Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 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.

Nope, we just get annoyed when it's implied that we're soviets that's all.

Yes, Churchill and Roosevelt were wise to focus on Germany as the greater threat as her industrial potential was far larger than Japan's. Fortunately the Nazi Party didn't grasp the true nature of the war they'd started until too late.

Are there any good books on the Red Airforce that you are aware of? The impression given from Glantz (Kursk) was that the Red Airforce lost massive numbers of planes to the Luftwaffe but won the day through sheer numbers and attrition. By the tail end of the battle the Luftwaffe could only gain local superiority at set times and places allowing her bombers/ground attack aircraft to support the troops. It would seem there was still a huge gap in skill sets if the losses suggested were as high as they were.

Ok, sorry for being rude. It's been a bad weekend.

ORIGINAL: 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.

greetings... i do not find anything rude in that, in fact all people who lived (or their parents) during commie system have numerous reasons to hate Soviet communists. Therefore, we didn't trust (i did not) official history propaganda... as you may know Yugoslavia had softer political system than CCCP and we could find all relevant data from the western historians (although it was hard to find those books but it was possible)...

I just want to say again - i have same info as String have. And i got it from western authors... you can ignore my post, you can denie that but this is a fact - Allies were generous with awarded kills by bombers crew (purpose: keep their moral on satisfying level).

Allies were generous with awarded kills by bombers crew

Actually no real "purpose" there. The principal difficulty was that US bombers did not mount gun cameras all over the place. Thus while a group could bring home multiple accounts of different German fighters being shot down, it was very difficult to credibly sort out who (or whom) did the shooting of what. You could have three ball turret gunners in a group all whacking the same target, and if their memory of the time of kill differed much it would seem like two or more different planes were destroyed.

Real bomber vs axis fighter loss ratios to A2A combat will never be available. I would not be at all surprised to discover that each bomber shot down one fighter on average before it went down, but that's an economic win for the Axis at least in crude tonnage and personnel.

Still, US "official kills" awarded weren't outside of the norm for other ETO powers and loss estimates probably far superior to Japanese official kills awarded to their combat groups.

The P-51 was designed form the outset to be a fighter, not a ground attack aircraft. It was North American's offered substitute for the P-40 (which North American did not want to build under license) that the UK asked North American to manufacture. The Allison engine was actually pretty good with a turbosupercharger although I do not know if the early Mustangs had TSCs. (The P-38 developed very good performance from Allisons when they had TSCs, and the Y-prototype P-39 had 400mph on Allison engines in 1941 with a supercharger). The early Allison-engined P-51s were slightly superior to contemporary models of the Spit and easily better than contemporary Me-109s.

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[:)]

Well, it is hard to argue as the jets were the beginning of a whole new era. However, with any new technology there was a lot of things to learn.

From a big picture standpoint-not a performance standpoint. These are the criteria I would use in evaluating the best aircraft.

1. Range (Thats why one of my favs. the 109 won't get the prize)

2. Mass production. Could not have been a plane they only made few of. (don't tell me about the Do255).

3. Reliability and ease of maintainence (if it does not fly, it ain't worth crap-read Frank or George)

4. Cost effectiveness. (Late war P38 was as good as anything else in the sky. But it was too damn expensive to build. Wars cost money-best not to waste it.)

5 Flexibility (it does not hurt if you could slap a coupla thousand pound bombs on it)

6. Speed (by the end of the war, the speed vs turning argument was over. Speed kills)

7 Duribility. (delicate does not cut the mustard in a furball)

8 Firepower. (got to be able to fight the bulldog)

9. Cool looks. (Tempest was a great plane, but lets face it, it was just butt-ugly.)[:-]

The early Allison-engined P-51s were slightly superior to contemporary models of the Spit and easily better than contemporary Me-109s.

Pity they flew like dogs above 20 K though ! [:D]

probably would have been good if the alison with turbosupercharger was available

unusual to see the US hit by production shortfalls, there must be something behind this !

Are there any good books on the Red Airforce that you are aware of?

Black Cross/Red Star is usually seen as a nice recent source, you should give it a try

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/

It would seem there was still a huge gap in skill sets if the losses suggested were as high as they were.

Skill gap was particulary important in the first years, for simple reasons: poor VVS doctrinas, poor VVS team fight capability because of the lack of radios, and of course pure inexperience of the largest part of the crews (many german units on june 1941 saw fighting in Poland, France and Great-Britain, not to mention Marita or, for some of them afterwards joining the campaign later on, Africa), while on the opposite the Germans had started to develop their news tactics even before the Civil War...

Then this gap, as well as technological gap started to get reduced. Year after year, VVS got more and more serious. They had their "top gun" squadrons too, viable war machines (well as you see it with the P39 successes, nearly everything that flies not that badly is virtually a potential viable war machine for the soviet pilots ), new tactics, partly developped by people like Pokryshkin and his squadron. On the other hand, the pilot pool of Luftwaffe was getting lower and lower, new rookie pilots were more numerous, best battle weary squadrons had to be sometimes relocated to Germany because of the priority to homeland defense, only to get depleted by 1944 by the USAAF fighter cover. If it is true that getting an easy kill on a allied fighter was said to be easier on the Eastern front, by 1943 that's just mere statistics, as it is logical the place you've got thousands of pilots is the one you may get thousands more opportunities to score a shot. People like Hartmann and true experten, who nevertheless may have found not that hard to shoot down russians, remained the minority - experten mattered in a limited air front like Africa, but in the tumultuous overwhelming Eastern Front, you would have needed a thousand Hartmann and a thousand Rudel (to talk about air-to-ground) to make any difference... And then, when you had a Soviet pilot on your tail, that was already a different story, and at that time, experienced Soviet pilot didn't find neither that hard to shoot a rookie german pilot...

AJ

The ME262 was inferior in almost every respect. All it had was very good speed. That made it a strong candidate for intercepting bombers. It was otherwise a monumental waste of German resources. Had they built more FW190s that would have aided the Germans substantially. Had they built more ME262s they'd have lost the war faster.

The duration was abysmal. 1/2 hour in the air from launch to landing. That made it excessively vulnerable. Poor acceleration and engines that had to be gently nursed into increased throttle. It was at a compelling disadvantage against most fighters because German pilots were not used to deflection shooting much less at the high closing rates offered by a 262. So to get at, say, a P-51 most 262 pilots had to enter the combat around 400 mph... at which speed the P-51 was as likely to eat the ME262s lunch as anything.

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Are there any good books on the Red Airforce that you are aware of?

Black Cross/Red Star is usually seen as a nice recent source, you should give it a try

http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/

Thx. I'll add these to the book-list. [:)]

The ME262 was inferior in almost every respect. All it had was very good speed. That made it a strong candidate for intercepting bombers. It was otherwise a monumental waste of German resources. Had they built more FW190s that would have aided the Germans substantially. Had they built more ME262s they'd have lost the war faster.

The duration was abysmal. 1/2 hour in the air from launch to landing. That made it excessively vulnerable. Poor acceleration and engines that had to be gently nursed into increased throttle. It was at a compelling disadvantage against most fighters because German pilots were not used to deflection shooting much less at the high closing rates offered by a 262. So to get at, say, a P-51 most 262 pilots had to enter the combat around 400 mph... at which speed the P-51 was as likely to eat the ME262s lunch as anything.

So,according to you,P-51 is better plane then ME-262!!!
That is serious BS.[:-]

I would also say that 10000 more FW190 would have helped more than 10000 Me262. And I think 10000 FW190 would have performed better. Or 10000 P51. Me262 was a revolutional design though.

ORIGINAL: hawker

The ME262 was inferior in almost every respect. All it had was very good speed. That made it a strong candidate for intercepting bombers. It was otherwise a monumental waste of German resources. Had they built more FW190s that would have aided the Germans substantially. Had they built more ME262s they'd have lost the war faster.

The duration was abysmal. 1/2 hour in the air from launch to landing. That made it excessively vulnerable. Poor acceleration and engines that had to be gently nursed into increased throttle. It was at a compelling disadvantage against most fighters because German pilots were not used to deflection shooting much less at the high closing rates offered by a 262. So to get at, say, a P-51 most 262 pilots had to enter the combat around 400 mph... at which speed the P-51 was as likely to eat the ME262s lunch as anything.

So,according to you,P-51 is better plane then ME-262!!!
That is serious BS.[:-]

Well, just from the duration in the air, I'd say the P-51 was the better plane. How do you expect to cap your ground forces, escort bombers, and sweep the skies if you only have a 30 min duration?

You know, there are many factors in what makes a great plane. having a one on one engagement where both parties are aware of the other do not necessarily show you which plane is better.

If the 262, Tiger, super subs, ballistic missiles, super battleships, etc etc were so much better, then why didn't the Axis win the war?

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: hawker

So,according to you,P-51 is better plane then ME-262!!!
That is serious BS.[:-]

Don't bother trying to get into argument with "mdiehl" it's pointless (just as it is 100% pointless that he who never owned UV nor WitP constantly tries to force his opinions here)... it's of no use (in past years here there were hundreds of pages about "Wildcat vs. Zero", "Sherman vs. Tiger", "Bismarck vs. rest", "Yamato vs. rest" etc.)... the best thing is to ignore him and his posts...

BTW, the most funny thing is when in one argument "faster Wildcat is so much better than maneuvering Zero" and in another "faster Me-262 is inferior to slower but more maneuverable P-51)... [;)]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

If the 262, Tiger, super subs, ballistic missiles, super battleships, etc etc were so much better, then why didn't the Axis win the war?

Funny enough NATO (i.e. USA) in post WWII world used just what Germans tried to do in WWII against combined Allies - their main (non-nuclear) option was to match numerical superiority of Russians with quality... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Just typos fixed.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

If the 262, Tiger, super subs, ballistic missiles, super battleships, etc etc were so much better, then why didn't the Axis win the war?

I agree with the central thrust of your argument that the stats and potential one on one engagements don't tell the whole story. If the P-51 was as short legged as the Me 262 they would hardly ever have fought it (there were few Spitfire v Me 262 fights I suspect). If the Mustang had been as unreliable as the Me 262 it would have been retired long before the Me 262 went into combat.

But your last paragraph can be answered quite easily by some one who does think the Germans had built wonder weapons. I don't think any of them were but to play devils advocate:

262 - Overwhelmed by inferior allied planes. If only they had built more [:)]
Tiger - ditto [:D]
Super Subs - Not in production in time. [;)]
Ballistic missles - Too late and they lacked the warhead they really needed [X(]
Super battleships - I am not touching this [:D] But if you insist [;)] well one was sunk only by most of the RN [:)] And they were so scared of the other they resorted to dropping bunker buster bombs on her [:D]

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

Super battleships - I am not touching this [:D] But if you insist [;)] well one was sunk only by most of the RN [:)] And they were so scared of the other they resorted to dropping bunker buster bombs on her [:D]

I think (and hope) he meant Yamato/Musashi. Japan is axis too afterall

Well, just from the duration in the air, I'd say the P-51 was the better plane. How do you expect to cap your ground forces, escort bombers, and sweep the skies if you only have a 30 min duration?

You know, there are many factors in what makes a great plane. having a one on one engagement where both parties are aware of the other do not necessarily show you which plane is better.

If the 262, Tiger, super subs, ballistic missiles, super battleships, etc etc were so much better, then why didn't the Axis win the war?

Bradley,
Only reason why P-51 is "better" then ME-262 is sheer numbers,everybody with any knowledge will agree that ME-262 is much better then any other fighter. If Germans has these planes in numbers allied bombers never fly over Germany,or they fly with great losses on their side.
365 (i think) Tiger tanks produced in whole war and 50000 Shermans.Tiger is much much better than Sherman in every apect except speed. Imagine what will Germans do with 50000 Tigers. King Tiger is best tank of WW2,this tank is only outclassed by Soviet IS-3 tank. BTW,IS-3 was best tank in the world 10 years after WW2.

Don't bother trying to get into argument with "mdiehl" it's pointless (just as it is 100% pointless that he who never owned UV nor WitP constantly tries to force his opinions here)... it's of no use (in past years here there were hundreds of pages about "Wildcat vs. Zero", "Sherman vs. Tiger", "Bismarck vs. rest", "Yamato vs. rest" etc.)... the best thing is to ignore him and his posts...

BTW, the most funny thing is when in one argument "faster Wildcat is so much better than maneuvering Zero" and in another "faster Me-262 is inferior to slower but more maneuverable P-51)...

Leo, potpuno si u pravu. Ne isplati se odgovarati na njegove postove.

I agree with the central thrust of your argument that the stats and potential one on one engagements don't tell the whole story. If the P-51 was as short legged as the Me 262 they would hardly ever have fought it (there were few Spitfire v Me 262 fights I suspect). If the Mustang had been as unreliable as the Me 262 it would have been retired long before the Me 262 went into combat.

But your last paragraph can be answered quite easily by some one who does think the Germans had built wonder weapons. I don't think any of them were but to play devils advocate:

262 - Overwhelmed by inferior allied planes. If only they had built more
Tiger - ditto
Super Subs - Not in production in time.
Ballistic missles - Too late and they lacked the warhead they really needed
Super battleships - I am not touching this But if you insist well one was sunk only by most of the RN And they were so scared of the other they resorted to dropping bunker buster bombs on her

Totaly agree with you.[;)]

Well apart from Speed the Me262 mounter 4x30 mm Cannon a great weapon ageainst the Bombers... the Schwable made the best interceptor in that time... and i recall that i read somewhere that Germans employed Me-109 and Fw-190 to cover the area around the Airfields when the Schawbles were scrambiling and when they were returning home...

As for Super Subs i think class XXI was the best sub of its time well i know the soviets build Foxtrots and Romeo Classes basing on the Design but the Germans were unable to employ those in any numbers that could make any difference[:)]

Tigers were deamn good tanks matched only by soviet IS-2 with a 122mm gun... no other Allied tank had a chance in 1 on 1 duel... well as with the subs they apeard in small numbers...

As for German Super BB's well Bismarck and Tirpitz were basicly little redesigned Bayern class BB from WWI... well i kind of think German BB's and BC's Lutzow , Seydlitz , Hindenburg , Konig , Bayern classes where far ahead of its time when build... those ships could take a beatting and still stay afloat... Like Seydlitz after Jutland... compare that to the RN Bc's wich had a tendency to blow up... or BB's wich were sunk with a single torpedo or mine... the example is "Adacius" wich hit a small german Mine... Any way my Point is that the German Battleships were good but... i think building them Germany just wasted the Stell wich could be used to build Tanks[:D]