How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

[Przemcio231]

Well as for Ju-87Stuka this plane was crappy from the beggin facing any fighter even at the beggining of the war including Crappy Polish P.11C the reason it suceded in the beggining was that the Allies had a crapy Fighter doctrine and Stukas were under constant cover by Bf-109's it changed during the BoB when Fighters become guided by radar to its targets and the Stuka were not as heavily escorted...

[Honda]

F6F Wildcat[:D]

[Adnan Meshuggi]

well, you can´t compare ETO and PTO...

the Ju88, He111 and (with working Engines) the He2?? (in the second i forget the name... grrr... the 4engine Plane with 2 props... ) could be dangerous enemies... but they are no specialist in naval air war...

the stuka (ju87) is deadly but has no defence (like the val or the dauntless), so try them against well defended ships, this will hurt you.

the fighters lack range, sure you could produce long range FW190s... this will cause extreme problems to carrier based planes... fast and heavy armed and the fighting for the naval was not in very high alts (so the 20000feet alt performance problems will not cause huge problems)... the "best" plane for naval fighting would be the Do335... long range, 2 engines, very fast and well armed... also could be used as a fighterbomber, even a torpedo could be used...

for the Ju88/Ju188/He2???, they could carry guided bombs... very funny (not for the enemies) from spring 43 on... they killed the italien roma with one of these little toys. (three hits), and coming from the sky, no defence armor will help you

But you can´t compare a nation so totally ignoring the naval air war (like germany) with the pac war nations...

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well, you can´t compare ETO and PTO...

the Ju88, He111 and (with working Engines) the He2?? (in the second i forget the name... grrr... the 4engine Plane with 2 props... ) could be dangerous enemies... but they are no specialist in naval air war...

for the Ju88/Ju188/He2???, they could carry guided bombs... very funny (not for the enemies) from spring 43 on... they killed the italien roma with one of these little toys. (three hits), and coming from the sky, no defence armor will help you

But you can´t compare a nation so totally ignoring the naval air war (like germany) with the pac war nations...

Hi,

the Ju 88A-14 and Ju 88A-17 were specialized naval attack versions of the Ju 88 (the A-17 carried torpedoes). And the guided bombs you referred to ("Fritz X") were developed to attack surface ships and more than a nuisance to Allied ships at Anzio. The Luftwaffe was certainly not totally ignorant of naval air war, but there were other priorities that came first (and limited capacities).

K

[mdiehl]

Didn't you mean "Nothing more than a nuisance at Anzio?" The Fritz were another good idea not quite executed properly and not strategically significant.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Didn't you mean "Nothing more than a nuisance at Anzio?" The Fritz were another good idea not quite executed properly and not strategically significant.

Yup, should have said "Salerno" because they were quite effective then (BB Warspite, BB Italia and CL Uganda were heavily damaged, BB Roma sunk, the Italian BB's not exactly at Salerno, of course) - at least somewhat more effective than the silly Japanese Kamikaze stuff[8D]. At least a nuisance in 1943... (nothing that the Germans did in 1944 was eventually strategically significant because they had already lost the war by then!).

K

Savannah

[String]

And also CL Savannah.

*Click here to see a picture of the attack*

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

FW 190 could hold its own vs any Allied fighter and was better than anything the Japanese had (IMHO), the Bf-109 would have a little trouble vs Mustangs, Thunderbolts & Spitfires but was again better than Japanese fighters.

The fw 190 probably could hold its own against any allied late war fighter. The bf 109 was simply outdated. Mustangs would chew them up. Of course, as with any comparrison, you have to consider carefully the role in which they are used.

Also, pilot skill is crucial. Some AC, are superb in the hands of a pilot that knows how to capitalize on its characteristics, while a death trap for much less experienced pilots. Some planes were easier to master, like the P-47, while others took a longtime to fly with great proficiency.

[Feinder]

*Click here to see a picture of the attack*

Forbidden!

(* shrug *)

I think mission is important to comparison. While I don't know ranges of German fighters, I expect they're probably overall shorter. Then again, they didn't have to fly that far. They also had more punch compared to Japanese fighters, but their mission was to knock down heavy bombers. German bombers were largely for close support with (overall) shorter ranger. Again, their mission differed from Japans (longer ranges necessary, and more use vs. ships).

There's also the discussion about Radial vs. Inline engines (most German planes were inline, most Japanese were Radial). I think Radials had less HP, but stood up to the tropical climates much better (I may be way off, anyone is welcome to tell me I'm full of crap).

-F-

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I think Radials had less HP, but stood up to the tropical climates much better (I may be way off, anyone is welcome to tell me I'm full of crap).

-F-

Feinder, you're full of...just kidding. [;)]

[Feinder]

Somebody explained to me once why each preferred Inlines or Radials. But my eyes started to glaze over pretty quickly.

There was some advantage, like Radials being more robust or something. But a trade off, like maybe the less horse-power (can't remember tho).

-F-

[niceguy2005]

I'm sure there was a rationale to radials, or the Japanese probably wouldn't have used them. If memory serves though (and it frequently doesn't) radials are harder to maintain.

[Nikademus]

amazing picture!

thx for posting it. Had never seen it.

[mdiehl]

Radials more battle hardy. Usually air cooled so you couldn't have your engine fried by a puncture in the coolant tank because there was no coolant tank. Lighter overall too. More durable if a piston gets hit.

[anarchyintheuk]

Warning: sweeping generalizations

Radials are easier to maintain and, being air-cooled, more resistant to damage. Especially useful for carrier ops. The USN required radial engines for the their carrier ac. I assume the IJN did as well.

In-lines have more hps/lb and allow for a more streamlined shape. Imo much sexier aestetically. Think Spitfire/P-51 vs. P-47.

[ChezDaJez]

There's also the discussion about Radial vs. Inline engines (most German planes were inline, most Japanese were Radial). I think Radials had less HP, but stood up to the tropical climates much better (I may be way off, anyone is welcome to tell me I'm full of crap).

Wasn't so much the tropical environment as it was the carrier environment. Both the US and Japan used radials in their carrier aircraft. That's why you didn't see any inline engine aircraft on their carriers. I believe the only inline engine aircraft used on carriers were the Spit and Sea Hurries. Carrier aircraft required shorter noses for better visibility while landing on carriers. They were also much better at deflection shooting than inlines for the same reason. Radials were also much easier to repair, could take substantially more damage and took up less longitundinal airframe space.

However, inline engines developed more power pound for pound and the aircraft they were installed on were faster due to better streamlining. They were also more prone to maintenance failures and overheating. The radiators were quite vulnerable to battle damage, especially in the ground attack role.

Chez

[mdiehl]

believe the only inline engine aircraft used on carriers were the Spit and Sea Hurries

Nawp the UK had in-line torpedo bombers too. Fairey Fulmar in the early going and Fairey Firefly in the later war.

[ChezDaJez]

Nawp the UK had in-line torpedo bombers too. Fairey Fulmar in the early going and Fairey Firefly in the later war.

Yup, you're right. I'm not too familiar with Brit carrier aircraft and could only think of the Spit and Sea Hurricane.

Neither the Spit or the Sea Hurricane were designed as carrier aircraft. Were the Fulmar and Firefly designed as such from the git-go?

Chez

[JeffroK]

Feinder,

Radials had far more HP, 2300horses in the P&W R2800-59 as fitted in the P47N

The Griffon 65 in a Spitfire XIV pumped out about 2000hp.

The big difference is that streamlining of the Spit meant that less drag had to be fought.

[el cid again]

I'm sure there was a rationale to radials, or the Japanese probably wouldn't have used them. If memory serves though (and it frequently doesn't) radials are harder to maintain.

A radial engine can continue to work EVEN if it is hit by enemy fire!
We had planes with ONE engine return to base/ship after MORE THAN ONE of the piston heads had been shot off!