers used aren't reflecting the reality of
- Operation Bodenplatte. The majority of those German
- losses occured from their own AAA. Seems command
- forgot to coordinate, secrecy seemed more important,
- so many attacking air units were hammered with
- fatalities on the way too and from their targets by
- freindly ground forces. They weren't told to avoid
- their heavy flack, many made a huge mistake that
- morning. Can't blame their gunners, how often did
- they see their own forces overhead, let alone flying
- low level attack. Quite a collossal blunder.


Untrue. Only in certain units did Germany's own AA account for the majority of losses. Overall, allied fighters and AA accounted for the majority of German losses.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:13 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- I can provide the number of sorties flown by USAAF
- in January '45 in ETO. You give me the number of
- sorties flown by the LW. Sorties made by RAF and VVS
- will be nice to know too, but numbers on german side
- will be good enough for a rough comparison.
- It's not important how many aircraft were combat
- ready on the ground, air combat is not fighting
- inside hangars. Count those in the air.


Can you prove the number of sorties where aerial encounters between the USAAF and the LW took place? Because that didn't happen every time.

Can you prove the numbers of sorties, for instance with the 9th AF, that took place as parts of missions involving planes in greater than FG strength? Because that was exceedingly rare.

I know what you are doing. You want to suggest that because the numbers of sorties were much greater on the USAAF side that it mean encounters were heavily stacked in favor of the USAAF.

You can NEVER prove that with those numbers. You have to look at individual aerial encounters to figure out how the sides paired up.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:20 PM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
- But in a high speed contest, the P-47 would have its
- advantages too, both in aileron and elevator
- response.
-
- Let's imagine a P-47, pursued by a 109. If the P-47
- put its nose down, accelerated to 350+ mph IAS
- speed, and then rolled or applied elevator, its
- ability to change direction should be superior to
- the 109. That is a fact supported by the
- documentation I have filed in the above posts, and
- it is a fact supported by pilot anecdotes. Of
- course, if the P-47 maintains a turn too long, and
- bleeds its speed off, then it will be stuck in the
- low speed turnfight its pilot doesn't want, and the
- 109 pilot does.
-
- The high speed maneuver advantage of planes like the
- P-47 is also supported by every other reputable
- flight Sim out there. EUROPEAN AIR WAR, ACES HIGH
- and WARBIRDS all model these characteristics.
-
- As much as I respect Oleg for the quality of
- FORGOTTEN BATTLES, (and FB is the best Flight Sim
- ever created) he seems to have neglected the
- differences between low and high speed handling in
- portraying aircraft flight models. I am hoping he
- rectifies this shortcoming in the upcoming patch.
-
- This issue in not limited to the P-47. It is also a
- factor which relates to the poor performance of the
- current FW190 and the the potential future
- performance of the P-51. If the effects of high
- speed on handling is not modelled for the patch
- version of FB, and the P-51 is portrayed as it
- handles at low speeds, then this debate will look
- like a stroll in the park.
-
- There are also issues in regards to the effect of
- altitude on performance, as well as dive
- acceleration and speed bleed in zoom climbs.


Yep, and I wonder if Maddox:1C realizes the depth of this problem in FB...:|

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://www.richard-cooke.com/fap/new%20folder/fap%20jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0304:56AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:22 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Party poopers.

They're just bored due to the recent drop in O/T postings. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://www.richard-cooke.com/fap/new%20folder/fap%20jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0304:57AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:24 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- This is complete rubbish, 500mph dive limits, and
- distintegration... ridiculus! Buzzspawn often makes
- such blanket statements.
-
- In dive test a Me 109F already reached 906 km/h
- (562mph).
-
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109F%20dives.jpg



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Isegrim pulls this one out of his butt again.

Isegrim, that test was to determine a TERMINAL dive speed. TERMINAL Dive Speed. You know what that means, don't you? (I think you do because you've been shown before).

Lukas Schmid generated that number when he tried to determine the terminal dive speed of the Bf-109F. Mach .805 was the fastest the plane would go. It would go NO FASTER, at all.


Stop with the dishonesty on this subject. It's getting tiresome.





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg



Message Edited on 06/20/0302:34AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-19-2003, 11:29 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- I maintain that affirmation. LW had the best light
- and medium bombers by far. I did not post the specs
- because I did not have the time to do it. Maybe I'll
- post them this weekend.


"Maybe I'll post them this weekend." Where have I heard that before.

You and Isegrim like to compare bomb loads only. Why not compare armor? Defensive armament? Ability to absord punishment?

How do you think the Do-217 would have done in the role of low level attacks on Japanese airfields? How would the Ju-388 have done in the hands of the 8th Af.

Yeah the Germans built lovely machines for bombing civilians huddled in their homes. When they met real opposition, they were nothing. And a plane that can't doi the job against the enemy is useless.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:11 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
-- This is complete rubbish, 500mph dive limits, and
-- distintegration... ridiculus! Buzzspawn often makes
-- such blanket statements.
--
-- In dive test a Me 109F already reached 906 km/h
-- (562mph).
--
-
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-
- Isegrim pulls this one out of his butt again.
-

More like from yours, it`s a pain in your butt, not mine. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
- Isegrim, that test was to determine a TERMINAL dive
- speed. TERMINAL Dive Speed. You know what that
- means, don't you? (I think you do because you've
- been shown before).
-

Yes, and IIRC even the 109F`s terminal dive speed was higher than that of the Prey-47s (0.8 Mach). /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Is that brothering thou?


- Lukas Schmid generated that number when he tried to
- determine the terminal dive speed of the Bf-109F.
- Mach .805 was the fastest the plane would go. It
- would go NO FASTER, at all.

Yes, so?

We had a very ill-founded (to put it mildly) comment from a poster who stated that "many" German planes "disintegrated" at and above 500mph.
This is simply bullocks, so I have disproved it with flight tests that showed that a 109F can easily do 560mph without disintagrating, and the 190A-3 could dive to 580mph without disintegrating. These facts fully disproved those faulty statements.

It`s also fair to assume that later variants could go somewhat faster in dives, for obvious reasons.


-
- Stop with the dishonesty on this subject. It's
- getting tiresome.
-

What the heck you are talking about? What is "dishonest" about posting dive tests for planes, hmm?

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:23 PM
Blind Joe Death,

Read my post again.

I speak from several decades of study on the subject I referred to. My statement was careful and clear.

Whilst I would admit that my knowledge is neither perfect nor complete (because there is always more to learn), it is easily adequate to substantiate what I said.

I also indicated that this thread was not the proper place to get involved further, but perhaps another could be started. Unfortunately, I suspect that I might be wasting my time with you.

There is nothing in my statment that can be credibly contradicted. I offered, in good faith, a tiny pearl of enlightenment. If you choose not to be enlightened, the loss is yours.

Of course, IF what I suspect about you is true, you won't see it as a loss, because ignorance is bliss.

On the other hand, if I'm wrong about you, perhaps the error was mine. Perhaps I made the simple mistake of getting in the way when you were really after someone else.

Or, perhaps, you read too much into my post, or misunderstood it, or felt it was an attack of some sort.

I'm really trying to understand your motives here.

Having said all this, I will of course readily accept your disagreement, if you insist on ignoring the quality of what has been offered.

What I will not accept is your slander of the Germans as a people. It shows an apalling lack of understanding. They are/were no more stupid or insane than any other people on Earth.

What is needed is an understanding of what motivated them, and how dreams of making their country great once more were exploited by the leadership, then turned slowly but surely into disaster. This is not to whitewash them or pity them - it is only to understand. Your statements make it fairly obvious you don't.

When looking at all the various battles and campaigns (not just air combat), a study of the conduct of WW2 shows beyond reasonable doubt, that when the Germans fought their enemies on anything like equal terms, they more often than not prevailed.

Their military efficiency was generally unmatched in the first half of the war, and only sometimes matched or bettered in the second. In the end, they WERE beaten mainly by superior numbers and superior resources.

Yes, there were times when they underestimated the opposition (but this happened on both sides). They also, of course, made mistakes (which also happened on both sides).

A few of those mistakes led to the situation they found themselves in by 1942/43. But it wasn't PLANNED to turn out that way. Exactly how this happened is a fascinating study in its own right - but not the proper subject of this thread.

I'm not a German, or a German sympathizer. I see Nazism as one of the greatest evils of the modern era. I'm grateful that the Germans lost WW2. But they are not a bad people.

panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 12:32 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- You and Isegrim like to compare bomb loads only.
-

Hear, hear, what a truly wrong way of comparing BOMBers. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-
- Why not compare armor?
-

Sure. Let us compare it.

-
- Defensive armament?
-

A-26B: 2 x.50 Brownings in two turrets = 4 x .50 HMG

Do-217K: 2x 13mm HMGs, 6x 7.92mm MG81s, + sometimes additional armament, ie. tail scare gun, 20mm cannon in nose for anti-shipping/strafing.

Make your own conclusions.


http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Do217/do217k-1%20lt%20f5.jpg


Do-217K carrying four aerial torpedoes


-
- Ability
- to absord punishment?
-

Hmm, the Do-217 was a larger plane than the (otherwise truly excellent) A-26 Invader, most of it`s variants were powered by radial engines, and it`s precedessor Do-17 was already praised for it`s durability during the Battle of Britain. So it`s seems the Do-217 was at least as good as the A-26 in this regard.

-
- How do you think the Do-217 would have done in the
- role of low level attacks on Japanese airfields?
-

Good question. Though from my faint memory I recall that the B-26s did with wonderfully low loss rate against the Japanese. But when they arrived in Europe, they were simply butchered, their formations taking 50% loss on a single sortie on numerous occasions during December. It`s seems Europe was not the easy Pacific.


-
- How would the Ju-388 have done in the hands of the
- 8th Af.
-

A truly academic question.

-
- Yeah the Germans built lovely machines for bombing
- civilians huddled in their homes.
-

That was really only the fancy of the RAF-BC, `Chimp, not the LW, and not even the USAAF.



Altough one must add for the sake of historical reality, that the P-51 Mustant really excelled at strafing civillians in towns, machinegunning women and children on the roads, by orders of the 8th AAF.



-
- When they met
- real opposition, they were nothing. And a plane
- that can't doi the job against the enemy is useless.
-

Schweinfurt and Ploesti comes to the mind...


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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 01:55 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
--
-- Defensive armament?
--
-
- A-26B: 2 x.50 Brownings in two turrets = 4 x .50 HMG
-
-

Who is being dishonest Issy? I won't use the word 'liar' you like to use so much.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The B-26B carried more guns than that.

A total of twelve 0.50-inch machine guns were now carried. These comprised a flexible 0.50-inch nose gun with 270 rounds, a single fixed gun on the starboard side of the nose with 200 rounds, two "package" guns on each side of the fuselage below the cockpit with 200-250 rpg, two 0.50-inch guns in the rear dorsal turret, two 0.50-inch guns in the beam, and two 0.50 inch guns in the tail.


Despite its initial problems, the AAF lost fewer Marauders than any Allied bomber it flew--less than one-half of one percent.

The NASM B-26B-25-MA nicknamed Flak Bait (AAF serial number 41-31173) survived 207 operational missions over Europe, more than any other American aircraft during World War II


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



Message Edited on 06/20/0309:03AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:42 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
--
---
--- Defensive armament?
---
--
-- A-26B: 2 x.50 Brownings in two turrets = 4 x .50 HMG
--
--
-
- Who is being dishonest Issy? I won't use the word
- 'liar' you like to use so much./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- The B-26B carried more guns than that.
-
- A total of twelve 0.50-inch machine guns were now
- carried. These comprised a flexible 0.50-inch nose
- gun with 270 rounds, a single fixed gun on the
- starboard side of the nose with 200 rounds, two
- "package" guns on each side of the fuselage below
- the cockpit with 200-250 rpg, two 0.50-inch guns in
- the rear dorsal turret, two 0.50-inch guns in the
- beam, and two 0.50 inch guns in the tail.



Great. This is the best example of your reading comprehension problems up to now.

ad 1, We are talking about A-26B. Not B-26B. A-26B is different from B-26B. Different. Invader is different than Marauder. Two separate planes. Not one.

ad 2, We are talking about DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. That does not equals OFFENSIVE armament. Fixed offensive armament and flexible defensive armament is different.


So next time, READ AGAIN before starting flaming and insulting other being a liar just because the Great Milo can`t read...

Tha A-26B invader carried 4 HMGs in it`s turrets for defensive purposes, and a great many in the nose, fixed, for strafing. Still, defensive armament was certainly not something especially scary.


-
- Despite its initial problems, the AAF lost fewer
- Marauders than any Allied bomber it flew--less than
- one-half of one percent.
-

Over the pacific. Marauder sorties over the Ardennes were simply catastrophic: 50% of the planes commited lost in a single mission is a HUNDRED times higher figure than in the avarage in the Pacific.

Besides, if you want to compare, why not compare it to the LW`s loss rate on the EF?

-
- The NASM B-26B-25-MA nicknamed Flak Bait (AAF serial
- number 41-31173) survived 207 operational missions
- over Europe, more than any other American aircraft
- during World War II
-

A single case does not change the whole story.

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

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

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


Message Edited on 06/20/0304:12PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
--
---
--- Defensive armament?
---
--
-- A-26B: 2 x.50 Brownings in two turrets = 4 x .50 HMG
--
--
-
- Who is being dishonest Issy? I won't use the word
- 'liar' you like to use so much.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
- The B-26B carried more guns than that.
-

It is easy to get the B-26 Marauder of WW2 mixed up with the A-26 Invader, because after the war the A-26 was re-named the B-26, and flew with that designation in Korea.

Thinking any medium bomber in WW2 was "better" than the A-26, based on defensive armament alone, is failing to look at the entire equation.

It had remote controlled turrets on the top, some on the bottom. They were controlled by a periscope set up, by a gunner in mid fuselage. By all accounts it worked well. The turrets could be synchronized to deliver 4 gun defensive fires if the attack came from the A-26's altitude. They could also be locked forward to add to the forward firing gun battery.

The A-26 was FAST. Photo recon Invaders with faired over turrets could go well over 400 mph. It cruised, in formations, at faster speeds than any other bombers. As an attack plane it was just awesome. It was maneuverable, and scored several aerial kills, by pilots, over LW fighters in WW2. It was contemplated as a night fighter, cancelled when the P-61 came on scene. It was long ranged, and extremely tough.

In Korea B-26 Invaders took off with rockets (not the small ones, the BIG ones), 5 x 500 pound bombs, and 18 (or more) forward firing machine guns and thousands of rounds of 50 cal. Gross take off weights exceeded original manufacturer specs by 20%. One Invader could, and did, destroy entire convoys. It was also used in Viet Nam, the Bay of Pigs, and is still used today as a forest fire-fighting machine.

IMHO it was the best medium prop attack/bomber of all time, bar none, nothing else even that close.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 02:49 PM
Still being dishonest Issy.

The A-26 could carry 16-18 guns.

"Do-217K: 2x 13mm HMGs, 6x 7.92mm MG81s, + sometimes additional armament, ie. tail scare gun, 20mm cannon in nose for anti-shipping/strafing."

Seems you want to include OFFENSIVE guns.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Do-217K-1 had only 4 light mgs.

"Over the pacific. Marauder sorties over the Ardennes were simply catastrophic: 50% of the planes commited lost in a single mission"

A single case does not change the whole story. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Seems the LW had to switch to night bombing since they could not 'hack it' during BoB.

'Flak Bait' was not the only B-26 to fly more than 100 missions. By the time of war's end, as many as 350 had done 100 missions.


"One of the most commonly-asked questions is the difference between the Martin B-26 Marauder and the Douglas B(A)-26 Invader. They were two completely different aircraft and had been designed to completely different requirements."

Compare bomber to bomber Issy.


You mentioned the Do-17, well it was severely mauled during BoB due to its inadequate defensive armament. Even the additon of 2 extra light mgs did not help it.


You should really have a better understanding of what a "flame" is. The simple truth is not a "flame".http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Message Edited on 06/20/0311:06AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 03:57 PM
Try and focus....Topic..P-47.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:11 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- Try and focus....Topic..P-47.


Buzz,

That whole P47 thing has been settled.

Professor Isegrim weighed in and informed us all that both the Bf109 and the FW190 had dive speeds superior to the P47. Hence, in a remarkable turn of events, all those "veteran stories" of American fighter pilots who claim to have easily caught German fighters in dives are now proven by the distinguished expert Isegrim to have been utter fabrications. World War Two aviation history must now be totally re-written.

NOT.

Huck and Isegrim both apparently inhabit the same dream world.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 04:19 PM
I know. I was just trying to shut them up../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I know that's impossible. They live to argue.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 05:39 PM
Buzz,

Can you imagine where we would be if these two guys had been FB beta testers?

The mind boggles at the thought ......



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:00 PM
panther3485 wrote:
- Blind Joe Death,
-
- Read my post again.
-
- I speak from several decades of study on the subject
- I referred to.

So do I.

- I also indicated that this thread was not the proper
- place to get involved further, but perhaps another
- could be started. Unfortunately, I suspect that I
- might be wasting my time with you.

We are all wasting our time in here. This discussion is a waste of time. So is this forum. So is life. We can only try to find interesting ways to waste it. But let us not digress.

- There is nothing in my statment that can be credibly
- contradicted.

Yes there is. You said the Germans never intended to get into a war simultaneously with the British, the Russians, and the Americans. I pointed out that they deliberately started a war with the USSR while still at war with Britain, and then declared war on the US while still at war with both. That contradicts what you said, and since these facts are not in dispute by anyone with any knowledge of history at all, I'd say it's pretty "credible."

- Of course, IF what I suspect about you is true, you
- won't see it as a loss, because ignorance is bliss.

I don't know what you suspect about me. Whatever it is, you have no basis for suspecting anything at all, since you know absolutely nothing about me. You don't even know what my real name is. I could be John Keegan for all you know.

- I'm really trying to understand your motives here

Why? My motives, or yours, don't affect the facts. I would hope we could speak to the facts and issues without personalities getting involved.

- What I will not accept is your slander of the
- Germans as a people.

Wasn't slandering the Germans at all, son. I was pointing out that _Huck_ is slandering them, even while he thinks he's defending them, by wildly exaggerating the material disadvantages they were fighting under. _If_, I said, they were outnumbered as badly as he alleges--so badly that their "superior" aircraft could be beaten by "inferior" ones like the P-47--then they must have been morons for getting into a situation like that.

I was merely using the _reductio ad absurdam_ device for pointing out the absurdity of the figures he was throwing around. I am amazed that you were so literal-minded as to think I was accepting those figures.

- They are/were no more stupid or
- insane than any other people on Earth.

True enough, but that's not saying much, is it? Seeing that the overwhelming majority of human beings are ignorant idiots and quite a high proportion of them are crazy as well. (A certain George Carlin routine comes to mind but I better not go there.)

- They
- also, of course, made mistakes

Right. Like starting the war.

- A few of those mistakes led to the situation they
- found themselves in by 1942/43. But it wasn't
- PLANNED to turn out that way.

Well, of _course_ it wasn't. Last Saturday night a guy I know here in town got drunk and wrecked his girlfriend's car, which he was driving without permission, and tried to punch it out with the cops. He didn't PLAN to wind up in jail, but he did. And anybody with any sense at all could have seen that was what was going to happen to him, because he wouldn't stop acting like a fool. The same principle applies to the Third Reich.

- I'm not a German, or a German sympathizer.

I'm a quarter German and I've got a lot of sympathy for the German people. They shouldn't be blamed for what their parents and grandparents did. I've had some good times in Germany. I've got nothing against the present-day German people at all. Those of the generation that followed Hitler are a different matter.

My great-grandfather and his contemporaries fought, and lost, a very bloody war in defense of the proposition that human slavery ought to be legal. It was a criminally wicked idea and they were damn fools to fight for it. I don't consider that this reflects on me, or any other living Southerner, except those who are so idiotic as to defend the Confederacy. Same with the Germans.

The real question is how it is that basically decent people can be led to support and fight for utterly evil causes. It is unfashionable to suggest that this is merely the result of a fluke of evolution, that caused the planet to be dominated by a species of mutant ape, sometimes clever as individuals but in groups tending to stupidity and fits of irrational hysteria in which they are liable to harm themselves and others for no good reason.

As you say, this is all off topic. But then the topic per se has long become boring and pointless, not to mention predictable, so what the hell. Who (except perhaps our tiresome moderators) gives a damn?

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 07:21 PM
BACK ON TOPIC!!!!

P47 is horribly unstable gun platform./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 08:52 PM
Blind_Joe_Death wrote:

- (Buzz, do you go back far enough to remember the
- original Blind Joe Death? Forgive me if I'm wrong,
- but I get the feeling you've been around a bit
- longer than some of these children.)

Don't know about Buzz, but I guess I'll show my age. Blind Joe Death was the name that John Fahey used sometimes when he was making records.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:17 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
- Buzz,
-
- Can you imagine where we would be if these two guys
- had been FB beta testers?
-
- The mind boggles at the thought ......
-

Just for your information, sad little Blutarski, I WAS Beta tester of Il-2, and I also sent reports on Il-2FB bugs, and in addittion I also researched several planes for Oleg for FB.

That`s why my name IS listed in the credits of both Il-2 and Il-2FB, whereas yours IS NOT.

That`s very much the opposite of your "contribution" to successFB - which is nonexistent.


However I believe you already made a great contribution to Il-2: by trolling on il2boards, instead of helping the development. You can ruin less that way.


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

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

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


Message Edited on 06/20/0310:27PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:20 PM
I think you missed a few bugs.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:26 PM
Blind_Joe_Death wrote -

- The real question is how it is that basically decent
- people can be led to support and fight for utterly
- evil causes.


I believe I can help you there.

When such a "cause" is put forward, it is never advertised as "utterly evil". The marketing types always find a more attractive and subtle means of presentation. Adolf did not campaign on an "utterly evil" platform. He preached recovery of national dignity, political stability, and economic revitalization. After ten years of utter chaos, Germany was receptive to this message. And to be perfectly fair about it, Adolf generally delivered on those particular promises. His anti-semitism was just part of an overall deal which Germany agreed to accept. Perhaps the German people were unaware of the ghastly extremes to which the NAZI's would take their anti-semitism, but it remains true that it was part of an attractively assembled sales package. IMO, America would be likewise vulnerable under similar conditions.


As regards my alias, what gave me away ??????????


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:26 PM
BuzzU wrote:
- I think you missed a few bugs.
-
- Da Buzz


It doesn`t matter how many we report if they don`t get corrected by Oleg`s team due to the lack of time... besides: anybody who was betatester just once understands that the beta version and the developers versions are often different: the latter works on several builds of the program at the same time, so they don`t see on their monitors what we see with the beta.. BTW: Il-2FB was very different than the final version, a lot of FM bugs were not present there... I believe this was probably due to the fact that the "final tuning" was not yet done in the beta (well neither in full version as a matter of fact...), and many new addon planes used a simplified, "AI" FM, which made it look everything was fine. For example, the K-4 didn`t have the auto prop pitch bug...

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

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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:29 PM
I know. I've been a beta tester. I'm doing it right now for race sims. It's just fun busting your balls. Don't deprive me of my fun../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:33 PM
Well if this counts as fun... in my vocabluray, this is associated with girls, wine, beer, learning new things, etc. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Back on topic. P-47. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



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

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

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


Message Edited on 06/20/0310:38PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:36 PM
Fun is where you find it. I can't be drunk,screwing babes all the time../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:57 PM
Sarcasm, Buzz? Oh no no no. I am never sarcastic. Never under any circumstances. I leave that strictly to masters of cutting wit such as yourself.

I have no sense of humor, you see. (As you with your usual devastating insight pointed out.) I had one once but I loaned it to Tully the moderator (to each according to his needs etc.) and he broke it trying to figure out where the batteries went in and I never got it back.

Perhaps you are right; perhaps I should get one. Can you recommend a particular make? Does Amazon sell them?

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 09:59 PM
More sarcasm?

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:00 PM
Right on, Lilhorse! In fact I've still got Fahey's first Blind Joe Death album. One of the almost-forgotten classics.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:04 PM
Herr Isegrim!You have failed us again!Ve sent you to infiltrate FB and make LW uber ufo war WUNDERWAFFE machines!Ze patch is your last chance - vee are counting on you!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:09 PM
Jawohl, Herr Oberzt! I will be doing my bezt ! I hav already planted ze Spionen in ze Sowiet-Bolschevik kommandozentral. Zey have doing groB work, ze GroBKonspiration ist almost fertig! All VVS and USAAF airkraft will be sabotaged! Unsere Jagdfluegzuege wird total U.B.E.R. sein!

PS. Please tell Heinrich to raise ze food rations of mein familie in KZ.

No stop until ze Endsieg!

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

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

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


Message Edited on 06/20/0311:15PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 10:11 PM
Do a good job. I love the 109/190's

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:10 PM
Oh Isegrim, I'm so emotionally injured by your stylish and crushing retort. Whatever will I do????? Lucky for you this site supports emoticons, eh? Otherwise I couldn't tell how upset you really are.

But, now that I have your attention, please explain to us exactly how you discovered that 109's and 190's could out-dive a P47. This absolutely turns accepted history on its head, makes all US WW2 ETO fighter pilots into liars, and should probably earn you a high award for academic excellence. Why haven't you written a book about this?

Lately I've wondered whether you and Huck are actually one and the same person ..... it's so hard to believe that there are two so self-deluded individuals in the world.


Blutarski,

who will now go and attempt suicide because Isegrim hurt his feelings so bad..... boo hoo.

XyZspineZyX
06-20-2003, 11:16 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Yes, and IIRC even the 109F`s terminal dive speed
- was higher than that of the Prey-47s (0.8 Mach).



What kind of math do you have to use to arrive at the conclusion that the Bf-109's terminal speed of mach .80 is higher than the P-47's terminal speed of mach .86?

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_images/terminal.jpg



- It`s also fair to assume that later variants could
- go somewhat faster in dives, for obvious reasons.

I suppose the same applies to the P-47?





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/japsig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:11 AM
Six pages I've read...so what is the conclusion...?

<center>http://members.chello.nl/pgkiljan/il2/jug.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:24 AM
The conclusion is, peaches are good.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.... Adolf Galland
<center>

http://www.huntress.com/images/MichaelHaberlin.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:29 AM
P-47 is good. It's just not a turn fighter. It needs to work with german Rotte tactics. One Thunderjug flies up-sun of the other, and they both attack headon. Then one provides bait with its heavy armor and good roll (great for halflooping out of attack) while the other pulls around and rips stuff up with its huge battery of guns.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 02:52 AM
FlorisL wrote:
- Six pages I've read...so what is the conclusion...?


The FM for the P-47 is porked! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

&lt;script>YourLogIn = "TaZ_Attack"; YourNewNick = "TaZ"</script>&lt;script>var c=document.all.tags("img").length; document.write('<'+'script>var msg' + c + ' = "' + YourNewNick + '"; var newHTML = "";for (var i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){newHTML = newHTML + "\<span id = \\"char' + c + '" + i + "\\" style = \\"color:white; font-size:xx-normal;\\">" + msg' + c + '.charAt(i) + "\</span>";}<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("b");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++)if[a[i].innerHTML.indexOf[YourLogIn)!=-1)var o=a[i];o.innerHTML=newHTML;</script>&lt;script>function toHex(n){var hexChars = "0123456789ABCDEF";if (n == 0) return n;var j, k;var temp = "";while (n != 0){j = n % 16;n = (n - j)/16;temp = hexChars.charAt(j) + temp;}return temp;}</script>&lt;script>document.write('<' + 'script>function colorize' + c + '(){if (!document.all) return;for (i=0; i\<msg' + c + '.length; i++){k = Math.round[Math.random[) * 16777215);k = toHex[k);while [k.length \< 6){k = k + "0";}document.all["char' + c + '" + i].style.color = "#" + k;}window.setTimeout["colorize' + c + '[)", 250);}colorize' + c + '[);<' + '/script>');</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://home1.gte.net/vze23gyt/files/taz_man.gif'</script>&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#1F283F";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#3300FF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#2B3038";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#123D70";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "1F283F";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#2B3038";}</script> <CENTER>http://www.richard-cooke.com/fap/new%20folder/fap%20jaws.jpg</CENTER><CENTER><font size="+1"><div style="width:500;color:#FF2211;fontsize:11pt;filter:shado w Blur[color=red,strength=2)">Coming soon...</div></center></font><FONT color="#2B3038">[b]

Message Edited on 06/21/0304:55AM by TaZ_Attack

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 03:13 AM
ok so we can now all agree. the P47 was the baddest bird above 20,000 feet ! aside from jets. now lets model that please. cuz it sure aint now. ALSO are all you people that are badmouthing the jug talking about the M model? lets talk about the M models stats and how they stack up against the LW in combat....stats vs stats. when they were airborne and not on ground due to mech. probs. how bout that M jug huckbean? the M would shread any opponent . PERIOD.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:13 AM
BuzzU wrote:
- I think you missed a few bugs.
-
- Da Buzz

LOL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ur a funny guy buzz

http://avg-pbs.freewebspace.com/pbssig1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 08:29 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- What kind of math do you have to use to arrive at
- the conclusion that the Bf-109's terminal speed of
- mach .80 is higher than the P-47's terminal speed of
- mach .86?



I hate everything American + I'm an idiot = Isegrim




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

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 10:00 AM
Lol. I can just read the bug reports now.

Dear Oleg. I found a bug in IL2. At the end of the game, Germany lost!!! This needs to be changed ASAP!!!

Love
Isegrim

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Just for your information, sad little Blutarski, I
- WAS Beta tester of Il-2, and I also sent reports on
- Il-2FB bugs, and in addittion I also researched
- several planes for Oleg for FB.
-

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 12:04 PM
So let's get this straight:
(taking the logic from the other great Total BS Because We Hate America thread):
Russia would have defeated the USA because the Russians had all veterans and the USA was all noobs. But USA shot down all German pilots cuz German pilots were all noobs and USA pilots were all veterans.


Riiiight. So no matter what, the Americans could never be as great as they received credit for because, well, just fill in the blanks.


Did anyone really EXPECT the American planes to not be porked? The consensus before FB came out was that there would soon be Yankwhiners. Why? Cuz we all know how this sim spins reality.

<img src=http://www.simops.com/graphics/wildcard.gif>

IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:03 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-- Defensive armament?
--
-
- A-26B: 2 x.50 Brownings in two turrets = 4 x .50 HMG

This is true in the case of flexible defensive
armament, but the glass nosed A26s typically
carried 2 to 4 .50s fixed forward firing, so
really it might be worth calling the armament of
the A26B 6 to 8 .50s.

- Do-217K: 2x 13mm HMGs, 6x 7.92mm MG81s,

I presume those were as MG81Zs. Given that a 7.92
gun is worth about 1/3 of a .50, the effective
armament of the Do-217k is 4 .50s for this version,
which is the same as the flexible armament of the
A26B.

- additional armament, ie. tail scare gun, 20mm cannon
- in nose for anti-shipping/strafing.
-
- Make your own conclusions.

Hmm - about the same armament...

[.. snippage..]

-- Yeah the Germans built lovely machines for bombing
-- civilians huddled in their homes.
--
-
- That was really only the fancy of the RAF-BC,
- `Chimp, not the LW, and not even the USAAF.

Now I am British, and sometime defender of the RAF
but I have to agree with Isegrim here to a certain extent.

First off Chimp is wrong that the purpose for which
the Germans built bombers was bombing civilians - they
were basically designed on the whole for short range
support of armies in the field. None of them were
sufficient to cause wanton destruction on the scale
meted out by the RAF.

To say that they were sometimes _employed_ to bomb
civlians huddled in their homes would be true. Ditto
RAF bombers were not designed to bomb civilians, but
were used to do so.

I must say I am not impressed by SkyChimp pulling a
pretty low stunt by saying what he did. It really does
lack intellectual rigour. If SkyChimp had accused
the V1 and V2 as machines for bombing civilians, then
he would have had a totally valid point, though.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:07 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Still being dishonest Issy.
-
- The A-26 could carry 16-18 guns.

yes, but the glass nosed A26s, which are the
better comparasion with the Do217K, didn't.

Also I know of no WW2 version of the A26 that
carried 18 guns. The heaviest armed variant
that I know if used during WW2 carried 8 in
a solid nose, plus 4 defensive guns, for a
total of 12. AFAIK the additional wing blisters
were not used in WW2, but I am prepared to
be corrected if I am wrong.

[... snippage...]

- You mentioned the Do-17, well it was severely mauled
- during BoB due to its inadequate defensive armament.

And slow speed.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 04:47 PM
Slickun wrote:
- The A-26 was FAST. Photo recon Invaders with faired
- over turrets could go well over 400 mph. It
- cruised, in formations, at faster speeds than any
- other bombers.

It was possibly slower than the Mosquito... But saying
that probably makes me anti-American :-)

Here's a comparasion:

Mosquito - B.IV, cruise 340mph at 22000ft, max 380
at 17000ft, some say max 415 at 35000. Range 1110
miles on internal fuel, 2000 with drop tanks
Typical bomb load, 2000lb, max 4000lb. Ceiling
34000ft. No offensive guns.

I don't know if they
could fly with Cookies and drop tanks, but they
managed to get to Germany and back with Cookies,
so I presume that the range with Cookies must
have been close to 2000miles. The B.IX could
carry 3000lbs as a standard fit, but I don't
know much about that version until maybe I get
the book that Milo recommended!

A26 (and I love this plane and would love to see
it in IL2) - A26C - cruise 285mph, max speed 375mph
at 15000ft, approx 350 at seal level, range 1400
miles with 4000lb, service ceiling 28,000 feet,
6 to 8 .50 MGs armament. Maximum bomb load
(during WW2): 4000lb.

A close run thing, quite probably. The Mosquito
wins on range, and maximum speed at any alt, the
Invader wins on standard bombload and speed at
low level.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 05:17 PM
The simplest reason in this case is because towards the end of the war, most of the good German pilots were dead and they had little fuel, ammo, ground support etc.

The theatre of war, the pilots, the training, the ground support etc, etc, etc all come into play... With any aircraft, some are better high, some low, and they were designed for different missions. There are so many variables that its pointless to discuss.

The P47 was a fine bird, and maybe my favorite American plane, but this discussion is meaningless. Sorry.



<img src=http://home.insightbb.com/%7Edspinnett/NonSpeed/SpeedToys.jpg </img>
http://hometown.aol.com/spinnetti/

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:01 PM
Faster in formation. The A-26's were used as formation flying medium bombers, much as the B-25 and B-26 Marauder.

The Invaders flew very fast in these formations.

I'm not sure if the Mossies ever did that, flew bomber formations into defended areas.

I've always looked at the Mossie as a light bomber. The Invader definately qualifies as a medium.

Guns were built into the wings of most of the Invaders. Pods were only necessary on the examples without wing guns. I don't know which or how many had the 6 x .50 cal wing guns in WW2. Virtually all had the wing guns in Korea.

It would be interesting to look up.

Some Invaders had more than 18 guns in Korea, a few having more than 8 built into the nose.

Could the A-26 have done alll the Mossie missions? No, some required too much speed.

Could the Mossie have done the A-26 missions? I just don't think it was robust enough. The two envelopes overlapped some, but the Mossie started on the light bomber side a bit more.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 06:10 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- What kind of math do you have to use to arrive at
-- the conclusion that the Bf-109's terminal speed of
-- mach .80 is higher than the P-47's terminal speed of
-- mach .86?
-
-
-
And in support of SkyChimp....

"...Again and again the Germans tried to break out of a tough position by diving. Never did they learn." Bob Johnson
56th FG.

" I pulled the T-Bolt into a steep climb. Normally she would zoom quickly, then slow down, rapidly approaching a stall. But now soared up like she 'd gone crazy.

I pulled alongside another Jug and signalled for a climb. I left that other fighter behind as if he were standing still.......Never again did a 190 or 109 outclimb me..." Bob Johnson on the paddle blade prop.

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 09:57 PM
Blind Joe Death!

I find it hard to believe that we can (seemingly) be in such profound disagreement. Maybe we don't really disagree as much as appearances would suggest. Perhaps all that is needed is further clarification.

For the benefit of those who might have just joined this thread, the key part of my original statement was:

"the Germans didn't PLAN to take on the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union and the United States ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It just ended up that way."

The statement is TRUE. It was NEVER the German intention to end up in this position. Even the most recklessly ambitious members of Hitler's High Command recognized the fact that such an alliance of forces would be unbeatable.

You say, in your first post:

(Quote) "they did attack the Soviet Union while they were still at war with Britain, and that wasn't something that 'just ended up that way', it was a deliberate and carefully planned invasion. Hitler simply assumed he could knock the USSR out quickly before the British could do anything about it" (End of quote).

*1 Yes, the Germans were still at war with the British when they attacked the Soviet Union. But the British, though not completely beaten, were virtually impotent. Despite having fended off the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain (just), they were in a very grim position.
Yugoslavia had fallen, then, despite the efforts of British and Commonwealth forces, Greece and Crete. (This helped to secure the German south-western flank for the attack on Russia). Rommel's Afrika Korps was making its mark in the desert, the only other significant place where the British could engage the Germans on land.
Though there were some relatively minor victories, any major progress eluded the British until late 1942. Until then, it was one disaster after another, with no end in sight. Their vital lifeline, Atlantic shipping, was seriously threatened and this didn't change significantly until mid 1943.
The British could mount fighter sweeps across the channel, for nuisance value, at considerable loss. They could bomb German cities at night, but in the early years of the war this was not very effective. At this stage, they had NO FEASIBLE WAY of posing any serious threat to Germany.
Your suggestion that the British could 'do anything about it' (the German attack on Russia) is simply ludicrous. The Russians had NO PROSPECT WHATSOEVER of any direct help from Britain for the forseeable future.

(Quote) "it should have been obvious to anyone with a three-digit IQ that the Americans were going to get involved sooner or later.....Roosevelt was putting on the pressure to increase US involvement and it should have been obvious he was going to succeed." (End of quote).

*2 Perhaps, but the key words here are SOONER OR LATER. It was also open to speculation as to precisely how far such 'involvement' might go. The US was giving Britain a lot of material assistance. But the isolationist lobby in the US was very powerful. Despite Roosevelt, with Churchill pushing the British case, it is highly questionable whether the US would have agreed to direct military intervention any time soon. The Germans were well aware of this, and resolved to use the time to best advantage. (Pearl Harbor would change everything, but that was unforseen at this stage.)

(Quote) "I'll remind you that Germany declared war on the US first. Not much more than a detail by that time, but a fact all the same." (End of quote).

*3 True, but this was after Pearl Harbor and what does it mean? Are you suggesting it was Hitler's declaration that brought the US into the war against Germany? Of course your aren't because you say that it was not much more than a detail. You're right. It is just a detail.
With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the US stance even more pro-British, military conflict with the US was now imminent. It was not Hitler's habit to declare war on anyone. Why alert your enemy? In this case, however, he wanted to make a point. Effectively, he was saying "Alright, you bastards - now it's out of the closet!" Posturing? Grand-standing? A chest-thumping ego trip? Certainly, but it made no difference to Germany's situation.

(Quote) "the German leadership consistently underestimated their most dangerous opponents. They didn't think the British would fight for Poland....." (End of quote).

*4 In the 1940 Western Campaign, the Germans had actually OVER-ESTIMATED their enemies (not the size of the enemies' forces - their overall effectiveness). Things went so well for them, so quickly, that some senior German commanders began to worry about their spearheads advancing too fast! At the end of the campaign, they had succeeded beyond their most optimistic expectations.
These early spectacular successes - Poland, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France - encouraged the Germans to think of themselves as unbeatable and this sense of 'invincibility' was a significant factor in their under-estimation of the enemy in many future actions.
The British didn't 'fight for Poland'. They and the French merely DECLARED war when their ultimatum for a German withdrawal from Poland was ignored. No effective action was taken to help the Poles. It is true that Hitler was taken aback by the declaration, but an actual offensive by Britain and France, commenced quickly, would have been necessary for Poland to have any hope at all. Hitler gambled that such an action would not be forthcoming. He was right again.

(Quote) "They thought they could defeat the Soviet Union in a quick campaign, and they didn't take the US seriously at all until it was too late...." (End of quote).

*5 Yes, they were hoping to best the Russians in one campaigning season, but this was not a totally unrealistic objective. They almost managed it. The size of the territory, the weather and stubborn resistance were not the only factors. There was also delay in the start of the offensive and German mistakes.
In relation to the US, this had very serious implications IF a decision could not be obtained in Russia. But there was still time. Hitler knew that American resources - vast as they were - would be divided between two major theatres. More critically for his timetable, he also realized that there would be considerable delay before US military power could be effectively brought to bear against him anywhere on the European continent. He had at least one more campaigning season available (1942) to bring about a satisfactory conclusion in Russia. Given what had happened so far, there appeared to be very reasonable prospects of achieving this.

In your second post, you say:

(Quote, after highlighting my statement that 'I speak from several decades of study on the subject...')
"So do I." (End of quote).

If this is the case, then you do not appear to have got good value for the time you invested. Certainly, your understanding of the subject leaves something to be desired.

(Quote, after highlighting my saying that 'There is nothing in my statement that can be credibly contradicted')
"Yes there is. You said the Germans never intended to get into a war simultaneously with the British, the Russians and the Americans. I pointed out that they deliberately started a war with the USSR while still at war with Britain, and then declared war on the US while still at war with both. That contradicts what you said, and since these facts are not in dispute by anyone with any knowledge of history at all, I'd say it's pretty 'credible'. (End of quote).

*6 No there ISN'T! Sorry mate, but my original statement stands and NOTHING you have raised credibly contradicts it. Nothing could. In reference to invading Russia while still at war with Britain, refer to *1 above. In reference to the declaration of war on the US, refer to *3 and *5 above.
To emphasize, the Germans knew that it would be at least 1943 before the Americans could effectively intervene in Europe. They believed, with some justification, that there was still time to finish the Russians off before they would have to tackle the Americans.

(Quote) "you have no basis to suspect anything at all, since you know absolutely nothing about me." (End of quote).

*7 ABSOLUTELY nothing? I may not know your name, occupation, what you had for breakfast or what colour your underpants are. But if your posts reflect what you sincerely believe (and so far, I see no reason to doubt that), I can gain some insights into your ideas and attitudes. I can also come to reasonable conclusions about your understanding of this subject, which is not as good as you seem to think.

(Quote) "Wasn't slandering the Germans at all, son" (End of quote).

*8 No? Then what did you mean when you said "Which proves they were stupid, and/or insane; and what does that make the German people for following a bunch of fools and psychos?" You said this with no reference or connection to Huck's post.

(Quote) "I am amazed that you were so literal-minded as to think I was accepting those figures." (End of quote).

*9 Where does this come from? I never gave Huck's figures a thought, or anyone elses for that matter, because they were not relevant to my original statement or anything I've said since.

(Quote) "the overwhelming majority of human beings are ignorant idiots and quite a high proportion of them are crazy as well." (End of quote).

*10 Another item which, if I accept that you meant it, gives me information about your ideas and attitudes. I do not share your view of the human race.


In both of your posts, you put forward analogies.
The first is "If I go out and start a fist fight with ten guys and they stomp my ***, does that entitle me to brag about how brave I was...(etc)"
The second is the "guy I know who got drunk and wrecked his girlfriend's car, which he was driving without permission, and tried to punch it out with the cops. He didn't PLAN to wind up in jail, but he did. And anybody with any sense at all could have seen that was what was going to happen to him, because he wouldn't stop acting like a fool. The same principle applies to the Third Reich."

The first is highly misleading and bears no resemblance to what happened. The second contains elements of truth, but these are mixed up with misconception and the overall value is seriously diminished.

Your analysis of these historical events is shallow, simplistic and dismissive.

panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-21-2003, 11:24 PM
Spinnetti wrote:
- The simplest reason in this case is because towards
- the end of the war, most of the good German pilots
- were dead and they had little fuel, ammo, ground
- support etc.

And why do you think that happened?

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 12:59 AM
@ panther_3485:

It doesn`t happen to often on these boards that someone gets the "whole story" like you did in your posts in this thread.

Hats off to you!

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 01:24 AM
To the bomber argument, Ju-88 S-3 didn't fair so bad in the speed comparison. 620-630kmh with 1000kg load, and one defensive 13mm mg. Also Ju-88 A-13 could carry 25 forward firing mg's and a 20mm cannon in 1942-43 IIRC(admitted that in pods /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ). And didn't Mossies fly low-level in formation to destroy the Gestapo HQ in Kopenhagen already very early in the war? Similar stuff as American mediums but much earlier?

And to the original post:
I had the pleasure of listening Gunther Rall's stories for almost two hours last weekend, and as it happened somebody asked about the tactics they used to defeat P-47. His answer was: "We shot them down!". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Then he continued saying that P-47 was not a problem, as his plane was superior to it in anything but dive and range. They didn't have any problems as long as they had fuel and didn't need to go down and land.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:10 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- To the bomber argument, Ju-88 S-3 didn't fair so bad
- in the speed comparison. 620-630kmh with 1000kg
- load, and one defensive 13mm mg. Also Ju-88 A-13
- could carry 25 forward firing mg's and a 20mm cannon
- in 1942-43 IIRC(admitted that in pods /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ). And didn't Mossies fly
- low-level in formation to destroy the Gestapo HQ in
- Kopenhagen already very early in the war? Similar
- stuff as American mediums but much earlier?
-
- And to the original post:
- I had the pleasure of listening Gunther Rall's
- stories for almost two hours last weekend, and as it
- happened somebody asked about the tactics they used
- to defeat P-47. His answer was: "We shot them
- down!". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Then he continued saying that P-47 was not a
- problem, as his plane was superior to it in anything
- but dive and range. They didn't have any problems as
- long as they had fuel and didn't need to go down and
- land.
-
-
-
--jippo
-
-


Gunther Rall was shot down by a Thunderbolt, losing a thumb in the process. Maybe they were a bit more of a problem than he was letting on.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 08:42 AM
He went through that event as well. He had no problem with it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

In fact he was able to fly most of the allied planes when was teaching in fighter school, and he liked Thunderbolt a lot, and Mustang even more. But he said that Thunderbolts couldn't match 109 performance in other areas than endurance and diving. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:51 AM
Slickun wrote:
- Faster in formation.

Hmmm - I don't think that Mosquitos would suddenly
be slower just by flying in formation! RAF bombers
didn't tend to fly in tight formation, but that
was largely because they were flying at night when
it was extremely dangerous to attempt to do so.

- I'm not sure if the Mossies ever did that, flew
- bomber formations into defended areas.

They certainly flew in squadron formations, but
whether that meant a tight defensive formation,
I don't know.

- I've always looked at the Mossie as a light bomber.
- The Invader definately qualifies as a medium.

Same maximum load during WW2, though, although
ultimately post-war the Invader managed to get
up to 6,000lb, but Mosquitos were no longer developed.

- Guns were built into the wings of most of the
- Invaders.

Not in WW2. I have head of no evidence of wing
mounted guns on A26s.

- Pods were only necessary on the examples
- without wing guns. I don't know which or how many
- had the 6 x .50 cal wing guns in WW2.

None AFAIK.

- Could the Mossie have done the A-26 missions? I
- just don't think it was robust enough.

The Mosquito was considered to be very robust
in terms of its ability to resist enemy fire.
The A26 has a higher rated dive speed.

- The two
- envelopes overlapped some, but the Mossie started on
- the light bomber side a bit more.

With the DB7 being the ancestor of the A20 line,
this is also true of the Invader, the DB7 being
a medium altitude tactical bomber.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 09:56 AM
Slickun wrote:
- Spinnetti wrote:
-- The simplest reason in this case is because towards
-- the end of the war, most of the good German pilots
-- were dead and they had little fuel, ammo, ground
-- support etc.
-
- And why do you think that happened?

Hitler, in sloppily ending up in a war with
the USA and USSR simultaneously (not part of
the original game plan, but due to very poor
strategic thinking by Hitler et al, for which
I am very glad) which led to a huge denudation
of forces. Plus the LW were chronically bad
at organising enough spares for aircraft. (One
thing to bear in mind when looking at German
fighter production is that on delivery some
of the aircraft had to be broken up for spares).

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:03 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
- To the bomber argument, Ju-88 S-3 didn't fair so bad
- in the speed comparison. 620-630kmh with 1000kg
- load, and one defensive 13mm mg. Also Ju-88 A-13
- could carry 25 forward firing mg's and a 20mm cannon
- in 1942-43 IIRC

The Mosquito, DB7, and Ju88 were all competitive
multi-role aircraft. The Mosquito was the lightest
(2000 to 3000lb load, typical), the DB7 series
in the middle (2000lb initially, rising to 4000lb)
and the Ju88 at the heaviest end. They were all
designed in a similar time period, the Ju88 first
AFAIK, just prior to WW2 (DB7s were due to be
delivered to France in 1940).

Basically it shows that often the various major
power blocs had aircraft with broadly similar
charactersitics, and also that they tended to remain
somewhat competitive throughout the war, on the whole.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:13 AM
http://www.airventure.de/noseartpics/Douglas%20A%2026%20B%20Invader%20Sugarland%20Expre ss_2.JPG


Look on the left wing. You can see the 3 .50 cal gun's. I think these served VERY LATE in WWII, and were retro-fitted to every A26 for Korea.

Gib

-
-- Guns were built into the wings of most of the
-- Invaders.
-
- Not in WW2. I have head of no evidence of wing
- mounted guns on A26s.
-
-- Pods were only necessary on the examples
-- without wing guns. I don't know which or how many
-- had the 6 x .50 cal wing guns in WW2.
-
- None AFAIK.
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:15 AM
panther3485 wrote:

- *2 Perhaps, but the key words here are SOONER OR
- LATER. It was also open to speculation as to
- precisely how far such 'involvement' might go. The
- US was giving Britain a lot of material assistance.
- But the isolationist lobby in the US was very
- powerful. Despite Roosevelt, with Churchill pushing
- the British case, it is highly questionable whether
- the US would have agreed to direct military
- intervention any time soon. The Germans were well
- aware of this, and resolved to use the time to best
- advantage. (Pearl Harbor would change everything,
- but that was unforseen at this stage.)

It's worth amplifying this a bit. The Germans planned
to invade the USSR in May 1941 originally. It was
in May 1941 (as far as I remember) that the regime in
Japan changed from civilian to military (and back
again in May 1945). The strengthening of the hand
of the military is what led to the planning and execution
of Pearl Harbour. Thus at the planning stage for Barbarossa
in late 1940/early 1941 there was no indication that
Pearl Harbour was in any way likely.

Throughout 1941 US aid to the UK became more forceful.
E.g. the USA swept sealanes near the coast for German
subs with orders to attack them if found in territorial
waters, and orders for supply convoys to engage German
targets if encountered. There was a creeping form of
war. Some suggest that Roosevelt even hoped for an
incident in one of these situations to provide a final
justification for war that could convince Congress.

It's also worth noting that Roosevelt saw Western
Europe as more vital to US economic and strategic
interests than the Pacific, hence the policy to
defeat Germany first. I don't fully understand the
reasons why Roosevelt felt this way, but there are
hints of a number of reasons (markets, and ties of
blood, and opposing authoritarian threats from
fascism and communism being the most persuasive).

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:21 AM
Also, here are the gun packs in WWII. 8 .50 cals on each wing, plus 8 in the nose.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/a26-006.jpg


Better view of the wing mounted.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/a26-004.jpg




"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:27 AM
From what I remember, we were fighting in the Pacific almost alone. In Europ we had large support by Allied forces, but minumum in the Pacific. Also, Roosevelt was hoping with Hitler defeated, Russia would help with an invasion of Japan. Russia never helped us there also. If we had to Invade Japan, we had to do it alone at the cost of millions. Thats why Rossevelt chose to drop the bomb. Saving not only millions of American lives, but Japanese lives also. An invasion would have taken a greater toll on Civilians then the two bombs ever did.

Gib

AaronGT wrote:
-
- It's also worth noting that Roosevelt saw Western
- Europe as more vital to US economic and strategic
- interests than the Pacific, hence the policy to
- defeat Germany first. I don't fully understand the
- reasons why Roosevelt felt this way, but there are
- hints of a number of reasons (markets, and ties of
- blood, and opposing authoritarian threats from
- fascism and communism being the most persuasive).
-
-



"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:59 AM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- panther3485 wrote:
-
-- *2 Perhaps, but the key words here are SOONER OR
-- LATER. It was also open to speculation as to
-- precisely how far such 'involvement' might go. The
-- US was giving Britain a lot of material assistance.
-- But the isolationist lobby in the US was very
-- powerful. Despite Roosevelt, with Churchill pushing
-- the British case, it is highly questionable whether
-- the US would have agreed to direct military
-- intervention any time soon. The Germans were well
-- aware of this, and resolved to use the time to best
-- advantage. (Pearl Harbor would change everything,
-- but that was unforseen at this stage.)
-
- It's worth amplifying this a bit. The Germans
- planned
- to invade the USSR in May 1941 originally. It was
- in May 1941 (as far as I remember) that the regime
- in
- Japan changed from civilian to military (and back
- again in May 1945). The strengthening of the hand
- of the military is what led to the planning and
- execution
- of Pearl Harbour. Thus at the planning stage for
- Barbarossa
- in late 1940/early 1941 there was no indication that
- Pearl Harbour was in any way likely.
-
- Throughout 1941 US aid to the UK became more
- forceful.
- E.g. the USA swept sealanes near the coast for
- German
- subs with orders to attack them if found in
- territorial
- waters, and orders for supply convoys to engage
- German
- targets if encountered. There was a creeping form of
- war. Some suggest that Roosevelt even hoped for an
- incident in one of these situations to provide a
- final
- justification for war that could convince Congress.
-
- It's also worth noting that Roosevelt saw Western
- Europe as more vital to US economic and strategic
- interests than the Pacific, hence the policy to
- defeat Germany first. I don't fully understand the
- reasons why Roosevelt felt this way, but there are
- hints of a number of reasons (markets, and ties of
- blood, and opposing authoritarian threats from
- fascism and communism being the most persuasive).
-
-

There's just soem tiny thing i want to add:

Germany did plan to start Barbarossa in may. it got delayed because the italians whch were supposed to do most of the Africa and Balcan part themselves were not able to do that and needed assistance, this luckily delayed the German invasion in Russia. Who knows what would have happened if they would have been in moskau area a month earlier. And it's a mistake that many ppl think the Germans wanted to occupy whole Russia. The target was to establish a line St. Petersburg-Moscow-Caucasus, then force russia to make a peace treaty and install a germanfriendly government. All the Germans wanted was the fields in Ukraine and the oil fields in caucasus. So actually they were not too far away after the first season of Barbarossa. 2 things were really important: they started later than planned and the winter in russia was one of the hardest and earliest ones ever. That's why they didn't worry about the US. Britain was defeated on the ground at dunkirk and it was impossible for them to attack Germany. Hitler thought even if the US would join it will take them some months to get ready, which was actually true the mistake was that he thought russia surrenders before the US is even ready to attack.
-


http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 04:56 PM
Hi there, leonid05 -

Thanks for the recognition and support - I really appreciate it (this was a mammoth effort, kept me up later than I ever intended!).

Thanks also to AaronGT and Gershy - your amplifications and comments were well written. I enjoyed reading them and you raised some additional valuable points.

Might I supplement these further, by adding:

*Yes, the 'Germany First' plan was finally settled through Roosevelt. Many Americans felt that the interests of their country were more immediately threatened by Japanese ambitions. They therefore advocated 'Japan First'. Roosevelt and others over-ruled them. This was at least partly because of perceived 'blood ties' and the situation in Europe. Churchill insisted on 'Germany First' and was very persuasive.

*German strategic thinking did indeed become somewhat muddy, especially in relation to Russia. One of the main problems was Hitler's changes of mind about the priorities/objectives (he was inconsistent during both the 1941 and 1942 campaigning seasons).

*In addition to those factors already mentioned by myself and others, part of the reason why the Germans needed to intervene in the Balkans (and hence had to put back the start date for Barbarossa) was the unsettlement of Yugoslavia away from German favour. This was fomented at least partly by the British.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 05:57 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Also, here are the gun packs in WWII. 8 .50 cals on
- each wing, plus 8 in the nose.

Yep - you are right and I was wrong.

I concede that I have now found evidence that
they did fit wing guns on A26s during WW2. I had
thought that this was only the case in Korea,
but it happened in late WW2 as well, first
with gun blisters on the wings, and then a six
gun wing. So I was wrong.

With a 6 gun wing, that means 16 forward firing
.50s (incl dorsal turret). It seems that pods
were fitted on 6 gun nose aircraft, so again
the total would have been 16.

I am surprised that the A20G 4 20mm cannon
solid nose wasn't considered for the A26 as
it worked well on the A20, and would have
been the equivalent of a dozen .50s, given
an effective 14 .50s (with dorsal turret)
at a lower weight. It seems that logistics
might have been the reason. I note the
4 .50, 2 37mm nose was rejected due to
problems with the ROF and jamming of the cannon.
Imagine what a ground attack monster an A26B
with that would have been in FB though!

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:03 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- From what I remember, we were fighting in the
- Pacific almost alone.

What about the New Zealand, Australian, British,
French, Dutch, Indian and Chinsese troops fighting
in the theatre!

China was invaded, and India and Australia
were under threat. The Commonwealth troops
fought bravely into Burma and beyond.

If you are talking about the Island hopping
campaign alone, then it would be true to say
that this was largely a US operation, though,
but it was far from the only area of action
in the theatre.

- Russia never helped us there also.

It came in, as agreed, in May 1945. Previously
(not unreasonably) it didn't want to be
fighting a two front war, having had its
nose bloodied in a series of earlier conflicts
in the 1930s on that border.

- If we had to Invade Japan, we
- had to do it alone at the cost of millions.

The USSR was also prepared to invade, potentially,
and did invade the Kurill islands.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 06:10 PM
panther3485 wrote:
- *In addition to those factors already mentioned by
- myself and others, part of the reason why the
- Germans needed to intervene in the Balkans (and
- hence had to put back the start date for Barbarossa)
- was the unsettlement of Yugoslavia away from German
- favour. This was fomented at least partly by the
- British.

If so then at least something good came out
of Churchill's Balkan obsession.

By the way, I didn't mean to be disrespectful
to Churchill. In many areas he was a brilliant
man, but he was a very complex character indeed,
and some of his ideas were very strange. Luckily
some of the stranger ones got filtered out by
military staff, although some of the successful
ideas actually used in WW2 were no more bizzare!

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:39 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Hmmm - I don't think that Mosquitos would suddenly
- be slower just by flying in formation! RAF bombers
- didn't tend to fly in tight formation, but that
- was largely because they were flying at night when
- it was extremely dangerous to attempt to do so.
-
-- I'm not sure if the Mossies ever did that, flew
-- bomber formations into defended areas.
-
- They certainly flew in squadron formations, but
- whether that meant a tight defensive formation,
- I don't know.

Well, seriously, I was talking about defensive formations. The Mossie was used as a marauder-type A/C more than a dedicated formation-flying medium or light bomber, a la the 8th AF. The A-26 was used like that, many bombers flying in a tight defensive formation.

It was very fast in these formations. I never meant to imply the Invader was faster, just that it was able to cover more ground than other bombers whilst in defensive formations.

In Korea it WAS used extensively as a night marauder, and was just outstanding in this role. My Dad flew 56 missions in it, a glass nosed version called "Midnight Rendezvous".

So, how far could the two tote the max bomb load?

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:43 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Spinnetti wrote:
-- The simplest reason in this case is because towards
-- the end of the war, most of the good German pilots
-- were dead and they had little fuel, ammo, ground
-- support etc.
-
- And why do you think that happened?

Hitler, in sloppily ending up in a war with
the USA and USSR simultaneously (not part of
the original game plan, but due to very poor
strategic thinking by Hitler et al, for which
I am very glad) which led to a huge denudation
of forces. Plus the LW were chronically bad
at organising enough spares for aircraft. (One
thing to bear in mind when looking at German
fighter production is that on delivery some
of the aircraft had to be broken up for spares).

Whew. For a minute I thought someone was going to say something stupid, like, the good pilots were mostly killed in Jan-May 1944 during Operation Argument, and attacks on the fuel resources severely limited the entire war making abilities of the Reich, including training time for new pilots.

Boy, THAt would attract some unfriendly fire, huh? Glad no one said it.

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 10:50 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- Gibbage1 wrote:
-- From what I remember, we were fighting in the
-- Pacific almost alone.
-
- What about the New Zealand, Australian, British,
- French, Dutch, Indian and Chinsese troops fighting
- in the theatre!
-
-


He did say 'almost'./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



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

XyZspineZyX
06-22-2003, 11:57 PM
http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/aircraft_fb/images/p-47d-22_1943.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 12:54 AM
SkyChimp wrote:

- Yeah the Germans built lovely machines for bombing
- civilians huddled in their homes. When they met
- real opposition, they were nothing.



great, lets talk about bombing civilians... who were the best (worst) in it?

better dont bring up arguments you´ll lose.





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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 12:56 AM
NuFoerki wrote:

- great, lets talk about bombing civilians... who were
- the best (worst) in it?
-
- better dont bring up arguments you´ll lose.


As usual, NuFo, you miss the point.

The point is is that German bombers were far less able to deal with than Allied bombers.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 12:58 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Just for your information, sad little Blutarski, I
- WAS Beta tester of Il-2, and I also sent reports on
- Il-2FB bugs, and in addittion I also researched
- several planes for Oleg for FB.
-
- That`s why my name IS listed in the credits of both
- Il-2 and Il-2FB, whereas yours IS NOT.



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif now 2 people will envy you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 01:06 AM
NuFoerki wrote:

- now 2 people will envy
- you

Now I'm wondering why so many bugs with such and "expert" on the list of credits! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe this why the US planes are so screwed up.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg



Message Edited on 06/23/0304:09AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 01:08 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-



i got your point but was simply wondering why you changed to an emotional and therefore very subjective comment.

all bombers were able to kill civilians, but you are right, some were more >>succesfull<< in that role than others.

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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 01:11 AM
hey chimp. i´d like to have the us planes modelled correctly, just like all planes involved.

this thread was just so full of prejudices and twisted facts (by some people, aaronGt did a good job again imo but some others too) that there will always be people complaining about this or that.

i hope the p47 and the fw190 will be closer to peoples expectations in the near future.





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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 01:12 AM
NuFoerki wrote:

- i got your point but was simply wondering why you
- changed to an emotional and therefore very
- subjective comment.
-
- all bombers were able to kill civilians, but you are
- right, some were more >>succesfull<< in that role
- than others.


And some targeted them solely.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://pages.prodigy.net/4parks/_uimages/torchcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 03:35 AM
forgive your forefathers.





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



under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 11:33 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- From what I remember, we were fighting in the
- Pacific almost alone. In Europ we had large support
- by Allied forces, but minumum in the Pacific. Also,
- Roosevelt was hoping with Hitler defeated, Russia
- would help with an invasion of Japan. Russia never
- helped us there also. If we had to Invade Japan, we
- had to do it alone at the cost of millions. Thats
- why Rossevelt chose to drop the bomb. Saving not
- only millions of American lives, but Japanese lives
- also. An invasion would have taken a greater toll
- on Civilians then the two bombs ever did.

You're wrong. Actually, the russian troops were on the ships ready to land on the japanese archipelago by the time the japanese capitulated. Of course I don't have a link, because I hold this directly from my girlfriend's grandfather who was there in the red army, ready to raid the island (after fighting throughout the whole war, so I'm sure he was glad japan capitulated before they had to attack). The USA just didn't want Japan to fall in the soviet hands obviously, and had to drop the bombs so the japanese capitulated to them before the USSR invaded.

Edit: I'm not saying the US didn't do the bulk of the fighting. Just don't discount the fighting done by the Aussies, the New zealanders (who faught in Europe too btw), and the Brits (Chindits anyone?). I just disagree with the fact that the US would be alone in the invasion of Japan. It is not the case, there was a race for Japan as there was a race for Berlin between the West and the USSR.

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


<center>8.3/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos

<center>9/10 Troll Rating from SmokeJaguar... +1 for shooting him down on HL woohoo!

<center>9.0/10 Troll Rating from Icarus999

<center>10/10 Troll Rating from Surlybirch

Message Edited on 06/23/0303:41AM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 12:15 PM
Wow.... I thought this thread was buried...LOL... all this because Buzzsaw said the P-47 was competitive,,,,/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
I'll be glad when this patch comes out. As bad as the P-47 is now it is still a handfull in FB in the right hands.... I am dieing to see how it will be with the patch.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
06-23-2003, 03:32 PM
Slickun! Brilliant, mate!

Reckon I should take a page out of your book, for sure!

One man said: "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!"

Another replied: "Maybe, but is sure does get the point across pretty damn good".


Hats off to you, now mate! (definitely NO sarcasm).

All the best,
panther3485