Super vrs Uber

[Angus]

EEEEk. Otto again? With a new name? Banned, or just an identity problem?
Anyway, Pulling up Dieppe, I can say straight out of my head that it was a bad day for the RAF. LW mounted 190's very successfully, as well as pulling 88's out of their sleeves for anti-shipping. RAF had a bad day.
I have the RAF combat reports for the day as well as some more data from autobiographies from that day.
Seems like the LW did have some aircraft in their sleeve at the time. Wonder why they didn't go and dominate S-England with them

[Angus]

Just looked at the Dieppe file.
Very interesting, especially the later part about the Germans beating the USSR in 1942.
But aha....
"Propagandized for sure, but still an interesting perspective."

Yes, the Nazi Germany perspective without sense of reality in the mid time of WW2. Gives me an insight of how the brain of some on this forum really works. (or rather doesn't)

[Crumpp]

They also include Allied losses due to AA and implying these losses were due to LW a/c.

The Losses are plainly broken down by the USAAF documents I posted Milo.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

I am not on meds but don't let that discourage you keep plonking yours into the slot.
Now as for the War in the east, you'd say it was settled after the tide changed, at STALINGRAD. Kursk is later and further.
While Stalingrad happens about the same time as operation Torch and Kursk is coing with the invasion of Sicily, I wonder about the dates and coincidenses,- could be more of a synchronism there than you'd think. Am looking into it actually.
As for your film reels, I will look at practically anything.
The film of Dieppe was a pleasure to look at,- this is data one does not get ones hands on so easily.
You say you have several more, - well I'm all eyes and ears.
I may have something to send back,- got to go through my HD's to find some. What I do remember is that I have some big file of LW guncams, as well as some soundfiles, and tons of photographs.
If you want to mail some stuff do it, or drop your email on the thread, - I'll then run a probe with an attachment, - say a nice pic of a warbird for instance.
As for the reliability of the German newsreels, well, this boggles me:
"Just like allied newsreels from the war. Of course late in the war the Germans had to lie just as much as the Allies did in the beginning"

The Allies censored their newspapers and used propoganda as well as covering up some things that would be uncomfortable for common knowledge in the middle of an important event.
But nobody topped Nazy Germany in the business, with Göbbles as a minister on top of things. That machine of propoganda and lies was already running for years before the start of WW2)
A little, and not so well known example of Nazi propoganda is the provocating Polish people who forced Germany to make war.
The first victims of WW2 were exactly victims of Nazi propoganda. Those were German convicts, anonimous yet, dressed up as polish soldiers, shot outside and roundabout a German radio station near the polish border, only to be identified (by the Germans) as intruding Polish soldiers whose attack on the site had been thwarted, - therefore war against Poland was finally justified.
Nazy Germany propoganda held the world championship for propoganda from 1933 or so until 1945.
PUNKTUM

[humble]

Originally posted by OttoJ
Ah, calling me an idiot will surely prove your point.



Wrong. The Me262 was EASILY the best production design of WW2.




Wrong. An Interceptor needs climb rate, speed and firepower. The P-51 had speed, but was lacking in the other two categories. Even if the RAF had Mustang IIIs and IVs they preferred Spitfires and Tempests for V-1 intercepting since the P-51's firepower wasn't even adequate to shoot down doodlebugs.




Wrong. The 190 was a superior design, but not "far far superior". In fact for high altitude interception the 109 was still superior to the 190. That's why the Luftwaffe tasked the 109s to engage allied fighters while the 190s went after the bombers.




Wrong. 950 G-3 models alone were made, so a LOT more than 800 Gs were made. As for payload the 190 could carry an 1800kg bomb on a centerline rack. That bomb alone exceeds the P-51's payload, and in addition the 190F could carry rockets or bombs on wing racks. All 190F, G and some A models had the plumbing for carrying wing drop tanks. However, most pilots had them removed to save weight; there simply wasn't a need for the additional range.



Wrong. The G series was a parallel long range fighter-bomber development. The G-1 was based on the A-4, the G-2 on the A-5 etc. The A-8 did not have poor performance. Ask Crumpp about the performance of an A-8 fighter, you and most of the rest of the community seems to think the heavy A-8 bomber destroyer was the only version of the A-8.

All WWII fighters were under continuous development and modification throughout the war. That includes the P-51, P-47, P-38 and other allied aircraft as well. The D-9 was just the natural next step in the 190's development. Development on the D series started in the spring of 1942, with prototype development based on modifications of FW-190A-0 fighters, the first of six flying in March 1942. These machines were given a rear fuselage extension to compensate for the lengthened nose, which had been stretched to fit the Jumo 213 engine, and were armed with twin MG-17 machine guns in the cowling and an MG-151/20 cannon in each wing root. Some problems were encountered, but the type seemed promising enough for the RLM to authorize the construction of "FW-190D-0" preproduction prototypes in late 1943. These machines were similar to the development prototypes, but were based on FW-190A-7 airframes.

Tank continued to tweak the inline-powered designs, resulting in the "Ta-152" series, with work along this line begun in late 1942. So no, the D-9 and Ta-152 were NOT some "forced" development in 1944 to alleviate the "poor performance of the A-8".




Wrong. The P-38, P-47 and P-51 saw extensive modifications thought WWII. Take the P-38 for example: P-38D, RP-38D, P-38E, RP-38E, P-38F, P-38G, P-38H, P-38J, P-38L, and with a myriad of specialized versions including reconnaissance, bomber and night fighter versions.


You really should stop watching Discovery and do a bit more research next time.

Oh and btw. take you own advise:

Obviously you live in an alternate universe where facts are simply whatever you conjur up. You cant argue "facts" with someone who cant deal with reality.

The simple truth is that the P-51D is widely regarded thruout the world as the premier fighter of WW2....thats from all sides. Just like the famous qoute when one of the expertain was asked by Goring what it would take to win the Battle of Britain.....the answer....a squadren of spitfires.

As for 109, it had no firepower without gondola's so it was preferred as the escort for the 190's....which had no ability to fight other fighters once they were uparmoured for the bomber killing role.

Your facts on the G's are simply not right. Again your simply creating an alternate reality. I specifically gave you the various configurations. None of which allow for an 1800kg bomb.

Also the G3 you mention is the 1st that allowed both DT's and bomb racks.

"During the summer of 1943 production of modified Fw 190G-3 planes started. In this series the wing from the Fw 190 A-6 plane was applied as standard and underwing shackles for fuel tanks were replaced by similar ETC 501 V.Fw Trg (Verkleideter Focke-Wulf Trager) bomb racks. This solution gives this version the ability to carry both fuel tanks and 250 kg bombs, this considerably increased offensive plane capabilities. In addition to this change, the Fw 190G-3 plane was equipped with the autopilot device PKS 11 (also the more modern version: PKS 12) to reduce pilot work load during long range flights (maximum flight time for Fw 190G was about 2.5 hours). Beginning in October 1943 Fw 190G-3 and later version planes were powered by the BMW 801 D-2 engine adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel and fitted with an additional injector in the left supercharger inlet. That made it possible to briefly (10-15 min.) increase engine power during flights at low altitudes (under 1000 m)."

Not however these are basically 500lber's.

"In an emergency, single Fw 190G planes were adapted for the transportation of high weight bombs under the fuselage (1000, 1600 and 1800 kg). In this modification, the shock absorber leg was strengthened and wheels with strengthened tires were used. Also used were special bomb racks (Schlos 1000 or 2000) in place of the ETC 501 bomb rack. The Fw 190G planes with these higher bomb loads needed as long as 1200-1300 m of runway for takeoff."

Single planes emergency etc...but then again READING isnt your strong suite....is it?

"About 800 Fw 190G planes of all versions were produced. It was also the last version of the Fw 190 powered by a radial engine. We must also admit that finding the true number of planes produced is impossible for the following reasons: first - full documentation is not in existence from all Focke-Wulf airframe factories and companies manufacturing the plane under licence, second - we don't know how many airframes (particularly F series) were assembled in special small workshops (e.g. Menibum), whose main aim was building of torpedo and other variants for special purposes. The other complicating factor, sometimes making detailed compilation impossible is that some planes were assembled in field workshops where airframes and engines from planes withdrawn from service units were recycled. In this process, fully operational planes were made from parts of heavily damaged fighters withdrawn from service. For example, from a plane with a heavily damaged airframe, wings were taken and mounted to another plane with damaged wings. Often such 'composited' planes had tail and engine taken from other Fw 190A, F or G. These composite planes, sometimes a completely new 'version', received new individual serial numbers and were sent to a field unit after a test flight ."

Again 800 is the roughly accepted production for all "G" series.....

Shhhhhh....

The mirror is calling........IDIOT

[Crumpp]

Also the G3 you mention is the 1st that allowed both DT's and bomb racks.

The FW190G is the only variant to carry two Zusatzkraftstoffbehältern.

The type was considered a bomber, not a fighter bomber and had a different motor set up/performance from the FW190A series.

The simple truth is that the P-51D is widely regarded thruout the world as the premier fighter of WW2....thats from all sides. Just like the famous qoute when one of the expertain was asked by Goring what it would take to win the Battle of Britain.....the answer....a squadren of spitfires.

I think your reading a bit much into these comments.

After the trials ended and the results were analyzed, the following letter was written by Air Chief Marshal Sir William Sholto Douglas to the Under Secretary of State for Air, Lord Sherwood.

2. I seem to detect a spirit of complacency in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. This is borne out by the speeches of the Minister of Production and the Minister of Aircraft Production in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July. They appear to find it difficult to believe that we have really lost our lead in fighter performance. There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the fw J 90 is the best all-round fighter in the world today [author's italics). It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation. The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/letter_from_the_chief.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.

The above said in 1942. The 190 never did.

[Crumpp]

The above said in 1942. The 190 never did.

Your flamebaiting Milo.

Either that or you just ignorant of the FW190 design.

All the best,

Crumpp

[straffo]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your flamebaiting Milo.

Either that or you just ignorant of the FW190 design.

All the best,

Crumpp

I don't remember the 1943 fw190 was "outstripping" the 1943 spit.


Or my translation was a failure

[Crumpp]

I don't remember the 1943 fw190 was "outstripping" the 1943 spit.

Niether was the 1943 Spit outstripping the FW190, Straffo.

The FW190 retained it's traditional advantages over the Spit througout the war.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kev367th]

Considering the Griffon had already been fitted to prototype Spit Mk IV in early 1942 and then to the production Mk XII in Oct 1942, I would think the guy who made the comment about the Merlin was unaware of the Griffon.

Mk XII
The Mk. XII was the first Spitfire powered by a Griffon engine to go into service. The first production models started appearing in October 1942 and in total two RAF squadrons were equipped with the model. The Griffon engine gave the aircraft superb low and medium level performance. In fact at low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial a prototype Mk. XII (DP845) raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to the amazement of the dignitaries present. However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet. The Mk. XIIs speed advantage was only really useful near the end of its front line service in Summer 1944, in which it shot down a respectable number of V-1 Flying Bombs. The Mk. XII variant was retired in September 1944.

I'd put a Spit XIV at 21lbs boost on a par/or better footing than any 190 or 109.
Then again its two different roles they were fulfilling toward the end of the war. The major use of Spits was at low alts, hence the LF series of models, whereas the LW had to get up to alt to intercept bombers.

What 109/190 can match the F.21 455-460mph straight/level at 20k?
Yes only 120 were delivered, but 3000 were originally ordered, and production halted after VE day.

Syria had F.22 up until 1952.
Maybe last Spits in operational service - F.24's of the Hong Kong Aux AF 1955?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Niether was the 1943 Spit outstripping the FW190, Straffo.

The FW190 retained it's traditional advantages over the Spit througout the war.

All the best,

Crumpp

According to who Crumpp?  Or do you mean roll rate and such?  Certainly the Spit LFIX drivers, Spit XII drivers, Spit VIII drivers etc didn't see themselves at a disadvantage when engaging 190s.

I think it's a fairer assesment to say they went back and forth in terms of performance as the respective design teams tried to keep the edge.  With the XIV coming into service 6 months or more prior to the D9, I'd think in terms of performance the Spit sure had the edge clearly then.

But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by traditional advantages.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Considering the Griffon had already been fitted to prototype Spit Mk IV in early 1942 and then to the production Mk XII in Oct 1942, I would think the guy who made the comment about the Merlin was unaware of the Griffon.

Mk XII
The Mk. XII was the first Spitfire powered by a Griffon engine to go into service. The first production models started appearing in October 1942 and in total two RAF squadrons were equipped with the model. The Griffon engine gave the aircraft superb low and medium level performance. In fact at low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial a prototype Mk. XII (DP845) raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to the amazement of the dignitaries present. However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet. The Mk. XIIs speed advantage was only really useful near the end of its front line service in Summer 1944, in which it shot down a respectable number of V-1 Flying Bombs. The Mk. XII variant was retired in September 1944.

I

Not really accurate considering the XII's success in the late Summer and Fall of 43.  91 Squadron in the XII was high scoring 11 Group Squadron in the Fall of 43.  

It is definately true that the 109s and 190s weren't inclined to engage the Spits at their best altitude.  The problem was it was also the altitude that the Medium bombers of the USAAF and 2 Group were flying so to engage the bombers, they had to drop down.

The entire airwar moved to lower levels as the war went on, outside of the 4 engine raids by the USAAF on Germany, but the Tactical airwar made it the realm of the LFIX.  They just weren't going as high to find the fight.

[humble]

He's way off base and telling people (people that pretty much know there stuff) they're full of it and that the US planes were the bestest in the world and the LW planes were junk in 1939, etc etc. So "Humble" saying to them to do some research is kind of laughable

I earn about $300/HR US to do "research"......I'm very very good at it. I've engaged in a couple of these diatrabes and have never simply stated a position. I've always used 3rd party sources that have at least some validity....I also will bring up anything I find that appears to support the "other" side. Go back to my P-39 thread...not one bit of evidence to support "the experts" and not a single point refuted regarding the single most important airbattle of the war (clearly dominated by the russians)...primarily due to the P-39. The bottom line is simple, so far I dont think any of you "109 experts" really no much beyond what you've trained yourself to think of as "the truth".

The 109 was a wonderful airplane in 1937....and a very good one in 1941/42. What seperated the germans from their adversaries early on was the combination of experience, tactics and a suitable plane. You can actually see the realities even here. The 109 (and 190D) excel at an "E fighting" style of ACM....great here. But in the real world the shortcomings were evident even in 1940. I dont have the time or interest to dig up the accounts but the germans lost badly on multiple occasions to french pilots in hawker 75 and other planes when they strayed from there "shoot & scoot" style of aircombat. This style certainly fit the blitzkrieg....but the germans suffered when they were forced to fight any type of sustained action at all times during the war.

Just about every military aviation think tank traces the loss of the airwar back to the over reliance on the 109 airframe as the "root of all evil". The fact that someone would even begin to compare the P51-D to the 109 (any flavor) indicates a total lack of understanding of what is fundementally important.

The same can be said regarding the organizational structure of a US Heavy armoured division vs anything else fielded at the time. Simply based on it's "design" it was fundementally superior to any other combat formation in the world by a large margin....even though the US fielded what in many ways was the most grossly inferior "MBT" in the world at the time.

The bottom line here is really quite simple. The US had a far far superior strategic doctrine to any other combatant in the world. This covered every facet of military thought....and although it cost us significantly in many ways....it also provided a pure dominance that has carried thru ever since.

As stated in a famous qoute what made the P51D special wasnt what it could do...but that it could do it over Berlin. The underlying fact was that it was the best design of the war....period (except again for the F7F) (1st true airsuperiority "Strike fighter" ever built).....

I have yet to see any internationally recognized authority state EVER that the 109 (any flavor) was in any way superior to the P51D. I have no problem recognizing that in the short range interceptor role the 109 was a formidable adversary....however it had no ability to either enter into sustained combat with a clear advantage or to protect its turf thru endurance. The P51 had greater combat time over Berlin then the 109 did:O


Believe whatever garbage you want.....however the realities have been clearly determined here.

[humble]

If we're going the "history of aviation in WW2" route the real turning point was actually the Kuban bridgehead. You can actually pinpoint the time and place the germans lost both the airwar and the overall ability to successfully wage warfare. Whats interesting here is that you had the best the germans had to offer vs P-39's hurricanes and lagg-3's. All this esoteric mumbojumbo about relative advantages/disadvantages etc can be ignored. The germans had the numbers and the cream of their airforce in a must win situation vs what are widely considered to be inferior planes, pilots and tactics.....and got the snot whupped out of them....by a bunch of guys in P-39's who dominated the best the germans had to offer.

This is factual history not conjecture. So before you argue the merits of the 109 vs the spit, pony, p-38 etc.....recognize that it couldnt even go toe to toe with a p-39 when it counted.....