Change the plane addition criterias

[waystin2]

Where would you like me to start correcting this post?  Every sentence is in error.

No dispute here for Stampf or Chalenge.  I would like the facts just for knowledge sake.  Your reply is appreciated.

 

Way

[Stampf]

See Rule #4

[33Vortex]

I'd recommend reading 'Focke-Wulf Ta 152 special edition' by Malcolm V. Lowe

A 4+ publication from 2008. ISBN 978-80-86637-07-5

I'd prove your point wrong but Stampf kindof beat me to it.  

However the book above clearly state that while there are many eywitness accounts of the Ta152C having entered production as well as eyewitness accounts that it had entered service (from both allied and german personnel), it is a matter of dispute depending on what sources you choose to believe. There is no hard evidence, as no official documents have been found, and the actual aircraft in question all have been destructed. So the official stance by researchers is to rather deem it unlikely that the 152C had entered service, as no hard evidence can be found. The only documents found is of one Ta 152C V8 W.Nr. 110008, coded GW+QA. It was on the strength of the Jagdstaffel Roggentin in February '45. Furthermore the book says that if this particular example (equipped with a EZ42 gyro-stabilized sight) would have entered active service, it would have been with JG11.

"At the end of the war it was suspected that at least one operational Ta 152C had been found by Allied personnel. This was a wrecked example with the W.Nr. 500645, but this Werk Nummer is usually associated with FW 190D-9 production by MMW at Erfurt and it remains a mystery as to the true identity or purpose of this particular aircraft. It is one of the 'grey areas' concerning the Ta 152 series that might be better explained in the future if and when more information comes to light."

And about the 152H, you have got to be kidding. There is plenty of evidence concerning the H model, it is not a matter of debate. I know that at least 32 individuals reached operational combat service, and this particular book present evidence of over 60 produced. So yes, quite a few were destroyed during transport to final assembly because of the overwhelming allied air superiority.

Forgive me but, the propaganda mouth in this case is you sir.

[Chalenge]

See Rule #4

[33Vortex]

See Rule #6

[10thmd]

Challenge I have one thing to say about your Propaganda comments. Its usually written by the winners not the losers.

[Stampf]

See Rule #4

   

[Baumer]

Chalenge, where has the number 16 come from as the minimum aircraft for a "squadron"? Is this a number you've been told by someone at HTC or read in a post by them? I suspect that HTC feels pretty confident in whatever sources of information they used to determine "squadron" minimums for the Ta152.

You are the one attempting to make a claim that HTC has improperly included a plane that does not meet their requirements. It would seem to me it should be up to you to provide some proof to support your claim.

BTW "Propaganda Stampf. If you have contrary information then cite a source." seems pretty insulting to me.

[Chalenge]

I dont think the Ta-152 ever served in squadron strength so the 'squadron strength' thing is not valid. JG 301 was the only squadron provided with 152s and I believe they never 'really' had squadron numbers flying (152 were facing production difficulties). Even if it had it certainly did not make any historically significant contribution to the war having only shot down seven planes to the loss of four 152s. The total run on these planes was a count of 43 types half of which were destroyed before delivery. So if 'squadron strength' is a rule then the 152 should be removed as there are many more valid aircraft that should take its place.

My statement was not to imply that the 152 SHOULD be removed from the game but that the idea that 'squadron strength' is a criteria is flawed from the beginning. Where did Hitech say that?

Baumer... exactly how many planes does it take to make up a Luftwaffe squadron?

I enjoy flying the 152. Its can be faster than a Tempest has more fuel and great weapns and tremendous performance at altitude. That said the luftwaffe sycophants around here are pretty lame in their manners and have yet to prove anything.

[Baumer]

Well according to Dr. Alfred Price in The Luftwaffe Data Book on page 17 he states that the Staffeln was originally established with 9 aircraft. So 3 Staffeln plus 3 aircraft in the Stab (head quaters) would bring a Gruppe to 30 aircraft.

So to answer your question using my source, a Luftwaffe squadron of fighters only needs to have 9 planes.

And the last line of your post shows that they are not the only ones who might have issues with manners.

[sparow]

Gentlemen, please...calm down.

There are doubts and debate regarding very well documented aircraft, no wonder doubt arises from less well documented machines, especially German and Russian.

In all my reading, the only thing I noticed was that, as the end of WW2 became closer, the number of variants, prototypes, new models and field adaptations in Luftwaffe aircrafts grew exponentialy to the point of total confusion.

But the question here is the criteria and, to be totally sincere, I do not feel that there is anything wrong with them. What there is to do is close the gaps, the important models that, several years after Aces High launching, still are not here.

Take a rational approach to the issue: why keep insisting in more advanced aircraft when there are so many important models absent?

Time is precious. Don't you agree that it should be put to use in the most profitable way?

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

[Chalenge]

Maybe but I dont think so since the four finger formation was used all the way back to WWI and the Luftwaffe used the famous finger four (two 'Rotte' - 'horde' 'gang' or 'mob' - ha! or 'Schwarm') formations following the Spanish Civil War to great effect. A 'Staffel' the 'Four-Four' formation is a squadron (16 airplanes). Later in the war incomplete units were referred to as 'Staffel' probably to appease Hitler but it was not a full strength squadron. If you want to be technical a Luftwaffe Staffel would not be considered fully supplied unless it had twenty aircraft (fighters) or twenty-four aircraft (bombers). Price obviously got it wrong or you misunderstood when he was talking about bombers where a three ship formation ('Kette') was the standard formation.

Sycophant is defined as providing false testimony without proving anything and obviously you thought that was derogatory?

[Shifty]

Time is precious. Don't you agree that it should be put to use in the most profitable way?

Agreed, I've aged nearly 10 years waiting on some missing Early War birds. If this goes on much longer I won't be able to see anymore.  

[Baumer]

Sparrow you are correct we should be focused on other things.

And this will be my last response in this thread.

Challenge once again you are making statements without providing any background supporting evidence for your position. So you have not refuted my post that a Luftwaffe squadron was initially only 9 planes. I have cited a know work that was published by an author whos written over 40 aviation books with assistance from the USAF historical center. You provided nothing to support your claim.

Also your claim that the term sycophant is not derogatory is a farce. Let's see the common synonyms for sycophant are: arse-kisser, brown noser, suck up, yes man, parasite, flunky, and lackey, I'm glad you find none of those terms offensive or derogatory.

And thank you Sparrow for reminding me what is truly important, and not to get dragged into these kinds of discussions.

 

[33Vortex]

A Staffel at full strength late-war, 12 aircraft. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the original 9 + 3 officers making up the 3 schwarm leaders. Since combat losses and normal ops attrition take a toll, I think that the Luftwaffe staffeln that actually WERE full strength at any time in 1945 can be counted in single digit numbers. Of course, there are always some people who like to be anal about things. So there must be other german fighters that can be questioned, as there may have been dozens of understrength 109K staffeln fielded, but none at full strength. Then we have the fresh reinforcements coming in, the new guys who temporarily made up for the losses and put the staffeln up to full strength. They lasted maybe a couple missions until they died in that awesome machine they had just learned how to take to the sky in. Come on, really, how far do you want to go? The attrition rates of the Jadgwaffe in 1945 was so insane, one can dispute it's very existence! But of course, you'd rather have no Luftwaffe at all eh?

Remember this... we share the same interest, the love of flight. We come here for that purpose, to relive and dream of a long since over and by most people forgotten conflict. Everyone here in this community is a friend who share the same interest and dreams, do not treat him like he is or was your enemy (yes, the war is over). Leave your ego on the ground, it has no place in the air, and love the thrill of the fight. There is no reason to insult people for reasons not ours to fight.

Hope that makes sense, english is not my first language and it may be so-so compared to what I mean. But I'm really sick and tired of all the oversized egos in this community, and people picking fights on the boards for petty details that basically nobody else would care about.