How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

[At last, because Ive got 1 minute left [:)], about the ressources, we shouldn't forget the allied help when it comes to trucks or jeeps was especially important in the logistic effort of the red army, and the Soviets literally equipped new (not to say the real first) motorized infantry units with these new machines. It is mainly the result of poor industrial planification maybe, but that was a capital step forward for many units.
And not to mention very important help in the form of air-refined gasoline of good octane, thousands of kilometers of rail, dozen of locomotives (1945 war railway system of USSR was significally constituted of US made materials), tons of meat and combat rations, things USSR couldn't or didn't have the time to built or produce. Economically speaking, anyone working of the LL will admit this help proved to be fundamental to Soviet war effort - it is admitted Russians may have won at the same speed without Shermans or Cobras, but certainly not without these resources. [:)]

AJ

Half a million motor vehicles made a big difference in the Red Army's speed of advance during the later half of the war, but don't forget the "key" weapon the US provided the Soviets. It amounted to one can of SPAM per day per soldier during 1944-45...the kind of ration boost that made the long advances possible.
Sometimes it's the little things that mean the most.
Fishbed
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 am
Location: Henderson Field, Guadalcanal

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Fishbed »

but don't forget the "key" weapon the US provided the Soviets. It amounted to one can of SPAM per day per soldier during 1944-45...the kind of ration boost that made the long advances possible.
I didn't mean to forget it, boss ;)
tons of meat and combat rations

Knowing USSR was a country that may sometimes have problems in certain food categories to feed all its population, even during peace time, and knowing that at that time the largest part of the best grounds were occupied or looted, there is no doubt the Allies', mainly the US and other American allies in this case, food help did indeed help much - there is no shame in asking what you can't produce anymore, Im glad it worked this way.

This is the kind of symbols I like with the Russian lend-lease, along with the Northern convoies sacrifices, or the different Air Forces cooperations for instance - a true example of what allies can do when they make the effort of overcoming together all their contradictions to join their forces against their enemy, in a fashion like we didn't see many in history. Too bad it had to end this way...

AJ
User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7188
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Feinder »

I read a book about a special German strike unit wich was designed as some kind of Kamikaze they were supposed to Ram allied Bombers... and from what i know they flew one mission of this type...

Well, duh!

[:D]

-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by String »

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).


UGHHH.. I just can't RESIST answering this, even though I promised not to post any more. Your only excuse is that I didn't post my birth date, which is 1984.

The rest is just ignorance on your part.

Surface combat TF fanboy
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6425
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by JeffroK »

LL was also important in that the USSR could concentrate its building efforts on the Frontline, many of the Aircraft/Tanks & other weapons could be allocated to less vital areas and allow the concentration of superior weapons where required.

They also found effective use of the P-39!
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Fishbed
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 am
Location: Henderson Field, Guadalcanal

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Fishbed »

They also found effective use of the P-39!
That's just a pity to see how russian pilots of the Airacobra regiments managed to get that much successful with the simple addition of a radio - I mean, had the General Staff felt the need to fit every combat plane with a radio and make a good use of it, the VVS wouldn't have accumulated such a lag in combat tactics during the first years of the war...
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Przemcio231 »

Yeach from what i read the Pilots should targert the Tail of a Bomber and hit it with a wing and then bail out[:D][:D]
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by wild_Willie2 »

Yeach from what i read the Pilots should targert the Tail of a Bomber and hit it with a wing and then bail out

You will love the "Natter"

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/ai ... chemba.htm
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Przemcio231 »

Know that machine[:D] any way Willie more WitP turns and less typing[:D] im comming for Truk[:D]
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by wild_Willie2 »

Know that machine any way Willie more WitP turns and less typing im comming for Truk

Sure [8|], first send me a TURN....
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
User avatar
Demosthenes
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Demosthenes »

ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).


UGHHH.. I just can't RESIST answering this, even though I promised not to post any more. Your only excuse is that I didn't post my birth date, which is 1984.

The rest is just ignorance on your part.


Well, I don't know what to say about that - I was only pointing out the fact that both the former Soviet dominated part of Europe where you live, and the Western part of Europe and the US where I live - downplay the contributions of each other.

If you choose to get indignant about a fact which is not an insult, I'll put that down to your tender young years.

Have a nice day
User avatar
String
Posts: 2661
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Estonia

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by String »

ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: Demosthenes

EDIT: String, I see you are from Estonia. I know from friends I have had over the years who were born and raised in Eastern Europe that WWII history is taught differently from how it's taught in the West (both sides stress their contribution and downplay the other sides...ie - West Front / East Front).


UGHHH.. I just can't RESIST answering this, even though I promised not to post any more. Your only excuse is that I didn't post my birth date, which is 1984.

The rest is just ignorance on your part.


Well, I don't know what to say about that - I was only pointing out the fact that both the former Soviet dominated part of Europe where you live, and the Western part of Europe and the US where I live - downplay the contributions of each other.

If you choose to get indignant about a fact which is not an insult, I'll put that down to your tender young years.

Have a nice day

There is a very good reason why I posted my birth date. A simple calculation will show you that I started my education at 1990. Right at the fall of USSR. It's somewhat hard to have soviet influences on my education isn't it?

It may come as news to you, but we didn't particularly like our soviet oppressors from the east, so nothing of the old soviet educational doctrine remained when we regained independence. I'd say some people went even too far, downplaying the soviets too much and demonizing them too much.
Surface combat TF fanboy
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Przemcio231 »

Well String got a point here... the Communist educational system wasen't perfect but it was far more complex then the one you have in US especialy in High School... well i kind of know what im saying... i was borned in 1982... and i have a 2 year old older Cousin born in US living in California. and when he was 18 and i was 16 ouer parents made a small test from Math... and to be honest this guy coulden't do a simple exercise from my book...[:D][:D] As for history i saw books from witch people learned history in the middle 80's and appart from some crap about Lenin , Marks&Engels this book was good... and in the Part about WWII the only things missing were USSR invading Poland , Katyn and a twisted view point on polish Home Army. And there was definetly nothing about USSR winning the war Alone... So for all people thinking like Demosthenes please do not speak about something that you do not have any knowlage of other then your own opinions made from something you heard...
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by crsutton »

You guys should all go to the IL2-Forgotten Battles forum. I highly recommend it. There you will find that all of these topics have been debated to death and back by the various people there. There is a high level of knowledge about WWII aircraft there. I have learned more in the past four years of reading posts there about WWII aircraft than I ever thought I could.

However, you will not find an conclusive answers to your arguments. What you will find is that there is virtually no agreement on which WWII fighter is the best. Fanboys are fanboys and they all have good evidence to support their claims for any number of excellent fighters.

After reading posts there for almost four years, this is what I can give back as an observation. There truly were a number of excellent fighter aircraft to come out of the war. Discounting jets, arguments can be make for the excellent mustang, P47, lightning, late 109s, late spits, Yak3, La7, 190-D, Japanese Frank- it just goes on and on and there is a mountain of data to support each and every plane. The truth is that WWII fighters were highly sophisticated planes and each was designed and suited for specific roles. Some were better at high altitude, some medium and some low- and would own another "excellent" aircraft that was out of its specific perfomance envelope.

However, when deciding which plane is the best, there is a problem at the IL2 forum in that the guys there are obsessed with performance data. For the majority of them the data that might give one uber plane a slight advantage over the other is the final deciding factor. To me it is a little picture vs big picture sort of thing.

So here I go, I am going to look at the big picture and put my self out on a limb. My absolute favorite fighter was the La7 with the three 20 mm guns in the nose. What a cool deadly plane, with excellent performance at certain altitudes. Was it the best plane of the war? No, not if you examine the big picture.

WWII proved that projecting air power was a crucial for sucess. The advantage lay with the airforce that could go deepest into enemy space (and have some chance of getting home). The luftwaffe really could not do this, The Red Airforce could not do this to any great extent, The Japanese could not and the British only at night. In spite of intial setbacks, the Americans could do it. The mustang was a good aircraft that could above anything else fly far-very far-all the way to Berlin far. In the end performance and firepower and maneuverabilty were all secondary to flying far. This is why the mustang was the "best" fighter of the war. It was a excellent plane that could range far into enemy airspace and fight some excellent fighters there that really could not go as far. In the end that was the difference.

Of course, it helps if you can make a hell of a lot of them.[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Przemcio231
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 9:39 am
Location: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Przemcio231 »

ORIGINAL: crsutton
The mustang was a good aircraft that could above anything else fly far-very far-all the way to Berlin far. In the end performance and firepower and maneuverabilty were all secondary to flying far. This is why the mustang was the "best" fighter of the war. It was a excellent plane that could range far into enemy airspace and fight some excellent fighters there that really could not go as far. In the end that was the difference

Well point well taken the mustang had a relly impresive Range... and i would agree that it was the best Allied plane of the War... but nothing beats Me-262 Schwable[:)]
Image

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)
TSCofield
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat May 12, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Ft. Lewis Washington
Contact:

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by TSCofield »

ORIGINAL: joliverlay



3. The Mustang was NOT designed for air to air it was designed for ground support. It was found to be a wonderful air to air fighter by good fortuneor accident. It was not due to a delibreate design.



6. Regarding the notion that the Red Army broke the back of the Luftwaffe. If you look at the disposition of fighter gruppen you will see that the figher arm was crippled by the daylight combat in the west. Most of the fighter gruppen wereeturned to Germany, Italy, etc. during the bomber offensive. Very few fighter gruppen remained on the russian front. They were not needed. Of course it is correct that most of the Army units and Luft. ground support units remined on the Russian front.

I only disagree with two of your assertions.

The P-51 was initially designed as a fighter. It is true that the A-36 was designed at the same time but the development of both aircraft types happened at the same time. The happy accident occured when the British stuck a Merlin into a P-51A frame and turned a fair low to mid altitude fighter into a fantastic long range interceptor. The A-36 was something of a bust, like most inline engined attack aircraft.

The Red Air Force did break the back of the Luftwaffe. The air offensive over Germany finished off the Fighter force but the heart of the Luftwaffe, its ground attack and close air support units were destroyed on the Eastern front. Its transportation capability was crippled at Stalingrad-it lost not only the cream of their transport pilots but most of the instructors as well. Most KG losses were over the Eastern Front. This inability to interdict Russian troop buildups and movements is what killed the German Army in the East. At the beginning of the war they were able to fly and destroy targets at will, crippling the Soviet's ability to fight and strike back. By 1943 the Germans were unable to pinpoint attack Soviet strong points without a fight. By 1944 they had lost control of the air. It is true the USAAF more than likely put the dagger into the heart of the luftwaffe but it was the Soviets that made damned sure the direct support capabilities of the Luftwaffe were destroyed.
Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)
Image
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Nikademus »

The two factors were intimately inter-twined.

The Luftwaffe lost the ability gain/maintain air superiority over the Russian battlefield (starting with the Kursk battle) in large part because a the majority of the JG were in Germany defending her airspace against the incursions by the USAAF/BC. The lack of fighters also ensured the eventual destruction of the KG's in Russia. The demands of the Eastern Front also ensured that Wermacht troops in other theaters would not have the ground support they needed.
User avatar
Demosthenes
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles CA

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by Demosthenes »

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231
So for all people thinking like Demosthenes please do not speak about something that you do not have any knowlage of other then your own opinions made from something you heard...

Do all of you guys from Eastern Europe specialize in being rude?

Oh, ...what s the use.

TSCofield
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat May 12, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Ft. Lewis Washington
Contact:

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by TSCofield »

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

ORIGINAL: crsutton
The mustang was a good aircraft that could above anything else fly far-very far-all the way to Berlin far. In the end performance and firepower and maneuverabilty were all secondary to flying far. This is why the mustang was the "best" fighter of the war. It was a excellent plane that could range far into enemy airspace and fight some excellent fighters there that really could not go as far. In the end that was the difference

Well point well taken the mustang had a relly impresive Range... and i would agree that it was the best Allied plane of the War... but nothing beats Me-262 Schwable[:)]

The 262 was revolutionary although there were some serious problems with it. When we fly the aircraft in IL2 or EAW we really don't see some of the problems that the aircraft was plagued with.

1. It was fast, but had a relatively poor thrust to weight ratio. This meant the plane had to be flown fast to be safe from the bounce. All of us know that the allied tactic of bouncing the aircraft on takeoffs and landings was the preferred tactic. It wasn't very maneuverable so being low and slow was absolutely deadly for the pilot, even more so than any piston engined plane.

2. The aircraft was notoriously unreliable in its early stages. The metallurgy in Germany was among the best in the world but it was still primitive and the early engines of the aircraft were prone to flamout or plain disintegration. Many pilots were killed because the aircraft simply had too many bugs. I am sure being made by slave labor didn't help matters any, if I was building those aircraft I wouldn't put too much pride into my work either. In addition the engines were simply not capable of sustaining a rapid change in throttle input. Slamming the throttle forward (a natural reaction when being shot at) would result in engine detonation or flameout. Pilots had to be real careful about flying the Swalbe.

3. It had poor takeoff and landing characteristics. Landing speeds were much higher than normal aircraft and it required a fairly long runway for takeoffs and landings. Approach length was much longer than regular aircraft. I am not totally sure about the ability of the aircraft to use unimproved runways but most German aircraft were not all that good at using field strips (unlike russian birds). It took a LOOOONNNNNGGG time to slow down and it was very vulnerable during these times.

4. It wasn't the most durable aircraft. Like all early jets it was easily combustable. Early jets were poor utilizers of fuel and as such they were flying gas cans. Flying into a formation of 100 plus B-17s wasn't always a sure thing for the 262. Sure it could take one or two out but one good fifty cal could turn it into a flaming torch. Pilots didn't fare too well when they went up. It wasn't the infamous Me 163 but it was a dangerous aircraft.


This isn't a slam on the 262, it was a revolutionary aircraft and one of the top five aircraft made during WW2. It introduced a load of features that affected aircraft development for the next 50 years. Unlike the P-51, which was an evolution in aircraft design, the Me 262 was a revolution. Like all first generation aircraft it had its problems but that shouldn't take away from its significance. To me though, the significance of the aircraft was after the war, not during it.

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)
Image
TSCofield
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat May 12, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Ft. Lewis Washington
Contact:

RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ?

Post by TSCofield »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The two factors were intimately inter-twined.

The Luftwaffe lost the ability gain/maintain air superiority over the Russian battlefield (starting with the Kursk battle) in large part because a the majority of the JG were in Germany defending her airspace against the incursions by the USAAF/BC. The lack of fighters also ensured the eventual destruction of the KG's in Russia. The demands of the Eastern Front also ensured that Wermacht troops in other theaters would not have the ground support they needed.


A large percentage of the German ground attack units were rendered essentially combat ineffective in late 1942. The long distances and poor airfields in Russia tore up the Stukas and Heinkels to the point where less than 30% of the aircraft that started Barbarossa were capable of flying by mid 1942. One major point that hasn't been made was that the Germans didn't really put themselves on a true war footing until late in 1942. Germany tried the guns and butter approach, trying to present normalcy at home while figthing the war abroad. Replacement aircraft (look at German productions before 1943, they were terrible) took forever to reach the front. Stalingrad and Crete took out the German Air Transport Corps (it never recovered). You are partially correct, the Allied bombing offensive forced Germany to build fighters instead of dedicated ground attack aircraft and the numbers created went for air defense.

Thomas S. Cofield
Feature Editor, SimHQ.com
t.co0field@comcast.net (stopped the SimHq mail since I get nothing but spam)
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”