No spit 14 !!!

[jmccaul]

bombs have a tenndancy to explode when you fire at them  

[juzz]

V-1, Runstang - what's the difference?

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by jmccaul:
bombs have a tenndancy to explode when you fire at them  

And bombers used to go at 25K feet escorted by P51s and P47s  

[jmccaul]

What degree of danger do you need to encounter before you qualify for active service?

If V-1's had no significance in WW2 why did the RAF expend a lot effort shooting them down?  

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by jmccaul:
What degree of danger do you need to encounter before you qualify for active service?

If V-1's had no significance in WW2 why did the RAF expend a lot effort shooting them down?  

hey hey hey hey I dont say that V weapons had no significance in WW2...They had more significance AFTER the war (v1 the predeccesor of the cruise missile and V2 the predeccesor of the Ballistic missile)...but in the meanwhile 500kg of TNT in the middle of london was quite a threat.

I dont say that hunting V1s were easy thing...what I say is that it was easier than to deal with a thousand bombers escorted by hundred of fighters. Its different, but you must agree with me that the latter missions are more hard.

Meteors also hunted V1s, and noone regard that as air combats. Is a hazard mission but its not an AIR combat mission.

IMHO.

[humble]

My only experience with the 262 was AW...and it was an irrelevant plane when they let em in. The dora was much more dangerous as far as i'm concerened...now that was a decidedly different enviornment and FM...but even so if it's modeled like I think AH will be interesting plane.

[Nashwan]

Was the German invasion of Poland "combat" for the Luftwaffe? Or the early stages of Barbarossa? The invasion of Greece?
In all these cases the Germans had suprise, numbers (at least locally) amd vastly superior equipment on their side. A lot easier than shooting down V1s, imho.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Nashwan:
Was the German invasion of Poland "combat" for the Luftwaffe? Or the early stages of Barbarossa? The invasion of Greece?
In all these cases the Germans had suprise, numbers (at least locally) amd vastly superior equipment on their side. A lot easier than shooting down V1s, imho.

Humpf...I guess that the downed Ju87s and ME110s over poland disagree. And the me109s over France. And Remember, that the Greek AF had been fighting Italian AF for one full year, and that yugoslavian AF had Me109Es...

Anyway, and to my point. A V1 is a fast, not evading, not shooting flying bomb. Even polish Plz11 had 2 machineguns and tried to kill their enemy. V1s only exploded.

Nashwan IMHO yours is not a valid argument, because V1 were DUMB weapons. And even an outclassed airplane has an intelligent pilot, so making it a much more dangerous opponent than a V1.

So, again V1 hunting cant be classified as Air to air combat. Maybe they were combat missions but in an Air to air combat you fight AGAINST an aircraft, not a dumb bomb that goes the same heading and altitude all the time.




[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 06-25-2000).]

[Pongo]

 

Originally posted by Nashwan:
Was the German invasion of Poland "combat" for the Luftwaffe? Or the early stages of Barbarossa? The invasion of Greece?
In all these cases the Germans had suprise, numbers (at least locally) amd vastly superior equipment on their side. A lot easier than shooting down V1s, imho.

Wow that is the stupidest thing I have read in  awhile...
Do you have any idea how many German pilots died flying in those campaigns?

Do you know that there was a Hurricane pilot that reportedly claimed 50 kills during the Greece campaign?
How many pilots died droping V1s?

I used to think you were just a rabid and narrow minded proponent of the RAF in the game. Your above statement leads me to believe you might just not be worth discussing things with.

EDIT
but I agree with you that shooting down V1s is definatly "combat". My objection to the XIV is based on the IX being more then good enough for the arena balance. Not on any assumption that the XIV was not a valid combat aircraft in 1944. I feel it may be in the catagory of the 262...just too imbalancing. The combat accounts I read of the spit XIV vs the 190d9 indicated to me that the spit eat them up...but the LW had few good pilots by that time so who knows.

[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 06-27-2000).]

[rfa]

Ahm, excuse me?

1939 was not combat for the LW?

Hmm, I guess its just a myth that the LW lost as many aircraft to the Poles as they shot down - the PZL P.11c for example, had a kill ratio of almost 1 to 1.  This is quite remarkable considering that the main Polish fighter was 100 kmh slower then the Bf109D, and as someone said, it had 2 machine guns (although some versions had 4).

-----------------------
S/L skalski
No. 308 (Polish) Sqn
Royal Air Force

[Pongo]

Exactly
and the balkan campaign was just as bad.
This guy doesnt have a clue

[chisel]

I applaud you for your skill at pissing off both the Allies AND Axis with that comment Nashwan

[Torquila]

Ok guys ppl make mistakes now lets get back to the spit 14 , eh? ;-p. And i suport the spit 14 btw, even tho RAM will probably tell me that my opinion is worth nothing.

[straffo]

Isn't she lovely ?
 

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by straffo:
Isn't she lovely ?
   

Sure it is lovely...it is a Spit XVI!!!        

Torquila------>I wont fall in your trap, Mr Burglar.