Author Topic: Spitfire IX overmodeled?? (Read 39652 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #150 on:** January 25, 2004, 07:47:04 PM »

Roger that Grunherz.

It makes sense that LW A/C must have been competitive as far as performance goes. Otherwise how did even the Experten survive the odds?

Your right Milo-Moronic.....I said Landing Zones not Beachheads. Didn't mean to confuse you. Do you have trouble following stories when the main character is suddenly refered to by a pronoun? Bet that just throws your whole world off, huh?

I can see how easy it is to confuse "Landing Zones" with FR-AAA-NCE.

I should have cleared that up by using the term "BEACH Landing Zones" perhaps? Or "BEACH the ships were LANDING ON"? My fault entirely.

So you been making minimum wage long, Milo? You can go far with a GED.....I guess...

Crumpp

F4UDOA · « **Reply #151 on:** January 25, 2004, 07:51:37 PM »

Batz,

Seriously, take a position and defend it. Your only position in the entire thread is that you don't like me. Frankly I don't think we are going to be sharing a Latte any time soon so why don't you find something else to do.

BTW, you misquoted me in your post one paragraph after posting what I actually said.

Straffo,

Don't ask. I started this thread without the intention of having a name calling session with Batz. That's about all I can say about my last few post. Maybe I'll go back and delete them.

In anycase yes I am sharing (taking) Caldwells view on why the LW lost the BoB.

The start of this thread had to do with fuel consumption, flight endurance and peformance relative to weight, so much for that.

Batz · « **Reply #152 on:** January 25, 2004, 08:21:56 PM »

I didn’t misquote you. I just filtered out all the rest of your BS and presented a clearer summation of what it is you were really trying to say.

Don't be so vain, I neither like, nor dislike you. I don't even know you. However, I do find a lot of what you post funny and expressed that.

How's my giraffe coming?

BTW Squire answered all the way back on the 1st page

Quote

Spit V and Spit IX had in some versions a 29-imp gallon auxiliary tank behind the pilot. 85+29 x 1.2 = 137 US gallons, I’m sure that’s where the # comes from.

When I 1st came to AH some one had brought up the issue of the spit 9 having 137 gal and I believe the conclusion was there were Spit 9s with the 29 gal tank behind the pilot. Since this issue doesn't really matter to me a bit I won't bother with a search. Good Luck with all that

GScholz · « **Reply #153 on:** January 25, 2004, 09:52:06 PM »

F4UDOA, Batz ... you're both right, you're both morons!

On the LW issue: The LW lost the air war over Western Europe in 1943, and their loss was not due to anything the allies did. The LW lost because they had been making grievous mistakes throughout the entire war. The German High Command was beset with organizational problems and internal power struggle. Their aircraft R&D and production authorities were even more inept at doing their job. That the LW offered resistance to such a level is astonishing and a tribute to the German fighting spirit. One can only shudder at the thought of what they could have done (to the world) if their leadership had been up for the task.

The single most grievous mistake they did was made long before the war .... operational training doctrine. The men of the LW fought until they fell, never getting the chance to pass on their experience to the green replacement pilots, except for "on the job training". Not until 1944 did the LW start to take this seriously, and by then it was too late, their teenage pilots with 10 hours of flight training were getting slaughtered in their high-tech super rides.

The LW didn't plan for a long war ... but that's what they got.

GScholz · « **Reply #154 on:** January 25, 2004, 10:32:57 PM »

You're welcome Angus.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #155 on:** January 26, 2004, 12:13:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

You can go far with a GED.....I guess...

Crumpp

Yes we all can see that grunt, you being a prime example....

OBW, the Germans rated the American grunt at the lowest level of those it faced in combat. Could not even better the peasant soldier in 'Nam. Not much has changed in 60 years.

Batz · « **Reply #156 on:** January 26, 2004, 12:59:49 AM »

Quote

you're both morons!

There you go again. Now if I were to reply in turn you will end up whining again like you did with the quote below:

Quote

Ah of course, the inevitable ad hominem attack.

Won't ya.......?

GScholz · « **Reply #157 on:** January 26, 2004, 01:24:04 AM »

Actually that's not an ad hominem attack.

straffo · « **Reply #158 on:** January 26, 2004, 02:13:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Actually that's not an ad hominem attack.

Well in my twisted mind it sounded like a twisted joke

please all resume name calling it's not the O'club here.

gripen · « **Reply #159 on:** January 26, 2004, 05:24:51 AM »

Crumpp,
The statistics do not support conclusions presented in your source (USAAF statistical digest, USBBS and BBSU). Somehow writers draw a conclusion that Luftwaffe was finished that time despite USAAF still lost far more planes to enemy fighters in May than in February (given that then the 8th AF bombed targets also in France due to transportation plan). They also fail to realize that there were lot of air fighting in Normandy; LW lost all together about 800 planes there and they certainly challenged invasion force (their loss rate per sortie was about 5%).

Actually the article contradicts your claims above. It clearly states that reasons for low amount of LW sorties June 6-7th; the Gemans were not sure if the invasion was real and it took some time to move units to the front (also from the defence of the reich).

Otherwise the article is quite correct; The Allied air supermacy in Normandy was caused simply by numerical superiority of the allied air forces and well made preparations (combined effort by all allies). Cumulative effect also contain losses which LW suffered in BoB.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #160 on:** January 26, 2004, 07:37:02 AM »

Gripen,

The article supports the "claims" I've been making.

1. The allies gains Air Superiority in a fairly short time after Doolittle's doctrine change AND Big Week. True, by the end of March ,44 the Allies had Air Superiority over Europe. By June they had Air Supremacy. Fact, not an ansumption.

2. The LW efforts in Normandy were ineffective and resulted in absolutely no military gain. - Fact, not an assumption.

The AEAF produced enough planes and pilots by June '44 that the loss of even 800 planes WITH pilots probably wouldn't have been a major setback.

Gscholz,

Your absolutely correct in the mistakes the LW made listed in your Post. No doubt these sped up the demise of the LW considerably. Remember the Allies made some grievous mistakes. In war all sides make mistakes. It's the side that makes the fewest, maintains it will, and capitalizes on the enemies mistakes the most that wins.

I think it's a safe assumption to make that the LW could have continued to maintain Air Superiority over Europe for a lot longer time period had Doolittle not changed Doctrine and Launched Big Week. I think it would have taken years not weeks for the Allies to win IF they won it all.

Milo-Moronic,

Funny thing I have a quote from Erwin Rommel hanging in my office:

"War is made up of Confusion and Chaos. The American Army is so good at war because they practice Confusion and Chaos on a daily basis."

Rommel was trying to dig at the American Army. He does say that the American Army was the fastest learning Army he had ever encountered. The lessons learned at Kasserine were quickly incorporated to the frontline soldier. Your right though the conscript/class structured Army of World War II definately isn't the same as the all volunteer professional force we have today. Only 2 guys in my unit do not have a Bachelors degree and most of us have or are working on a Masters.

I think your talking about the British that the Germans rated the lowest. They took so many casualties in World War I that their doctrine in WWII did not risk taking many. Course I don't expect you to believe that since it's just a German soldiers opinion AND your Canadian. I know some of you guys are still sore at being thrown out of the Empire. Don't worry your still a British Something or other right...protectorate? Oh well doesn't really matter does it. Wouldn't be YOU protecting anything anyway. It's Ok though the world needs consumers.
Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #161 on:** January 26, 2004, 08:05:10 AM »

Hmm, when the US army entered the North African campaign, the Germans were already on the run.
I guess Rommel was surprized that he couldn't mop those newbies out

MiloMorai · « **Reply #162 on:** January 26, 2004, 08:09:46 AM »

Another ignorant, know-it-all, loudmouth Yank this Crumpp or is that Crisp. The reason Americans are not liked.

And I have known several grunts who didn't even have a High school diploma.

"War is made up of Confusion and Chaos. The American Army is so good at war because they practice Confusion and Chaos on a daily basis."

Yes that describes perfectly, even to-day, the Americans, they don't know whether they are coming or going but you know were they are becuase of all the noise they are making.

Anyways, I will let you live in your fantasy dream world Crisp.

Angus · « **Reply #163 on:** January 26, 2004, 08:24:46 AM »

Oh, and Crumpp:
"I think your talking about the British that the Germans rated the lowest"

They certainly did not rate the RAF as the lowest. Remember that the RAF dropped more bombs on Germany than the USAF. Many German Aces will tell you that their most dreaded foe was the RAF.

Hmm, what then? the Royal Navy? Hardly, for by the time the US Navy entered the fight against the Germans, the RN had already crippled and locked the German Surface fleet in, and were scoring nicely against German subs. At the time, the RN was also a bigger force than the US navy.

That leads us to the Grunts. The first fights between the US and the Germans were in N Africa, where the British had the Germans completely on the run. Hardly that location then? What about Normandy? Well, the British seemed to be doing just fine in and after the invasion, - no worse than the US.

May it perhaps be that after their initial success in the Blitzkrieg and the conquest of France, that the Germans took the opinion that the British were a weak force? Maybe, but it was their mistake to belive that it would stay that way.

Pyro · « **Reply #164 on:** January 26, 2004, 09:40:18 AM »

Mark, can you send me a full copy of that of what was in your first post?