The Best Fighter Aircraft of all Time

[straffo]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim

 This was proven beyond doubt, to anybody, even to Milo. If Straffo, and you Angie want to make yourself look an even bigger prettythanghat, I have no problems with that.

You prooved nothing.

Using a scanned profile were 1 pixel error can lead to a 1 cm error  is a no go.

Like Dowding said : the master race lost the war

[Dowding]

Actually what I should have said was:

The Germans lost the War for Democracy, Humanity and Freedom. Get over it.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Your opinion counts nothing in my eyes, "French Drunk Bastard", as you call yourself. I put you on ignore list, and I won`t miss anything.

As for Dowding... he`s furious over he can`t rest his butt in India, and suck the blood of millions living in poverty.

Get over it Dowding, those Glory days ended at the shores of Dunkerque. As for your comment about the "help of US". American soldiers referred to the AEF in 1944 as "after England failed".Your fantasies kicking the Germans out of everywhere with "some help" - just plain laughable.  Rightly so, I cannot remember ANY battle in WW2 where the British actually managed to win alone against the Germans - in fact, they were the only ones still being spanked in 1944, at Arnheim. Britain was more like a hyena rather than a lion in WW2, following the US troops on the battlefield, never in front, always behind, but wanting all at the dining tables... see Mr. Churchill`s little chat about dividing the Balkans between England and the USSR. Freedom and Liberty, eh? More like GREED and IMPOTENCE.

And for your question, I find these comments about the "right side" silly... you mean the British Empire was something "right"? They just did the same for decades on their colonies Hitler wanted to do in the East... speaking of East, Stalin was a good guy, too? I don`t, neither I think Hitler was good guy, or that Roosevelt was fighting for anything else than US interests.

Get over it, Dowding. The only thing the UK acquired during the war, is the tile "biggest looser of WW2". And if you really believe WW2 was about things like democracy, humanity, and freedom, you are VERY naive. And I hope you do don`t name the British Empire or the USSR as prime examples of such values...

[straffo]

It would be good to see this brown shirt fanatic go away.

I now you're used to be banned Isegrim so it really won't make a difference for you.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Banned for what, and who, Troll ? Like for calling others a Nazi ?

[Dowding]

I'm not 'furious'. Fascists deserve pity; anything else gives them more credit than they deserve.

Arnhem was lost before it began. And you could hardly call it a typical British-German engagement. A few lightly armed paratroopers, without hope of re-supply gave the Germans a hell of a time. They fought until they had no ammo and were practically wiped out.

The war was a team effort and Britain DID triumph many times in those 6 years.

Nice try to swing the debate to a critique of the BE. Sadly for you, I'm only 25 years old and the British Empire was dead long before I was born. It has no relevance for me. Unlike you of course, seemingly wanting to hold onto a Third Reich like a life-preserver.

Of course the British Empire systematically killed 6 million people. lol Compared to your Heroes (and their Austro-Hungarian lackeys), Britain was a paradise.

BTW, India is still a poverty stricken place 50 years after independance. India was held as a British interest with only 1000 civil servants and a handful of troops. The rest were sepoys.

Like I said before, your goose-stepping master race was defeated. Humanity won that war. And in 1991 the victory was finally complete.

You dodged my question: here it is in another guise. Would you have liked the Germans to have won or for have to ahieved an armistice?

[Angus]

Oh dear, Isengrim has a comeback.
Thank you ever so much, you just saved my day.
First:
"These... "methods"?... "Subduing the enemy at all costs" - were the Allies so blatantly stupid, to choose a method "
Could you point out an alternative? Surrender to Hitler maybe?
Then:
"That`s a rather funny statement, considering the RAF was virtually wiped from over Europe in 1940, and was on the edge of destruction by the second half of 1940... the LW maintained air superiority over the continent and the channel well up to the end of 1943, the RAF was never in a position to question that."
RAF vs LW June to Dec 1940 ment a shift in Strength. RAF shot down more planes, and produced more.
And:
"LW strenght:

1940 : ~4000 planes
1943 : ~6000 planes
1945 : ~8000 planes "
And at the dawn of V-day, how many?

Then on to this:
"They also DID shovel a million tonnes or more of bombs over the Reich.

Half of that with zero effect, unless you count that the UK got bankcrupt in the proccess and a vassal of the USA.  Not really surprising, considering they were mostly bombing empty fields in Germany. "
The "Zero" effect left roughly a million dead and wounded and reduced entire cities to a heap of rubble. Germany's industries were hit hard. Ask any German old enough to remember.

And Malan:
"Moelders shot down 25 Spitfires. How many 109s did Malan actually shot down? "
Answer, more than that, nearer to 35 actually

Then the Scottish question. I used Scotland as a comparison for distance. I guess you didn't quite get that.
But, NEVER did the Luftwaffe have strength enough to cruise through 500 miles or more of enemy territory for a bombing raid.
When they approached Scapa Flow, they came over the Sea. The First raid on Scotland actually ended in loss. (May have been the first encounter RAF/LW in WW2"

Then the Personal issue.....
"Angie, what is the highest level of education you have completed? I guess you will not answer that question.  "
Well I learned how to read, and from reading, I fugured out who actually won WW2. No education can change that fact, and basically an educated moron is worse than an uneducated one.
Oh, I finished some education, by the way......

[MiloMorai]

Luftwaffe Order of Battle

10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 1462
Night fighters 808
Ground-attack aircraft 613
Night harassment aircraft 302
Multi-engined bombers 294
Anti-shipping aircraft 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 293
Coastal aircraft 60
Transport aircraft 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 206

Total 4566


Luftwaffe Order of Battle

9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 1305
Night fighters 485
Ground-attack aircraft 712
Night harassment aircraft 215
Multi-engined bombers 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 309
Coastal aircraft 45
Transport aircraft 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 70

Total 3331


Now where are these ~8000 combat  capable a/c Barbi?

What is 'on hand' and what is 'capable of combat'(sevicable) is two seperate categories.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Angus

RAF vs LW June to Dec 1940 ment a shift in Strength. RAF shot down more planes, and produced more.

Still, the LW had air superiority, the initivative, a lot more bombers than British, and some 5400 aircraft vs. 4100 of the RAF in Dec 1940. If the RAF would have more strenght, it would take more than those 3 JGs to keep them at bay.

And:
"LW strenght:
1940 : ~4000 planes
1943 : ~6000 planes
1945 : ~8000 planes "
And at the dawn of V-day, how many?

Trying the change the rules, Angus. You claimed the LW was destroyed by 1945... I can see their numbers and strenght doubled.

The "Zero" effect left roughly a million dead and wounded and reduced entire cities to a heap of rubble. Germany's industries were hit hard. Ask any German old enough to remember.

Ask Albert Speer, he was the man responsible for production. His view was that the terror bombings conducted by the RAF were completely useless, as opposed to the strikes of the USAAF on industrial targets. Leaving a million dead and wounded, all innocents, mostly women and children ? Something to be proud of, but still USELESS in military terms.


And Malan:
"Moelders shot down 25 Spitfires. How many 109s did Malan actually shot down? "
Answer, more than that, nearer to 35 actually

Source, details ? None?

But, NEVER did the Luftwaffe have strength enough to cruise through 500 miles or more of enemy territory for a bombing raid.

You base that assesment on what ? They did that on a regular basis in Russia etc.

Well I learned how to read, and from reading, I fugured out who actually won WW2.

Here in Hungary, that equals about the first 2 years of elementary school..

No education can change that fact, and basically an educated moron is worse than an uneducated one.

Agreed. Sometimes, however, it is helpful to obtain more skills than read/write, and to be able to count to 100...

[VO101_Isegrim]

From : RL2III/1158

On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had the following strength in Bf109 types. These are on hand totals, they include both 'frontline' and 'other' units. Included are all aircraft operational and non-operational at the time. (combat/Erganzungs):

Bf109G1/5 (0/1)
Bf109G12 (0/5)
Bf109G6 (71/328)
Bf109G14 and G14U4 (431/190)
Bf109G10, G10/U4 and G14/AS (568/3)
Bf109K4 (314/0)
Bf109G10/R6 (51/0)

Total Bf 109s (1435/527)

Other Jagd types totaled (1058/359)
Schlacht types totaled (680/375)
Nachtschlacht types totaled (422/95)
Zerstorer types totaled (42/0)
Nachtjagd types totaled (1241, no breakdown between the two)
Kampf types totaled (543/158)
Nahaufklarer totaled (407/27)
Fernaufklarer totaled (195/81)
See types totaled (78/17)
Transport types totaled (496/9)
Total (6597/1631)
=========================
Grand total : 8228 aircraft

[straffo]

I can believe the LW had 8228 planes but how many combat ready ,how many litter fuel/oil and how many pilots ?


Don't forget that to be threat a plane need to be airborne otherwise it's nothing except a useless junk.

[MiloMorai]

On hand  and what were capable of combat are NOT the same Barbi.

~55,000 Me109s and Fw190s produced but only 1462 capable of flying missions in Jan 1945.  That is ~2.6% left.

Luftwaffe Order of Battle

24 June 1941
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 898
Twin-engined day fighters 105
Night fighters 148
Fighter-bombers 124
Dive-bombers 260
Twin-engined bombers 931
Four-engined bombers 4
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 282
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 388
Coastal aircraft 76
Transport aircraft 212

Total 3428

That is capable of combat missions.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Dowding

Arnhem was lost before it began. And you could hardly call it a typical British-German engagement. A few lightly armed paratroopers, without hope of re-supply gave the Germans a hell of a time. They fought until they had no ammo and were practically wiped out.

In Arheim, the Germans initially only had badly battered troops withdrawn to rest and refit, awaiting for reinforcements and re-organisation. With those ragtag forces, the Germans succeeded in holding their positions, encircling British elite forces, until the Konigstigers and the rest arrived to realize your last sentence.

Indeed, quite a different story than Crete... a few lightly armed paratroopers, no heavy weapons, no chance of resupply beats a force 2.5 times as big, takes half of them as prisoners, the rest flees...

The war was a team effort and Britain DID triumph many times in those 6 years.

Undoubtfully. Maybe it`s just hard to find those drops in the ocean of defeats.

Of course the British Empire systematically killed 6 million people.

No, it killed a lot more.

Compared to your Heroes (and their Austro-Hungarian lackeys), Britain was a paradise.

Interesting. Try to do a google search for the following keywords to get a better understanding of this "paradise" :
-Sipoy rebellion
-the Zulu wars
-Boer concentration camps
-S. Africa and the Apertheid under British rule
-Hamburg, Dresden

I wonder what the you know about Austro-Hungary (as for me, I can`t remember such state participating in WW2, or even existing).

Like I said before, your goose-stepping master race was defeated. Humanity won that war. And in 1991 the victory was finally complete.

Yeah, India become free, Egypt become free etc. But what happened in `91 ? Thatcher finally lost her virginity?

You dodged my question: here it is in another guise. Would you have liked the Germans to have won or for have to ahieved an armistice?

I don`t care much about the Germans. I would certainly liked the defeat of bolshevism. And otherwise, maybe it was better for the Germans themselves to loose that war, which allowed the normalization of their politics much faster than otherwise. In any case, they did succeeded in their major goal, not by strenghtening their own position in Europe, but by weakening their rivals.

[Angus]

A quick answer
A.G. Malans score was from Christopher Shore's "Aces High"
That is a good source.
Oh, and since you named Albert Speer, he actually said that had the British followed the Hamburg raid with about 2 equally destructive ones, Germany would have been forced to surrender.....

[Overlag]

Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Originally posted by Dowding

Arnhem was lost before it began. And you could hardly call it a typical British-German engagement. A few lightly armed paratroopers, without hope of re-supply gave the Germans a hell of a time. They fought until they had no ammo and were practically wiped out.

In Arheim, the Germans initially only had badly battered troops withdrawn to rest and refit, awaiting for reinforcements and re-organisation. With those ragtag forces, the Germans succeeded in holding their positions, encircling British elite forces, until the Konigstigers and the rest arrived to realize your last sentence.

errr lightly armed paratroopers vs heavy armour divisions taking a rest from the easten front?? (i think it was) I think they did rather well holding out as long as they did. And the plan was extreme, and they got the worse of the deal...im 100% sure the 101st or 82nd landing in Arnhem would have NEVER lasted that long.

Overwhelming though this colossal assault was, it was also equally flawed. Airborne troops are only lightly armed and their survival depends upon taking the enemy by surprise and reaching objectives before they have time to react with heavy weapons. However, so noodlesure were the Allies in their view that the Germans were already beaten, numerous grave errors were made which doomed Market Garden to failure before a shot had been fired. Principally, there were not enough transport planes to fly all three Divisions to their targets in one go. Instead they had to be flown to Holland in three lifts, with only one lift per day.

http://www.arnhemarchive.org

oh and the British didnt win anything? thats laughable, didnt they kick Rommel out of affrica? Wasnt they the only ones that compleated there D-day objectives? Didnt they wipe out the German surface fleet on there own? Didnt they WIN the BOB? Air superiority over Europe maybe, but over the UK, NO.

I fully understand your first arguement with these guys saying the 109 sucked....it doesnt suck, it most like was one of the best planes in WWII but stop making up other stories about Germany being the master race...your digging yourself a hole you cant get out of.