Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Polaroid on February 24, 2004, 04:22:56 PM
-
(http://www.bobafettmp.com/warbirds/airshow2003/images/PICT1116.JPG)
Supermarine Spitfire mk.IX
The Improvised Excellence
As is widely known, the Supermarine Spitfire was Britain's premiere fighter throughout the entire war. Pilots found it to be agile and dependable, it was a fine air-combat plane capable of great speed and superior high-altitude performance. From the engineering point of view, perhaps the most remarkable virtue of the Spitfire was its ability to accept updated engines and armaments and stay competitive as the war progressed.
Early 1942 brought the introduction of the superb German Focke-Wulf 190A on the Channel front, which took the RAF by surprise. In initial engagements, this mysterious Luftwaffe aircraft so thoroughly outclassed the best British mount, the newly introduced Spitfire Mk.V that it created a serious morale problem.
An answer had to be improvised and brought into combat in the shortest possible time. Under the intense pressure from the Ministry of Aircraft Production, Supermarine proposed an interim mark of the Spitfire pending an intended full scale development of the Mk VIII. The result was the Mk IX. The new mark proved vastly superior to the Mk.V in everything except the turn radius. Like a few other British technical improvisations, it lasted a long time, 5665 being built, the second highest number of any Spitfire mark.
The first Spitfire Mk IXs went to No 64 Squadron at Hornchurch in July... the story could continue. The purpose of this essay, however, is to have a look at this famous Spitfire model from the engineering point of view. There's a lot of enigmatic information about technical configuration of this particular mark. With a very long production run, there had been many small and not-so-small developments introduced on the production line which, although visible, were not reflected in changed type designation. So let's leave the rest of the type history to other (easily available) sources and have a close look at the aircraft itself!
Specifications
Span: 36 ft. 10 in.
Length: 30 ft.
Height: 12 ft. 7 in.
Weight: 8,040 lbs. loaded
Armament: None
Engine: Merlin 61, 63, or 70 of 1,655 hp.
Performance Maximum Allotted Speed : 422 mph.
Cruising Speed: 369 mph.
Range: 1,360 statue miles.
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft.
The Mark IX was a development of the original British Spitfire interceptor that first flew in 1936. A total of 20,351 Spitfires of all types were eventually built, plus 2,408 Seafires modified to operate from aircraft carriers.
The USAAF's 14th Photographic Squadron of the 8th Air Force used Spitfire Mark IXs from November 1943 to April 1945, flying hazardous long range reconnaissance missions.
-
that is a mark v
-
No, Its a Mk IX. The photo I had before was the one next to it. I accidently got the Mk V instead of the Mk IX, but Here I changed it now
-
Thats a opinion........my opinion is the whole Fw 190 series is the best fighter ever..........
-
OMG a spit dweab:) Is it cool to be open about it now? I am so outa touch, I bet they have their own night clubs now huh:)
-
Vought F-8E CRUSADER
If you have to ask why - you wouldn't understand. :D
-
What that spit pilot doesn't realize is that the pony in the top left is about to swing around for a vulch.......
-
Originally posted by brady
OMG a spit dweab:) Is it cool to be open about it now? I am so outa touch, I bet they have their own night clubs now huh:)
something like that
-
Originally posted by hawker238
What that spit pilot doesn't realize is that the pony in the top left is about to swing around for a vulch.......
what the pony Dosen't realise is that the spit has a friend on his tail ;)
-
What none of the three realize is that there is a 20k dive bombing lanc formation about to obliterate the base... with its ubberness of doom:D
-
Originally posted by Jester
Vought F-8E CRUSADER
If you have to ask why - you wouldn't understand. :D
Vought F-8E should this nickname: Corsair II instead Crusader, but I aint jet fan anyway and I would have to say Vought F4U-4 "Corsair" is the best aircraft in WWII where there is no death or damage. :D
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
Vought F-8E should this nickname: Corsair II instead Crusader, but I aint jet fan anyway and I would have to say Vought F4U-4 "Corsair" is the best aircraft in WWII where there is no death or damage. :D
Um no it shouldn't. The Corsair II was the A7
-
Originally posted by Nod
What none of the three realize is that there is a 20k dive bombing lanc formation about to obliterate the base... with its ubberness of doom:D
Damn Divebombing Rook Lancs
-
Originally posted by palef
Um no it shouldn't. The Corsair II was the A7
A-7 was Attacker/Bomber, not a fighter and I learn more about LVT F-8 Crusader history, The Last Gun Fighter.
-
Agree on the spit ix. Not to mention the top scoring allied ace Johnnie Johnstone flew it. 38 victories - all fighters.
-
Boy the spit IX did a great job taking the airwar deep into German airspace. Oh wait... I guess the spits didn't have the range do do that did they? Perhaps this is why they sat out the biggest Western Allied air campaign in Europe.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
Boy the spit IX did a great job taking the airwar deep into German airspace. Oh wait... I guess the spits didn't have the range do do that did they? Perhaps this is why they sat out the biggest Western Allied air campaign in Europe.
Hooligan
Spit was designed as a "local" airspace defender... not a offensive or bomber escort aircraft........:p
-
don't really care what anyone says but this is the best.
(http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/421458090/2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Furball
Agree on the spit ix. Not to mention the top scoring allied ace Johnnie Johnstone flew it. 38 victories - all fighters.
Last I heard, Major Richard Ira Bong USAAF scored 40 confirmed kills, Major Thomas B. McGuire USAAF had 38 confirmed kills. All in the P-38 Lightning.
-
Marmaduke Pattle scored higher, all of them flying a gladiator or hurricane.
-
go by best ace the BF109 is the greatest
go by how many of 1 kind of plane made the IL2 is the greatest
go by the planes record in helping the war the P47 is the greatest just look up its ground support kills if you want proof
go by inpact the B29 nuke carrying abilty would make it the greatest
there are so many WW2 planes that could be called the greatest
there is realy no way you could pin 1 plane as the greatest of WW2
-
P51D all the way... umm just because it's my favorite. :)
-
Well I am just partial to Spits, nothing else gives me a hardon like em
-
Originally posted by Polaroid
Well I am just partial to Spits, nothing else gives me a hardon like em
too much info :lol
-
Originally posted by Polaroid
Well I am just partial to Spits, nothing else gives me a hardon like em
You do know spits are gay, right? :lol
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You do know spits are gay, right? :lol
Bi, Thanks for askin
-
lol:)
-
Originally posted by brady
lol:)
:cool:
-
From an aesthetic point of view, I think the Fw190s are the best.
Allied dashboards and guages are smurfy! The black interior with classy panels, guages, dashboards and switches - man, that some good designing on the 190! ;)
-
Best fighter of all time....
Easy one. F-15 Eagle, 189 kills air to air, zero losses air to air.
Nothing else comes close.
My regards,
Widewing
(http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/021105-O-9999G-039.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Best fighter of all time....
Easy one. F-15 Eagle, 189 kills air to air, zero losses air to air.
Nothing else comes close.
My regards,
Widewing
Good point :)
But which one would you want parked in your hanger down at the local airfield. F15? Spit IX.
hmmmm I go with the Spit :)
Dan/Slack
-
Pretty sure thats supposed to be 89 kills, not 189.
P-51D saved more lives than any other fighter.
-
Brewster Model 239.
(http://www.sci.fi/~fta/bw-011.jpg)
(http://www.sci.fi/~fta/brewst1l.gif)
During 1941 - 43 the Finnish Air Force achieved 477 victories with the Brewsters with an exchange ratio of 32:1.
(Pics from Fighter Tactics Academy (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/index.htm))
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
A-7 was Attacker/Bomber, not a fighter and I learn more about LVT F-8 Crusader history, The Last Gun Fighter.
I don't quite understand, but I think you're inferring that the F8 should be called the Corsair II because it's the spiritual successor to the WWII era Corsair?
I hate to disabuse you of the notion, but I think you'll find that the Corsair off WWII and Korea spent more time moving mud than operating in an air to air capacity. Therefore, and also given it's service with the US Marine Corps like the Corsair, the A7 would appear to have a greater call on that name.
I think Crusader suits the F8 to a "T".
-
Hi,
i think the Me109 in almost all versions was the best fighter all over fighter.
Not only cause the highest scoring aces flow it (not only germans!) but it was pretty good at all altitudes, had a very good acceleration, very good slow/mediumspeed-manouverability, had the exact working nosemounted guns and many Rüstsätze to provide a wide field of usage.
Of course the Spitfire had some advanatges, but it had a to slow diveacceleration, while the P51 had a to slow vertical and climbacceleration and the FW190 had simply a to high wingload and so a bad turn and stallbehaviour.
The FW190 probably was the best attacker/destroyer with a good chance to evade attacks due to its rollratio, but in my opinion the 'best fighter all over' need to be able to dogfight better. Sure before the SpitIXc the FW´s was the better fighters vs the allieds, but testfights between the F4´s and A3´s did show that the 109 was the better dogfighter. The mainadvantage of the 190s was their incredible firepower and highspeedbehaviour.
The SpitfireIXc cant be the best all over fighter, cause the best all over fighter should be able to catch its oponents, but the 109´s and FW´s could outdive it by easy, the Spit14 would fit more i think.
I realy also could agree with the Yak3, but its range was pretty poor so it was 'only' a short range interceptor, similar to the Me163(of course not that short).
Iam pretty sure that the P51, if the 25lb(or higher) boost and 2000HP or more would have been available, would be the best WWII fighter, but without it was somewhat underpowered(i think it was like the 109D in Spain, very good but still underpowered to show its full potential).
So my choise is the 109, with a short exception in late 1943, when it did wait for MW50. It did well in France, it did well in BoB, it did well in Africa, it did well over germany and it did well over russia and that in many cases with a big disadvantage(BoB: bad range + bad close escort command, later: less in numbers)
BTW, if we choose the planes cause their results, i guess the B-239(Brewster F2A1) would be the best WWII plane. 496kills vs 19 loses is a impressive result. But if we compare the US-Brewster results(which had a better performece than the B-239) with the finnish results, we can see easy how important the Pilotskill and tactics be.
I think its a myth that the 109 was bad after the 109F(1941), born out of the unexpected good results of the FW190´s vs the SpitV´s and the complaining of a less good handling due to more weight by the turnfighters among the pilots and of course cause the high LW losses again a enemy with more planes and better getting pilotskill. But if we try to focus the fighterperformences only, all other fighters also got a higher wingload, what wasnt a big problem, cause in planes with 1500-2200PS and combatspeeds above the Vmax of the earlyer versions the time of classic tight dogfight was over. Hit and run was normal, not very tight slow fights. Later in the war Hartmann´s tactic was profed as the right tactic, the turnfighters got wounded or was dead, while Pilots with Hartmanns tactic rarely got in trouble(Hartmann´s mechanic never had to repair the plane cause enemybullets and he never lost a wingman), and Hartmann did enter service in late 1942, when the 'easy' time already got to its end. He made rundabout 1400 missions, 700 with contact, all in 109´s. His plane must have been a good one, next to his skill. I wonder how his tactic would have been with wingmounted guns?? On 50m distance he would have had more problems. How the 109G/K´s would have perform if all new german pilots would get teached by Hartmann with the same time in a flightschool like he had??
Of course thats only my opinon and what is the best fighter for sure depends in big degrees to the tactical/strategic-need.
P51 = best long range escortfighter
P47= best high alt escortfighter (easyer kills for newbes cause the firepower)
Typhoon/Temp = best groundattacker (easyer kills for newbes cause the firepower)
FW190, F4U = best attacker(easyer kills for newbes cause the firepower)
SpitIXc, Yak3, A6M=best turnfighter
Spit14 + 109´s+La5/7, F6F, N1k , Ta152H1 = best all over fighters maybe.
As most important fighters of the war i would chose this planes:
P51: not the best, but with its range and tactical advantage while the escort, it made the Bomberattacks deep over germany possible.
Hurricane1: It was there when it was needed and was a good gunplattform, in combination with the radar it was able to face the german fighter/bombers out of a tactical advantage.
Me109: Always a good choise again nearly every oponent and in every altitude.
P38: In the pacific it was the 'me262' among the slow japanese fighters in 1942/43 and got more kills than any other US plane vs Japan.
I think no type of the russian fighters was very important, for me it seems like the number of planes and pilots brought the result, Stalin simply didnt care about loses.
The FW190´s came to late in big numbers to be realy important i think, they had their good year in 1942 in the unimportant channelfront. In the east and Africa the 109´s brought good results and since 1943 the FW´s had problems to hold their hands up, cause the higher getting number of enemys and less good dogfightqualitys specialy in high alt and it was less easy flyable, so the decreasing pilotskill brought even more problems in this heavy planes.
So i think this great plane came in the wrong moment and to smal numbers to get realy important, same like the SpitIXc with its short range.
I think the Airwar got won in BoB by the Hurricane in combination with the radar and the short 109 range and later by the endless supply of the allieds and here specialy the russian Airforce and the tactical advantage of the P47´s/P51´s above the Bombers and it got lost by the totaly naive and stupid german HQ with a addicted leader and a 'Führer' who never got the right informations cause all did fear him, what caused a to late supply with many and the right planes and the downfall of the good german flightschools(they took the teachers into combat, how stupid they must have been?? Imagine a droptank for the E4 while BoB! ) and so the Luftwaffe itself.
Oh, that was long, time to work! :D
Greetings, Knegel
-
Bf 109 of course. It`s the plane of records, one of the longest living and most widely serving fighter, most built fighter plane ever, ride of all the top scoring fighter pilots of all times, many times more aerial victories than anything else, using a lot of the most advanced technologies for it`s time...
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/gall04favemed.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Best fighter of all time....
Easy one. F-15 Eagle, 189 kills air to air, zero losses air to air.
Nothing else comes close.
My regards,
Widewing
And most interesting that most of them done by only 2 IAF ;) squadrons.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Bf 109 of course. It`s the plane of records, one of the longest living and most widely serving fighter, most built fighter plane ever, ride of all the top scoring fighter pilots of all times, many times more aerial victories than anything else, using a lot of the most advanced technologies for it`s time...
pathetic
-
Primitive little troll... :cool:
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Primitive little troll... :cool:
your post ?
certainly
-
"Boy the spit IX did a great job taking the airwar deep into German airspace. Oh wait... I guess the spits didn't have the range do do that did they? Perhaps this is why they sat out the biggest Western Allied air campaign in Europe.
Hooligan"
Gee, did they not cover the Spitfire in WW2 in the movie "Memphis Belle"?
Pity.
You might want to crack open a book and learn some history other than the P-51 and the 8th AF.
Maybe start here :
http://www3.sympatico.ca/angels_eight/index.html
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Bf 109 of course. It`s the plane of records, one of the longest living and most widely serving fighter, most built fighter plane ever, ride of all the top scoring fighter pilots of all times, many times more aerial victories than anything else, using a lot of the most advanced technologies for it`s time...
More Messicraps got shot down than any other single fighter type. :rofl:aok
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
More Messicraps got shot down than any other single fighter type.
That`s bull.
More Messerschmitt glory :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Barkhorn109-250luftsieg800x600.jpg )
Top 3 scoring fighter pilots of all time :
Erich Hartmann, 352 victories, Bf 109
Gerhard Barkhorn, 301 victories, Bf 109
Gunther Rall, 271 victories, Bf 109
Hmmm...:p
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
That`s bull.
The only bull is from you Barbi. How many 109s left on May 8 1945, when Germany unconditionally surrendered?
Out of the ~55,000 109s and 190s manufactured there was less than 1300 able to fly.
There was also more LW pilots killed in the 109 than any other fighter type.
-
Originally posted by Polaroid
Supermarine Spitfire mk.IX
I'm getting a flashback here...
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
That`s bull.
More Messerschmitt glory :
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Barkhorn109-250luftsieg800x600.jpg )
Top 3 scoring fighter pilots of all time :
Erich Hartmann, 352 victories, Bf 109
Gerhard Barkhorn, 301 victories, Bf 109
Gunther Rall, 271 victories, Bf 109
Hmmm...:p
vulch kings :rofl
edit: you have to remember, these piliots fought the WHOLE war, there was no 25 sortie limit or whatever, they didnt enter the war after it had finished (americans ;) ), they started it, they killed "easy" targets over poland, france, spain (civil war helped train hitlers pilots) and early russian planes.
They LOST the war, but that doesnt make there pilots or planes poor.......
-
Johny Johnson fought the whole war too. Whats your point.
Best fighter in history is a question wrapped in its place and time.
I think the only way to really assess that is by asking the people that are the victems of that aircraft. And by that standard I think it has to be the F15 in 1980.
-
Cheers to Gerhard :aok
-
Isegrim,
Your sig is a German pilot that test flew a Spitfire and thought it was pathetic.
What exactly did he think was pathetic? Handling, speed, climb?
Is there more text with this?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Isegrim,
Your sig is a German pilot that test flew a Spitfire and thought it was pathetic.
What exactly did he think was pathetic? Handling, speed, climb?
Is there more text with this?
It`s Werner Moelders, in 40 or 41. I dont have the book right in front of me, so... From memory, he liked the handling, takeoff, ie. the general behaviour of the plane, but critized it for being slow in dives, and for the carburrator cut-out under negative G. Basically, I believe his sentence means that while the Spit was great as an aircraft, it was unsuited by it`s merits for the modern requirements of air combat, which was characterised by teamwork, high-speed passes, vertical combat etc., rather than the close range dogfights the Spit excelled in.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The only bull is from you Barbi. How many 109s left on May 8 1845, when Germany unconditionally surrendered?
Out of the ~55,000 109s and 190s manufactured there was less than 1300 able to fly.
There was also more LW pilots killed in the 109 than any other fighter type.
Hi,
if you look to the trainingdrill of the LW in 1944/45 , when the LW lost most pilots, noone can wonder about this fakt.
And since the 109 got build 35000 times, and fought on all european frontiers its even more logical that many pilots did die in it, specialy if we take in account that this often terrible pilots had to face 3-10 times more oponents with a very good skill (at least in the west). Till 1943 the LW still had many good pilots and so the 109 could show its power, later the rare getting aces could still prove that the 109´s was more than a hand full if it was flown by a good pilot.
If i remember right Galland told this after he did fly a Spit1A, probably he wasnt enthusiastic about the rollratio and the acceleration.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Never mind with the excuses Knegel.;)
You have to take the good with the bad.:)
-
Werner Molders took a Spit up for a spin, neeto. What does that prove, he liked the fighter he flew, trained, and fought in better?
Shocking, considering WW2 is so full of succesfull fighter pilots always saying how they liked the oppositions fighter better? LOL.
-
What are you whining about squire? F4U asked Isegrim about his sig, why get your panties in bunch?
-
"I believe his sentence means that while the Spit was great as an aircraft, it was unsuited by it`s merits for the modern requirements of air combat, which was characterised by teamwork, high-speed passes, vertical combat etc., rather than the close range dogfights the Spit excelled in."
Oh I dont know, blathering nonsense like that can do it I guess. Maybe its a mid week thing .
-
If you know anything about Moelders or the LW you would understand why he said that about the spit.
I could also post an A. Galland quote asking for spits. Doesn't seem like much to get all uppity about.
It must be a "commonwealth" thing.
-
"I could also post an A. Galland quote asking for spits."
Oh I can just imagine your reply to a post like that from somebody else. Oh yes, the model of self control that you are.
I could spend all day every day responding to BB tripe...I choose where and how, so today was the day. Live with it.
-
It doesn't bother me a bit. You are just being your "usual self". I was just wondering why over something as silly as this.
At least you are getting an opportunity to vent.
-
Sure a lot of posts from your not caring. Thanks for stopping bye.
-
Since this thread is basically just a rehash of many similar threads I will just rehash some of my old posts:
Originally posted by GScholz
The top 3 aces (of any conflict) all flew 109's exclusively. Of the 20 top aces (of any conflict) 12 flew 109's exclusively.
Nuf said.
Originally posted by GScholz
Never the less it proves that the 109 was an able fighter. If the 190 was much better the 190 aces would be on top.
109G10 vs. P-51D the 109 holds almost all the cards. The 109 is faster at all altitudes over 10k, climbs much better, accelerates much better, only in a slow turnfight would the P-51 have an advantage due to its combat flaps, but if it comes to that the P-51 has already lost.
The 109 got shredded by the P-51's because it was drastically outnumbered in every fight and flown by mostly green pilots at the end of the war
Originally posted by GScholz
(http://www.bf109.com/images/stigler4.jpg)
On 20/01/01, Markus and Ryan Muntener met Franz Stigler and had the chance to ask a variety of questions, many of which addressed hotly-debated topics regarding the 109, and the general misconceptions that people have.
Excerpts:
Are the stories true, that the 109 had weak wings and would lose them easily?
He has never heard of a 109 losing its' wings from his experience or others. The wings could withstand 12G's and since most pilots could only handle at most 9G's there was never a problem. He was never worried about losing a wing in any form of combat.
Did you fly the 109 with the wing-mounted guns?
Yes he had, but almost everyone he new got the guns removed (including himself). The 109 handled much worse at low speeds with the guns on the wings, but climb was similar. It only really added some weight to the aircraft.
What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive.
Did pilots like the slats on the wings or the 109?
Yes, pilots did like them, since it allowed them better positions in a dogfight, along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling....this was also useful when you were drunk!
How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight.
Were the guns on the bombers dangerous or worrisome to pilots?
Yes and no (as he points to his head where you can see an indent). If you have 28 bombers with 10 guns each, all pointing and shooting at you they could be very dangerous. He has an indent in the upper part of his forehead from a .5 cal bullet that had smashed through the thick armoured glass in his 109 cockpit. The bullet had lost enough speed by this time that it had only "stuck" into his head. He said he almost never returned home from a bomber attack without bullet holes somewhere on his aircraft.
EDIT: Note that 750 km/h is 468 mph.
-
... And since this thread is going to become a 109 vs Spit or P-51 thread real soon I invite everyone to read this previos 404 post monster thread that adresses the same issues:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100221&highlight=109+kill
Fore those that do not want to read 404 posts I made a short summary on page five. Of course there were four more pages after that, so this summary is perhaps only half complete.
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok, lets review this thread and see what we have found out:
First of all we found out that Nomak is delusional, or perhaps has "cannon envy". ;)
The Spit and 109 were both designed as short-range interceptors and evolved throughout the war.
The 109 was liked by its pilots, including the slats and the cockpit. The cannon gondolas on the other hand was not. The slats were especially helpful if the pilot was drunk. ;)
Batz would like to think he could win the war for Germany if he was in charge. ;)
Arlo thinks he has superior second and third hand sources. ;)
The 109 had a 6.5:1 k/d From April 1941 to November 1942.
Nomak and myself love to play "Quote the Aces". ;)
Nomak thinks .50 cals are better weapons against bombers than 30mm cannons. Hmmm ;)
dBeav joins Nomak in being delusional. ;)
Dtango comes forward as a Mustang lover yet believes the 109K4 was superior. Takes guts. :)
I brag about my recent success in the 109G10. *whistles innocently*
F4UDOA bursts into the thread with claims of the "Über Pony". It was soon clear that this was just the first of a series of boisterous post that also would grow in vile with each installment.
Questions raised about how many serviceable aircraft was available to the LW in 1945 ... which is completely inconsequential to the discussion.
Hartmann's last ride in WWII was the 109K4.
A long and heated debate about "light" 9000 lbs Mustangs. My conclusion: at 9000 lbs the Mustang was too light to do anything but cruise home to the UK, however in late 44 and 45 "light" Mustangs were probably fighting the LW.
150 octane fuel was used by the 8th USAAF from about mid 1944, but not by the 9th USAAF.
RAF some if not most Spitfires stationed in the UK used 150 octane fuel, but Spitfires on continental Europe did not use 150 octane fuel until January 1945. So combat between 150 octane Spits and LW fighters were probably a very rare event until 1945.
F4UDOA vehemently protests the 109G10/K4 superiority in climb, and argues that a "light" P-51D using 150 octane fuel would best the 109. He is of course wrong.
Isegrim makes his debut in the thread, and defends the 109 with charts and whatnot. His data later comes under question by Nashwan, MiloMorai and Neil Sterling. Isegrim and Nashwan seems to have some "prior history" ... which in this case is a polite term for blood feud.
The Merlin using 150 octane and +25 lbs boost would generate 1940 HP, but at speed at low alt would generate a shade over 2000 HP due to ramair aiding the blower.
>>> Follow up question: The 109G10 and K4 are rated at 2000 HP using MW50 boost. Would they too gain some HP from the ramair effect?
There is some debate on when the 109K4 was cleared for different boost levels. This issue remains unresolved.
F4UDOA shows lacking knowledge about elementary Newtonian physics presenting his "P-51 out-accelerate 109 theory".
Widewing enters the thread with information on the JG-26 and how they didn't like the 109K4 they had received, and that they preferred the 109G10. He also informs us that the K4's were equipped with cannon gondolas which were disliked by the pilots. He also tells us about the P-51's nasty departure characteristics and quirks. Widewings contributions to this thread were refreshingly objective and most welcome. :)
There is some debate on the 109K4's high alt handling, and if the cannon gondolas were the culprit. This issue remains unresolved.
Isegrim, Widewing and myself clumsily but amusingly work out the weight vs. fuel issues with the P-51, and as a byproduct find out a +25 lbs Merlin has horrible fuel economy.
There is some discussion on the drag coefficient of the 109 vs P-51. Remains unresolved.
Widewing has some problems with pounds and gallons. ;)
Isegrim and Nashwan continue their blood feud with renewed vigor and viciousness.
I reveal I'm a night owl, discussing 60 year old airplanes at 3 o'clock in the morning. ;)
F4UDOA insults me and reveals his bias against the 109 by uttering "The FACT is that the 109 was ***** slapped into history in a big way."
MiloMorai calls Isegrim "Herr Goebbels" and points to old discussions on a different BBS posted by Neil Sterling as proof of Isegrim being untruthful. Isegrim is now being ganged by MiloMorai, Nashwan and Neil Sterling. Not good.
Isegrim argues that the 109's slats would give the 109 an edge in combat against the P-51. This remains a disputed topic.
Hogenbor pops in to say the 109 has gentle departure characteristics while the P-51 does not.
Nomak proclaims he'll take opinions over facts anyday, whatever that means.
I make a "Freudian slip" and DiabloTX takes great pleasure in pointing this out to me. ;)
Dtango and I work out that the P-51H would be a great perk ride, however unlikely it is that it will be included in AH due to it's late appearance in the war.
Dtango agrees with Isegrim in that the 109's slats do make a difference, but argues that the P-51's flaps would even the playing field. He encourages further study, but sadly this is not followed up on. Remains unresolved.
F4UDOA posts an unreadable chart to prove his "400mph 3-hour cruise" claim. I would very much like to read this chart and hope F4UDOA will post the chart in higher resolution. Remains unresolved.
Neil Sterling posts performance figures of the P-51B running 75" HG boost. The figures show the P-51B to be superior to the 109G10 in speed under 10K, but otherwise inferior.
Neil Sterling informs us that only RAF Mustang fitted with the -7 Merlin were cleared for +25 lbs /81" HG and delivered 1940 static HP at sea level. He also says the US P-51's were only cleared for 72" HG / +20.5 lbs boost.
>>> Follow up question: How many RAF Mustangs had the -7 Merlin and were cleared for +25 lbs, and in what role were these Mustangs used? How much HP did the US P-51's develop at +20.5 lbs boost.
Finally Angus pops in to tell us that the RAF pilots were freezing their butts off while the US pilots were warm and comfortable. ;)
See? This thread is going to be just the same ... complete with Isegrim, Nashwan and MiloMorai fighting like cats in heat.
-
In response to Furball's earlier statement about the leading Allied Ace, Air Marshal Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub scored 62 confirmed kills during WWII. He flew the LaGG-5, the La5F and the La7. Yeah we know, a LaLa pilot. According to this quote, he doesn't seem very modest about his number of kills. Never the less, a legend in air combat.
"I destroyed my first enemy aircraft in the air during the Battle of Kursk. Historians have been setting forth my total score as 62 victories. As a matter of fact this figure requires revision. There were many victories that either remained unconfirmed or were credited to fellow pilots. I reckon that my personal score actually is in excess of 100 victories while I never counted enemy aircraft destroyed jointly with my comrades."
He went on to command a unit during the Korean Conflict (I consider it a war) that claimed 207 UN aircraft with a loss of 15 Mig-15s. And in comparison to Johnie Johnston's 38 kills, the Soviet Union had 16 pilots with more than 38 kills during the war. Of course, all aces do deserve their recognition.
-
Originally posted by Wrecker
In response to Furball's earlier statement about the leading Allied Ace, Air Marshal Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub scored 62 confirmed kills during WWII. He flew the LaGG-5, the La5F and the La7. Yeah we know, a LaLa pilot. According to this quote, he doesn't seem very modest about his number of kills. Never the less, a legend in air combat.
"I destroyed my first enemy aircraft in the air during the Battle of Kursk. Historians have been setting forth my total score as 62 victories. As a matter of fact this figure requires revision. There were many victories that either remained unconfirmed or were credited to fellow pilots. I reckon that my personal score actually is in excess of 100 victories while I never counted enemy aircraft destroyed jointly with my comrades."
He went on to command a unit during the Korean Conflict (I consider it a war) that claimed 207 UN aircraft with a loss of 15 Mig-15s. And in comparison to Johnie Johnston's 38 kills, the Soviet Union had 16 pilots with more than 38 kills during the war. Of course, all aces do deserve their recognition.
Well, I can understand Kozhedub being modest, especially when considering that there isn't a single aviation historian who believes he actually shot down much more than half that number. Russian over-claiming was so high, that they would have had to shoot down every Luftwaffe aircraft ever sent to the eastern front THREE TIMES to equal the number of "confirmed kills".
Soviet claims in Korea were just as imaginative. Total claims for F-86s kills exceeded the total number deployed in theater by 250%. Their very best went to Korea, and modern investigations show that they lost four MiGs for every Sabre they knocked down. Rather pathetic when one considers that they had every tactical advantage possible by flying close to home base, from fields that were off-limits to American attack. Since the Sabres had to fly to their fuel limits, and the Soviets had plenty of time to prepare (always being above the Sabres, and usually having superior numbers by a factor of 3-4 times), you would think they would have done better... There's no substitute for pilot quality when the aircraft are nearly equal.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing, how many Soviet pilots fought in Korea? A handful or two? And some of them made ace in that war. You're counting NK and Chinese pilots.
-
Your education is lacking Sholtzi, but that is understandable since you believe whatever Barbi says without question.:rofl It was more than a handful of Soviets that fought over Korea.
For starters there was ~40 Soviet aces from Korea.
units: 303 IAD, 324 IAD, 151 IAD, 29 IAP, 176 GvIAP, 304 IAD, 97 IAD, 535 IAP, 878 IAP, ......
-
Yes it seems I was wrong. There were definitively more than a handful of them, although they did fly under Chinese colors and from Chinese bases. Only 16 of them made ace though, not 40.
-
I dont know what funnier.the thread, or the comments reading....the vulch.great reply....:aok
But the F4U-4 trumps all....sorry fellas
-
Right on, Widewing -- the undefeated F-15.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
How many 109s left on May 8 1845, when Germany unconditionally surrendered?
Check your facts, Milo. :rolleyes:
TBolt
-
EDIT: Note that 750 km/h is 468 mph.
468 mph - but it is 404 knots (navy mile per hour that is 1853 meters).
All the speeds in AH are in Knots and not MPH that are about 1.6 kph.
Can we copare that planes without referring to pilots? I think no
The best jet fighter ace had flown Mirage IIIC only. Did it make Mirage best jet fighter plane of this period? (The most beautifull - yes ;) )
When IAF had compared Mirage and Iraq MiG-21 in 1966 they found them quite similar aircrafts in their perfomances.
The same about F-86 and MiG-15. 109g10 and Spitfire Mk XIV and lot of others.
Compare pure date - speed, climb, firepower, manuverability, field of view, low and high speed handlelling the armor etc.
And compare them according to the period.
I can tell - the best fighter in late 1944 early 45 is 262 - it outclassed all other planes. So..... what does it mean? After short period there were Meteors (even slower but that didn't suffered from 50% deaths on engine failture like it was for 262)
Probably you make mistake in defenition - most succesefull and not best.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Well, I can understand Kozhedub being modest, especially when considering that there isn't a single aviation historian who believes he actually shot down much more than half that number. Russian over-claiming was so high, that they would have had to shoot down every Luftwaffe aircraft ever sent to the eastern front THREE TIMES to equal the number of "confirmed kills".
-------------------------------------------
Hm,
iam pretty sure that Kozhedub isnt a liar, at least i dont have a hit to believe that, you have??
He fought a long war, like the other WWII-highscoring aces and there wasnt many Russian pilots with so many kills and the German´s always was carefully if they had a elitesquad as oponent.
To believe there wasnt a russian pilot who was similar good like the german-, finnish- , japanese- , brit- or US-aces sounds abit like rassisn, there is no reason to think so!
That the majority of the russian pilots dont had a very high skill is maybe right(no wonder if the Aces get concentrated in some squads and cant teach the others), but i think its rubbish to think all was bad and its a insolence to say they did lie.
If the headquater make wrong statement as a part of propaganda, thats one thing, but why the russian pilots should lie, while all other pilots dont?
Iam pretty unsure about the russian countingsystem, but if they would have had the chance to lie, all would have a much higher scoring and if their skill dont would have been remarkable the germans wouldnt have take notice of the guardsquads and the pilots dont would have get into a guardsquad.
I often wonder how the US-boys got their kills confirmed, many of them was done while high alt fights, how they did know if a downgoing plane was a kill or 'only' a damaged escaping enemy?
Greetings, Knegel
-
Very amusing post by GScholz, not in the least by the fact that he even quotes me :D
I sometimes wonder if it is worth it to get so worked up about 60 year old planes. Furthermore, if you compare impressions of the same aircraft flown by pilots today, their opinions differ as much as ours it seems ;)
And what I said about the departure characteristics of the P-51 and the 109, that's only my experience in AH. How could I know more? I'm happy enough to have TOUCHED at least one 109 and several P-51's :)
-
Originally posted by TBolt A-10
Check your facts, Milo. :rolleyes:
TBolt
Why? Just a typo error.:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Leave poor Squire alone, he is having his period. They are very touchy around those days, you know. :D
-
Originally posted by artik
All the speeds in AH are in Knots and not MPH that are about 1.6 kph.
Speeds in AH are in MPH
Source: http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/cptinst2.html
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Speeds in AH are in MPH
Source: http://hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/cptinst2.html
What miles? Navy or Ground? ;)
These are navy miles I think that are 1.853 km and not 1.6
-
Statute miles.
If it would be measured in Nautical miles, we would have speed in "Knots".
If you believe that P51D can do about 810 KmpH in level flight, then yes, it's measured in Knots, otherwise it's in MpH...
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Leave poor Squire alone, he is having his period. They are very touchy around those days, you know. :D
Always with the sexual comments, Barbi. With your pre-occupation with sex, one can conclude you get none.:D:D:D:rofl :aok
-
... like cats in heat.
-
Although the F-15 is definitely up there, I'd contend that the F-16 is the best "of all time".
F-16s accounted for nearly half of all Syrian planes downed in '82 by the Israelis. It's an extremely versatile airframe that's proven very adaptable to technological innovation. In its most advanced form (the F-16I) it has few equals. It's relatively inexpensive. It can be adapted to almost any F/A role.
And I think it's the sexiest aircraft ever produced.
-
yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
-
Originally posted by Knegel
iam pretty sure that Kozhedub isnt a liar, at least i dont have a hit to believe that, you have??
He fought a long war, like the other WWII-highscoring aces and there wasnt many Russian pilots with so many kills and the German´s always was carefully if they had a elitesquad as oponent.
To believe there wasnt a russian pilot who was similar good like the german-, finnish- , japanese- , brit- or US-aces sounds abit like rassisn, there is no reason to think so!
That the majority of the russian pilots dont had a very high skill is maybe right(no wonder if the Aces get concentrated in some squads and cant teach the others), but i think its rubbish to think all was bad and its a insolence to say they did lie.
If the headquater make wrong statement as a part of propaganda, thats one thing, but why the russian pilots should lie, while all other pilots dont?
Iam pretty unsure about the russian countingsystem, but if they would have had the chance to lie, all would have a much higher scoring and if their skill dont would have been remarkable the germans wouldnt have take notice of the guardsquads and the pilots dont would have get into a guardsquad.
I often wonder how the US-boys got their kills confirmed, many of them was done while high alt fights, how they did know if a downgoing plane was a kill or 'only' a damaged escaping enemy?
Greetings, Knegel
No one called anyone a liar, and for you to extrapolate to that conclusion defies reason.
I have read interviews with former Soviet pilots where they told of returning to base and reporting 6 kills for 4 losses. Their local commander doubles the number of kills and forwards his report. The next guy up the chain of command embelished the report even further. Two weeks later, a General shows up to hand out medals. The pilots line up and are congratulated for their outstanding efforts for the motherland and Stalin.... Which of those pilots are going to stand by the truth and state what actually occurred?
Beyond that, we would likely find that Luftwaffe records show only 2 aircraft lost that day in that area.....
As to how the USAAF confirmed kills: Gun camera film and eyewitnesses. Many kills were disallowed. Post-war records show that the Western Allies and Germany over-claimed by only a small fraction compared to the Soviet Union and Japanese. The actual difference between American claims of Japanese planes vs. actual Japanese losses misses by less than 15%.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I dont know what funnier.the thread, or the comments reading....the vulch.great reply....:aok
But the F4U-4 trumps all....sorry fellas
Ah, Red Tail is right, F4U-4 trumps all! :D
-
Originally posted by Widewing
No one called anyone a liar, and for you to extrapolate to that conclusion defies reason.
I have read interviews with former Soviet pilots where they told of returning to base and reporting 6 kills for 4 losses. Their local commander doubles the number of kills and forwards his report. The next guy up the chain of command embelished the report even further. Two weeks later, a General shows up to hand out medals. The pilots line up and are congratulated for their outstanding efforts for the motherland and Stalin.... Which of those pilots are going to stand by the truth and state what actually occurred?
Beyond that, we would likely find that Luftwaffe records show only 2 aircraft lost that day in that area.....
As to how the USAAF confirmed kills: Gun camera film and eyewitnesses. Many kills were disallowed. Post-war records show that the Western Allies and Germany over-claimed by only a small fraction compared to the Soviet Union and Japanese. The actual difference between American claims of Japanese planes vs. actual Japanese losses misses by less than 15%.
My regards,
Widewing
Hi,
you wrote that Kozhedub himself told that he had more than the counted kills and you wrote that many historians(no name of course) think that he had only the half of the counted kills, than you wanna make us beliefe Kozhedub is a liar. Of course if he realy only had the half of the counted kills, he is a liar, but its not nice to state such thinks without fakts.
I for myself wonder why the russian aces had that few kills, cause they did fight the whole war like the germans.
Greetings, Knegel
-
RedTail and Rafe,
I don't even think you need the F4U-4. I think the F4U-1 was the best.
You can't compare the BF109G10/K4. Both of those A/C were 1945 and were built in very small numbers with limited amounts of fuel.
1942 and 1943 A/C did not have the performance to stay with the 1944 genre so I think 1944 is the year you would really want to focus on for the #1 Fighter A/C of WW2.
IMHO the contendors should be (Not in order)
P-51D
F4U-1
FW190D9
NIKI-2
SPIT XIV
P-47D-30
F6F-5
LA-7
BF109G-6 (if there is another varient let me know)
And there should be a criteria with a scale of say 1-5.
1. Speed
2. Climb
3. Dive
4. Turn radius
5. Roll
6. Harmonization of controls
7. firepower
8. range
9. durability/ruggedness
10. Visibility
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
You can't compare the BF109G10/K4. Both of those A/C were 1945 and were built in very small numbers with limited amounts of fuel.
G-10 and K-4 production started in August and September 1944. First ones were received in early October by the units, 174 of them fresh from the factory, and first non-combat losses also happened in October (11 in total). First combat losses happened in November, probably on the 2nd Nov big air battle.
About 2600 G-10s and 1700 K-4s were produced until 1945
Total 4300 - as many as all the Spit IXLF produced in years. You may even add the G-6 and G-14 /AS types... those were practically identical in performance as G-10.. and were built in fairly large numbers (well over 1000). They also saw service a lot earlier than those two - from beginning 1944.
The following units used the 109 K-4:
III. / JG 1; II. / JG 2 ; III. / JG 3 ; I. / JG 4 ; III. / JG 4, IV. / JG 4, II. / JG 11,III. / JG 26,Stab / JG 27,I. / JG 27,II. / JG 27,,III. / JG 27,IV. / JG 27,III. / JG 51,II. / JG 52,III. / JG 52,Stab / JG 53,II. / JG 53,III. / JG 53,IV. / JG 53,I. / JG 77,III. / JG 77,I. / NJG 11,II. / KG(J) 6,Stab / KG(J) 27,I. / KG(J) 27,II. / KG(J) 27,JG 101,101. Puma *(Hungarian),150. Gruppo (Italian).
*Not sure about the 101st Puma, there only anecdotal evidence
I also have a detailed breakup of the number of Bf 109s with the LW units in end of January 1945. I couldn`t find it, but I clearly remember that every 4th (25%) Bf 109s with the first line units was a K-4, 314 in total. Further 30% G-10s. So about half of the 109s force was either a K or a G-10... The rest were G-14s. G-6s were almost absent, most of them being in second line reserve units, probably only used for training.
They were not rare, in fact, the K-4 is the only plane from the "ultimate set", with the exception of the La-7, that saw action in really large numbers.
-
Well let me rephrase my statement.
The 109G10 and 109K4 2000HP vairent did not appear until they were cleared for use with C-3 fuel as per Butch's data in earlier post.
The performance before that was not nearly as impressive.
The entire F4U-4 was built and shipped during WW2. Over 2,000 A/C (including the 4 20Mil M3 versions). There were more F4U-4's built that any other F4U varient. The first of these were built in Oct 1944 although I would consider it a 1945 A/C.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Well let me rephrase my statement.
The 109G10 and 109K4 2000HP vairent did not appear until they were cleared for use with C-3 fuel as per Butch's data in earlier post.
The performance before that was not nearly as impressive.
As for when was it cleared, I leave it alone for obvious reasons. I just say I disagree.
Performance was not much worser, in fact, only a bit worser at low altitude, up to around 6000m. W/o the C-3 and 2000 PS, climb was about 23-23,5 m/sec for these versions - no less than 4500 fpm, I wouldn`t call that unimpressive. It`s already better than most, say, 90% of them.
Speed, again w/o C-3, in the worst condition -
G-10 was 562 km/h at SL, 690 km/h at 7500m.
K-4s 593 km/h at SL, 712 km/h at 7500m.
Again, already these specs are better than most.
The only difference with the use of C-3 and 2000 PS was that speed of K-4 increased to 607 km/h (+14 km/h), 715 km/h at 6000m (+20 km/h aprx), climb to 24.5 m/sec (+1-1.5 m/sec) at SL.
G-6/ASM, G-14/ASM are practically equals of G-10 in performance.
Higher boost provided by 1.98ata only improved performance below rated altitude. Performance at altitude about 6000m and over was the same with whatever fuel was used (since boost was the same). Hanlding would be very much the same, as well as armor, weapons, visibility etc.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
and you wrote that many historians(no name of course) think that he had only the half of the counted kills, than you wanna make us beliefe Kozhedub is a liar. Of course if he realy only had the half of the counted kills, he is a liar, but its not nice to state such thinks without fakts.
I for myself wonder why the russian aces had that few kills, cause they did fight the whole war like the germans.
Greetings, Knegel
Knegel dreamed: "you wrote that Kozhedub himself told that he had more than the counted kills "
I never made any such statement. Granted English is not your primary language, but if you wish to converse in English, at least have the minimal comprehension skills required.
Do you wish a list of Historians? Could you verify their conclusions if you had such a list? Or, are you just whining?
Soviet over-claiming was horrendous, and it wasn't confined to the lesser pilots. Virtually every Japanese ace has had their totals reduced, some by more than half. Why? Because the records of enemy losses don't support the claims.
Do your own research.. Prove me incorrect.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Lots of enemies have thought. .oh yummy a 109.. I bet not many have ever thought. Oh yummy.. an F15
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Lots of enemies have thought. .oh yummy a 109.. I bet not many have ever thought. Oh yummy.. an F15
very true that...i mean how many airforces has the F15 been up against that has equal numbers?
none? ;)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
very true that...i mean how many airforces has the F15 been up against that has equal numbers?
none? ;)
Actually, I think Israel has had the F-15 for long enough to have faced any one (or more) of a number of middle eastern nations while flying the F-15. Given that Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations, I'd say they don't hold much of a numbers advantage. I could be wrong, Israel may not have used the F-15 in a shooting war since they've had them. My memory ain't what it used to be, at least outside of what I do at work.
-
I like your philosophy, F4UDOA,
Yes the F4U-1 is a serious contender in the aforementioned categories you selected, but in terms of the amount of fight coming to the game, you'd have to agree that the F4U-4 is a significant "step up" from the 1/ 1A variant. I wouldnt bring the D into the discussion, however.
I have a very good success rate in the F4U-1 against P51's and 190d9's. Maybe its me, or the other pilot, but that's a matchup I always look for. Maybe I'm just lucky :)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Actually, I think Israel has had the F-15 for long enough to have faced any one (or more) of a number of middle eastern nations while flying the F-15. Given that Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab nations, I'd say they don't hold much of a numbers advantage. I could be wrong, Israel may not have used the F-15 in a shooting war since they've had them. My memory ain't what it used to be, at least outside of what I do at work.
they are only hostile because the Israels and Americans shouldnt BE there.........
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
I like your philosophy, F4UDOA,
Yes the F4U-1 is a serious contender in the aforementioned categories you selected, but in terms of the amount of fight coming to the game, you'd have to agree that the F4U-4 is a significant "step up" from the 1/ 1A variant. I wouldnt bring the D into the discussion, however.
I have a very good success rate in the F4U-1 against P51's and 190d9's. Maybe its me, or the other pilot, but that's a matchup I always look for. Maybe I'm just lucky :)
Yeah, I would say probably FG-1D for me the best and I dunno why but they are alike with F4U-1D.
BTW, Red Tail, F4U-1(Early Model with birdcage before 1A) did have chance to fight against USAAF P-51 in sometime 1943 and the Corsair outfought the Army craft about 12,000 feet, and was considered evenly matched below that altitude. Army pilots flying the Corsair for very first time were high in their praise. Dogfights were held with P-47, P-51, P-38, and P-39 Army fighters and all resulted favorbly for the Corsair. :D
-
Originally posted by Overlag
very true that...i mean how many airforces has the F15 been up against that has equal numbers?
none? ;)
?they are only hostile because the Israels and Americans shouldnt BE there.........
I dont know. How many aircraft do you have if you add up the airforces of Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Your point is inaccurate, sensless and biased.
the hat trick for stupid posts.
should I tack an emot on that of do you get the picture
-
Erich Hartmann DID NOT fight the whole war. Not even close. He came to the front in october 1942 and as of mid 1943 he only a couple of kills.
So the vast vast vast majority of 352 kills came in the last two yaers of the war when the soviets regained their strenght with better pilots, planes, tactics and of courve vast numbers.
Or how abour willi batz who got an even later start in 1943...
Willi” Batz flew 445 combat missions in scoring his 237 victories. 233 victories were achieved over the Eastern front but he did claim four victories, including two four-engined bombers over the Western front. He was wounded three times and was shot down four times.
Bf109G may not have had best performance but it was the grestest fighter of all time!! :)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
?
I dont know. How many aircraft do you have if you add up the airforces of Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Your point is inaccurate, sensless and biased.
the hat trick for stupid posts.
should I tack an emot on that of do you get the picture
im sorry? :confused: has the F15 been at war with Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia???? No :rolleyes: Iraq has (had) an airforce? HAHA not ONE botherd to take off in Iraq War 2 why? because they had none.
how many WARS has the F15 been in where the other side has had a airforce?
NONE. thanks. :rolleyes:
Anyway, i was AGREEING with your point, now your bashing me? :confused: so your basicaly bashing yourself? :lol
-
Originally posted by Overlag
im sorry? :confused: has the F15 been at war with Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia???? No :rolleyes: Iraq has (had) an airforce? HAHA not ONE botherd to take off in Iraq War 2 why? because they had none.
how many WARS has the F15 been in where the other side has had a airforce?
NONE. thanks. :rolleyes:
Anyway, i was AGREEING with your point, now your bashing me? :confused: so your basicaly bashing yourself? :lol
Overlag, I strongly suggest you pick up a book some day. IAF F-15s have killed over 40 Syrian fighters, including MiG-25s.
You are correct in that Iraq HAD an Air Force, and those that challenged the coalition air power were destroyed, mostly by F-15s. Many of the destroyed Iraqi fighters were MiG-29s.
So, instead of rolling your eyes, how about rolling your backside over to a library and see if you can pre-empt your next embarrassing BBS moment.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Overlag, I strongly suggest you pick up a book some day. IAF F-15s have killed over 40 Syrian fighters, including MiG-25s.
You are correct in that Iraq HAD an Air Force, and those that challenged the coalition air power were destroyed, mostly by F-15s. Many of the destroyed Iraqi fighters were MiG-29s.
So, instead of rolling your eyes, how about rolling your backside over to a library and see if you can pre-empt your next embarrassing BBS moment.....
My regards,
Widewing
1 to 1 stats though?
i dont see whats happend here, i agreed with pongo about something, then he started bashing me, then i dug my hole deeper.........errrrr :lol
-
Overlag,
Your words are very curious considering you are deciding who should live where. Maybe you should read your history books a little better to find out who lived where first.
Also your country of origin as well as Europe in general has been willing to overlook any abuse of any kind in the middle east for a long time as long as you petrol prices don't go up.
That is the same type of rhetoric that got a lot of people killed 60 years ago. Remember Nevil Chamberlin?? That Hitler is a nice chap ehh?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Erich Hartmann DID NOT fight the whole war. Not even close. He came to the front in october 1942 and as of mid 1943 he only a couple of kills.
So the vast vast vast majority of 352 kills came in the last two yaers of the war when the soviets regained their strenght with better pilots, planes, tactics and of courve vast numbers.
Or how abour willi batz who got an even later start in 1943...
Willi” Batz flew 445 combat missions in scoring his 237 victories. 233 victories were achieved over the Eastern front but he did claim four victories, including two four-engined bombers over the Western front. He was wounded three times and was shot down four times.
Bf109G may not have had best performance but it was the grestest fighter of all time!! :)
Helmut Lipfert claimed his 1st kill on 30.1.1943, an la5. His 100th victory was achieved on 11 April 1944. From then until wars end he claimed another 103.
His 198, 199, 200, 201 kills were all la7s.
There's plenty of experten that got a late start and flew obsolete aircraft like the Gustav.
Dont forget the 190, Otto Kittel was an il2 killing machine flying his A8 in Kurland.
Still the 109G was the plane of the experten. Best looking as well.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Overlag,
Your words are very curious considering you are deciding who should live where. Maybe you should read your history books a little better to find out who lived where first.
Also your country of origin as well as Europe in general has been willing to overlook any abuse of any kind in the middle east for a long time as long as you petrol prices don't go up.
That is the same type of rhetoric that got a lot of people killed 60 years ago. Remember Nevil Chamberlin?? That Hitler is a nice chap ehh?
i am a firm supporter of the war on iraq even if WMD arnt found....arnt the UK supporters of the US? id understand if i was french............ ;)
-
Didn't read all the happy horse****, which has undoubtedly turned into some sort of pissing contest.... but damn the Spitfire is one beautiful plane. Only plane I can think of off the top of my head that is more beautiful is the 190A. And only the early 190A's at that... the late 190A's got kinda lumpy looking.
-
Didn't read all the happy horse****, which has undoubtedly turned into some sort of pissing contest.... but damn the Spitfire is one beautiful plane. Only plane I can think of off the top of my head that is more beautiful is the 190A. And only the early 190A's at that... the late 190A's got kinda lumpy looking.
-
the plane is only as good as the pliot
-
Originally posted by simshell
the plane is only as good as the pliot
amen
-
"Also your country of origin as well as Europe in general has been willing to overlook any abuse of any kind in the middle east for a long time as long as you petrol prices don't go up.
That is the same type of rhetoric that got a lot of people killed 60 years ago. Remember Nevil Chamberlin?? That Hitler is a nice chap ehh?"
Another new world record for double think has been set.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
im sorry? :confused: has the F15 been at war with Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia???? No :rolleyes: Iraq has (had) an airforce? HAHA not ONE botherd to take off in Iraq War 2 why? because they had none.
how many WARS has the F15 been in where the other side has had a airforce?
NONE. thanks. :rolleyes:
Anyway, i was AGREEING with your point, now your bashing me? :confused: so your basicaly bashing yourself? :lol
My point is thats the fighter that gets the best fighter in history award. The one that the aggressive enemies of a country wont even challenge.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
My point is thats the fighter that gets the best fighter in history award. The one that the aggressive enemies of a country wont even challenge.
why are they aggressive? imo its only America and Israels that are aggressive........
-
If the Brits did not screw-up so badly in the early 20th century in the Mid-east the problem would not be so bad now.:)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
If the Brits did not screw-up so badly in the early 20th century in the Mid-east the problem would not be so bad now.:)
empires collapse man.... i mean look, america was once spanish, french and english........(or are your history books different? lol)
what did the UK have to do with the ottoman empire collapsing? (i dont know hence im asking)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
empires collapse man.... i mean look, america was once spanish, french and english........(or are your history books different? lol)
what did the UK have to do with the ottoman empire collapsing? (i dont know hence im asking)
I don't think lord Balfour was ottoman
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don't think lord Balfour was ottoman
the ottoman empire broke up along while before his name is even mentioned in its history......the way i read the "bad thing we did" was moving in troops during WWI to stop the arabs joining in on germany's side.
The outbreak of World War I found Turkey lined up with the Central Powers. Although Turkish troops succeeded against the Allies in the Gallipoli campaign (1915), Arabia rose against Turkish rule, and British forces occupied (1917) Baghdad and Jerusalem. In 1918, Turkish resistance collapsed in Asia and Europe. An armistice was concluded in October, and the Ottoman Empire came to an end
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0860176.html
so, what did we do wrong? :confused:
-
The Ottoman Empire was very oppressive toward the Arab peoples of the Middle East. Following the Young Turk coup of 1908, the Ottomans abandoned their pluralistic and pan-Islamic policies, instead pursuing a policy of secular Turkish nationalism. The formerly tolerant Ottoman Empire began overtly discriminating against its non-Turkish inhabitants. Arabs in particular were faced with political, cultural and linguistic persecution.
When the Ottomans entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers in 1914, they upheld the ban on the official use of the Arabic language and it’s teaching in schools, while arresting many Arab nationalist figures in Damascus and Beirut. Arabs were further threatened by the construction of the Hijaz Railway, connecting Damascus and Mecca, which promised to facilitate the mobility of Turkish troops into the Arab heartland.
Arab Nationalists formed an alliance with Britain and France based on promises of an Arab homeland. The first of these promises came during 1915 in an exchange of ten letters between Sir Henry McMahon, Britain’s high commissioner in Egypt, and Sharif Hussein bin Ali, King of the Arabs and King of the Hijaz. Essentially, Britain pledged, in what became known as the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, to support Arab independence if Hussein’s forces revolted against the Turks.
In June 1916, as head of the Arab nationalists and in alliance with Britain and France, Sharif Hussein initiated the Great Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule. His sons, the emirs Abdullah and Faisal, led the Arab forces, with Emir Faisal’s forces liberating Damascus from Ottoman rule in 1918. At the end of the war, Arab forces controlled all of modern Jordan, most of the Arabian Peninsula and much of southern Syria.
Sharif Hussein’s intention was to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Syria) to Aden (Yemen), based on the ancient traditions and culture of the Arab people, the upholding of Islamic ideals and the full protection and inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities.
When Balfour Declaration was leaked to the public it was an indication to Arabs that Britain and France were making false promises.
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
After the War the Arab lands were divvied up and Wilson’s 14 points were pushed aside by Britain and France.
XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.
In summary Britain and France betrayed the Arabs. If you need a history of what happened next let me know I will fill it in for you. A clear examination of history shows that Britain did a lot "wrong" in hindsight.
-
Overlag,
You chance seems to change with every post.
Explain how the Americans and Israeli's are aggresive?
BTW, for the record the Arabs fought with Hitler and the Vichey French. Any land loss suffered as a result of that decision can rest squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of those Arab countries.
As far as Jeruselam and Israel it was built by Jews before the creation of the Islamic religion. How does this belong to Arabs again? How did they get there in the first place?
That's why they call it Jew-ruselam. Where do you think the word comes from?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
That's why they call it Jew-ruselam. Where do you think the word comes from?
LOLOL...
Jerusalem comes from the old Hebrew "Jerushalayim", which in Hebrew translates into "vision of peace".
My regards,
Widewing
-
FYI,
The British have nothing to do with where the state of Israel is today or who is a Jew or the Jews.
"In the 6th century B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), leaving only the tribes in the kingdom of Judah remaining to carry on Abraham's heritage. These people of the kingdom of Judah were generally known to themselves and to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), and that name continues to be used today.
In common speech, the word "Jew" is used to refer to all of the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives, and the word "Judaism" is used to refer to their beliefs."
-
Originally posted by Widewing
LOLOL...
Jerusalem comes from the old Hebrew "Jerushalayim", which in Hebrew translates into "vision of peace".
My regards,
Widewing
not anymore though :(
F4UDOA, do you not see the constant air attacks on schools, hospitals and other Palestinian camps? First, they push them out of there homes (it had been for 100s of years), then they lock them up with fences, then they bomb them. And Israel & america wonders why they are pissed off? :confused:
anyway, i think its about time we get back to topic of bashing the 109 or spit....err
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Overlag,
You chance seems to change with every post.
Explain how the Americans and Israeli's are aggresive?
BTW, for the record the Arabs fought with Hitler and the Vichey French. Any land loss suffered as a result of that decision can rest squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of those Arab countries.
As far as Jeruselam and Israel it was built by Jews before the creation of the Islamic religion. How does this belong to Arabs again? How did they get there in the first place?
That's why they call it Jew-ruselam. Where do you think the word comes from?
Why do you some idea that "arabs" only magically appeared in the world after the formation of islam... Jews (the actual israeli jews who come from mid east - not so much europeran jews) and arabs are the same people genetically, semites.
Lets be more realistic..
-
Originally posted by Overlag
why are they aggressive? imo its only America and Israels that are aggressive........
What on earth are they teaching young kids in euro schools these days...
While there was a great eeal of mutual conflict in the 1930s and 1940s where even the jews weere terrorists blowing watermelon up to drive the brits out and terrorize palestenians the post ww2 history after the 1947 UN partition is full of outright arab agressionagainst israel.. Tell me what happened in 1948 when isreal was declared as a state? Isreal invaded egypt, transjoran, syria, iraq, lebanon etc right? Those nations only responded in self defense to evil isreali agression.... right? :rolleyes:
The suez thing was a colionia british and french adventure.
Then of course the 1967 war when all the arabs planned to attack israel but they nicely broke up their plan.
Then the yom kippur war....
And so on and so..
And what of the latest violence of last three years? Did isreal start unilaterally bombing and killing civilans after the impasse in the pece negotiations...
Really where do you get some idea that the arabs are some poor victims?
BTW overlag the arab states had big big well stocked air forces and missle defenses straight from moscow with the latest soviet fighters... Heck some russsian pilots even flew the fighters, yet they were all trouncded by the IAF...
You really should read up more on it...
-
Overlag,
I would be offended by your comments but your so uninformed it really is funny.
First every Israeli school from Nursery to High school has armed gaurds. So do malls, resturaunts and virtually every other place where people socialize. And these are exactly the areas that are targeted by the Arab "freedom fighters".
By contrast Arafat and Co. surround themselves with childred and civilians for protection from air attacks as human shields. Not their own children of course. Their families, leaders of Hamas, Fatah, Jihad and others have their families living in Europe. Arafat is a Billionare while his people have nothing(His wife lives in France). He is proped up by governments across Europe that support the Arabs for fear that their oil prices will go up.
Shame on you.
BTW, As a side note nobody has killed more Palestinians than other Arabs. Hussien is Jordan drove them out after Arafat tried to kill him in 72 and the Lebonese Arabs killed them when they started trouble their. Where are the Arab Billionare oil tycoons saving their people??
-
ok ok, all arabs are oppressive, aggressive thugs that need to be bombed back to the stone age! happy now?
:p
-
In the 1920s the French and Brits bombed Arab villages, after ww2 radical Jews used the same terror tactics against Palestinians and the British that the Arabs use now. It’s a far more complicated then righteous Jews wanting to return home and evil Arabs trying to kill them.
The Arabs have almost 100 years of conditioning to get where they are today. British and French occupation and betrayal coupled with rabid racist Zionism has had its toll.
-
Originally posted by simshell
the plane is only as good as the pliot
So you're tellinv me that if the greatest pilot to grace the skies was armed with the enormously old, slow and lightly armed first world war fighter; the Sopwith camel and I was armed with a Eurofighter Tyhoon, and assuming we both know how to fly our planes etc... he (or she) would blow me out of the sky with his or her pathetic twin vickers machine guns?
I DON'T THINK SO!
What I'm saying is the pilot does not make the plane but the plane doesn't make the pilot either.
Besides the Harrier AV 80 or GR7 (depending on where you're from) is the greatest fighter of time
-
Yes J318. The über pilot in the Camel would never face you in the air, but rather hide his plane in a barn and wait. When you grow tired of searching for him and go home, he would vulch you on the ground. ;)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_245_1074918104.jpg)
-
But whats to stop me blowing that barn back to kingdom come?
Besides I hear the eurofighter is powered by computers so i just stick it in autopilot and play AH until he gets bored of smelling cows and chickens
-
Originally posted by J318
But whats to stop me blowing that barn back to kingdom come?
Besides I hear the eurofighter is powered by computers so i just stick it in autopilot and play AH until he gets bored of smelling cows and chickens
your example is a bit unfair dont you think :)
but then, how can a eurofighter shoot down a sopwith, i dont think it will be able to stay on its 6 long enough! I doubt the missles could track such a slow plane! lol :lol
-
Originally posted by J318
But whats to stop me blowing that barn back to kingdom come?
Besides I hear the eurofighter is powered by computers so i just stick it in autopilot and play AH until he gets bored of smelling cows and chickens
You would have to know which barn to blow up, the Eurofighter can't carry enough ord to take out every barn you know. And even if you did hit the right barn by cheer luck, you wouldn't get the pilot. He'd just make a new plane out of some plywood and a lawnmower engine, and come strafe you anyways. ;)
Edit: And btw. while you're playing AH on auto pilot, he's out feeling up French girls. Who's got the best deal? :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes J318. The über pilot in the Camel would never face you in the air, but rather hide his plane in a barn and wait. When you grow tired of searching for him and go home, he would vulch you on the ground. ;)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_245_1074918104.jpg)
LOL GS nice painting, what war does it reffer to?
-
The Nigerian civil war. Here's an old post of mine on the subject: :)
Originally posted by GScholz
During the Nigerian civil war in '69 Carl Gustav von Rosen and his merry bunch of mercenary pilots played havoc with the Nigerian air force, allowing relief flights to be made to the Biafran rebels and civilian population. Carrying two rocket pods or a pair of sidewinders von Rosen himself shot down several Nigerian jets simply by listening to the Sidewinder's aiming tone through his headset.
(http://www.brushfirewars.org/aircraft/mfi_9b_biafran/carl_gustav_von_rosen.jpg)
(http://www.brushfirewars.org/aircraft/mfi_9b_biafran/mfi_9b_before-after_gabun.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_245_1074918104.jpg)
-
Batz,
You said
radical Jews used the same terror tactics against Palestinians and the British that the Arabs use now.
Please show me some evidence of a Jewish Suicide bomber?
BTW, Jews have always been in Israel and Jeruselam and have ALWAYS been the target of Arab terror war before 1948. Just look up the slaughter of civilians in the 1920's at Hebron I believe. I have family that has been in Jerusalem for generations before 1948. Did the British do that to?
Are the Turks racists also?
Are the Lebonese Christians racist?
Are the Sudanese racist because they did not want the Islamist slaughtering them?
Are the Phillipines Racist when the Islamic terror groups strike there?
Or maybe it's Russians doing it in Chechnya?
I know, it's the Jews masterminding the whole thing.
Overlag,
You said.
ok ok, all arabs are oppressive, aggressive thugs that need to be bombed back to the stone age! happy now?
How can you bomb people back to the stoneage that are in the stone age?
Here are a couple of pictures from the AP news this week.
here are some Palestinian school children training to blow themselves up in public (Gee maybe this is why they hate us? Because they are taught to!!)
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1078027572006&p=1006688055060)
And here is a nice family from Hebron in Israel that was driving on the highway. A real nice military target. They were killed two days ago.
(http://info.jpost.com/C003/Supplements/potw/current/i/0229.04.jpg)
-
F4UDOA, the problem is, who started it, Israel are bombing Palestinians, and Palestinians are blowing up Israel's seems fair to me.
If Israel bomb Palestinians, Palestinians are going to bomb Israel.....repeat cycle till theres none left :(
Edit: i dont like the suicide bombers, but i dont like Israel bombing either.........they are both wrong.
-
Overlag,
If that is you feel then great. But don't come out with American and Israel are aggressive.
No more aggressive than the world they live in.
-
I was just going to post about the King David Hotel but what the hell here's nice list of various acts of Zionist terrorism.
In 1931 Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) was founded in Jerusalem; led by Avraham Tehomi, it advocated armed Jewish insurrection against British rule and war against Palestinian Arabs.
August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.
November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants
November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.
July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.
October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.
June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.
September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)
December 11, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.
December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.
December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.
December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.
1947 -- 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel's borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.
January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded.
January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.
January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.
January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.
January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.
December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.
February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..
March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.
March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.
March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.
April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.
April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.
April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.
May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.
May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.
April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them.
The first act of air piracy in the history of civil aviation was carried out by Israel, in Dec. 1954, when a civilian Syrian airliner was forced down in Tel Aviv and its passengers and crew held for days, despite international condemnation.
In 1968, Israeli commandos blew up 13 civilian airliners at Beirut airport in Lebanon.
The first deliberate shooting down a civilian airliner was carried out by Israel, when a Libyan airliner was shot down by Israeli jet fighters over Sinai, in Feb. 1973, on the direct orders of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, killing all 107 of its passengers and the entire French crew.
If needed I can post pictures of Arab children killed by Israelis, do you need me to?
Great racist Zionist warriors...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Overlag,
If that is you feel then great. But don't come out with American and Israel are aggressive.
No more aggressive than the world they live in.
true....
-
Batz,
That's some impressive research? Did you go to J.Gerberls.com?
Really? 13 Lebonese airliners destroyed? Do you even know what that incedent was? Did you know that there was nobody on board? Do you know what the Hagana is?
You forgot the Jenin massacre, they claimed thousands dead but there were only 50. Once again those brave freedom fighters hiding behind woman and children using ambulances to moves guns as they have been sighted for for years. Of course the mighty nations of Europe give lip service and money to the Billonare Arafat so he can starve his own people. It is all illegal as defined by UN law but the UN has never held a single sanction against the Palestinians for any of it.
Besides you must be a little confused. I thought the British put all the Jews there in 1948. What are those 1931 and 1936 dates there for? Could it be that they were there before 1948? Of maybe they were refugees from concentration camps displaced by your hero? Funny I don't see you screaming about uprooting Germans or Poles from their home to put Jews back?
750,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians evicted from there homes? Really? There weren't that many people living there at the time. The entire state of Israel as it is today is only as big as the state of New Jersey with approx 9,000,000 people their today including ARAB Muslim citizens that vote and live in a democracy? Where they hold political office and serve in the military.
What do you think the entire population of Jerusalem was at the time? Mark Twain desribed the area as being abandoned and desolate during his visit in the late 1800's. Was he a "Zionest "too?
By the 19th Century, A Desolate LandThe Turkish Ottoman Empire ruled much of the Middle East and southeastern Europe from 1516 to 1917. The Ottomans divided it into twoadministrative zones. In the 1880s, when the Zionistmovement began, Palestine’s sparse population was less than 300,000. Today, over nine millioninhabitants live on that same land.As a result of the devastation wrought by succeedingconquerors, centuries of Ottoman neglect, clan feuds,malarial mosquitoes and other maladies, in 1867Mark Twain characterized Palestine as a “desolatecountry whose soil is rich enough, but is given overwholly to weeds – a silent mournful expanse...”Other travelers to Palestine throughout the 19thcentury reported similar conditions.
The entire list of dead doesn't account for the amount of Israeli dead from Arab attacks in the last few years from attacks against strictly civilian targets.
Also
1. Where are the Jewish suicide bombers? It must have slipped your mind.
2. Post pictures of dead Arab children? I already did. They are dressed as suicide bombers at 5 years old. They are the living dead that never had a chance to live or make a choice.
Your point of view is as obvious as the Austrian paper hanger you love so much.
What did your beloved third Reich do with Civilians and children? How about there own children? Put them in uniforms and send them to die? They have much incommon with the Palestinians. Maybe that is why you identify with them so much. Maybe you have a small child do your fighting to.
BTW, What is your country of origin? You don't like to show much of yourself do you?
Here is a little fact to go with your version of history. What was the Arab excuse in 1929?
For some time, the 800 Jews in Hebron lived in peace with their tens of thousands of Arab neighbors. But on the night of August 23, 1929, the tension simmering within this cauldron of nationalities bubbled over, and for 3 days, Hebron turned into a city of terror and murder. By the time the massacres ended, 67 Jews lay dead and the survivors were relocated to Jerusalem, leaving Hebron barren of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years.
(http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/pictures/hamas_with_child.jpg)
-
F4UDOA, let me guess ... you're Jewish right?
-
Dude,
Your good.
See if you can guess what Batz is?
-
Thought so. Really the only thing that could explain such a level of bias.
I have no idea "what" Batz is, but I'm reasonably sure he's an American. Don't think he's Jewish though.
-
Gsholz,
I am not going down this road with you too.
I am not on these message boards to defend myself and my people against those whom I would never meet.
Although I would realy like to meet some of them.
Here is a quote even you might appreciate.
I guess that old Golda Meir quote really plays out:
"There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate others."
Of course this is not true for all Arabs.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Thought so. Really the only thing that could explain such a level of bias.
well said :aok
-
Quote where I typed "suicide bomber", your Zionists warriors weren't that brave.
Quote where I typed that any life was lost when the brave Zionist blew up 13 Lebanese airliners.
Quote where I said British put all the Jews in Palestine in 1948.
Quote where I made any mention of the modern situation in Palestine.
Quote where I mentioned Jerusalem.
Your pointless ranting aside I think you need to spend time on your reading comprehension.
F4UDOA, let me guess ... you're Jewish right?
Ya think?
Your point of view is as obvious as the Austrian paper hanger you love so much.
Typical ad hominem for his type. He has trouble dealing with the facts so he resorts to playing "victim", name calling and the token crying out of "you Golly-geened Nazi bastards!!!"
He has always been quick on the "personal attack". I am waiting for him to type out "I have data damn it!!!"
I have made numerous replies in which I stated exactly where I am from. Go earn your junior ADL badge and do a little search.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Gsholz,
I am not going down this road with you too.
I am not on these message boards to defend myself and my people against those whom I would never meet.
Although I would realy like to meet some of them.
No, me neither. You'll have to walk alone on this one. I would think "your people" would be the American people? After all it is not American Jews that are being accused of atrocities. Anyways, I don't think the Israelis are the bad guys and the Palestinians are the good. There are good and bad people on both sides on that confict, and apart from the kids that get killed by nail-bombs on busses and in coffee shops, and by missiles and bombs in the streets of Gaza ... it is getting exceedingly difficult to tell the good guys from the bad these days.
I'd love you meet with people here too. There's nothing like a good debate over a drink or two.
-
Clowns! WTF does this have to do with airplanes?
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
Clowns! WTF does this have to do with airplanes?
well you see, someone said no one went to war with america because they had F15's, which i found really funny for a start......
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Nigerian civil war. Here's an old post of mine on the subject: :)
Sidewinders on cessna type planes, I like this Rosen guy. :)
Found some more stuff bout these guys, this is particulary appropriate to AH...
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/killerbees3.htm
"Martin Land had a bad moment when his Minicoin lost altitude and was forced to touch down along the runway before regaining flying speed. But while his plane was on the ground Lang fired rockets into two parked planes, one of them a MiG."
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Knegel dreamed: "you wrote that Kozhedub himself told that he had more than the counted kills "
I never made any such statement. Granted English is not your primary language, but if you wish to converse in English, at least have the minimal comprehension skills required.
Do you wish a list of Historians? Could you verify their conclusions if you had such a list? Or, are you just whining?
Soviet over-claiming was horrendous, and it wasn't confined to the lesser pilots. Virtually every Japanese ace has had their totals reduced, some by more than half. Why? Because the records of enemy losses don't support the claims.
Do your own research.. Prove me incorrect.
My regards,
Widewing
Hi,
ok, you wasnt the one who originaly posted the Kozhedub statement, but you did refer to it and had it as quote in your post(so at least you took it into your post) and since you disagree with him, he must be a liar in your eyes.
My english maybe isnt that good, but i can see what you wrote and with a translator i also can understand it. ;)
To call a soldier a 'Overclaimer' (liar), in my opinion need exact facts with a good source, they did fight for their country and deserve more respect i think.
Even if all russian pilots together has overclaimed 50%, its a poor manner to say that a special pilot, who say he had more kills than the official kills, isnt credible('.........there isn't a single aviation historian who believes he actually shot down much more than half that number').
If you say so, YOU should offer your sources, or you count as not credible and as a person without manner.
'Do your own research.. Prove me incorrect.' is a incredible poor tool to cover your opinion, if you have datas, offer them, if not, its realy only a shameless offered insultive opinion.
I realy wonder who shot down all the german planes(roundabout 30.000 109´s, 15.000 190´s
and many 110´s, Ju87s, 88s, He111´s etc). As far as i know most of them got shot down over the eastfront, and there are not that many russian Aces with high scoring.
I only know that the german Aces had the highest respect to the guardsquads, so why i should doubt that a russian Ace can get more than 60 kills, if i can believe that many german aces got more than 100 and also the finnish Aces had much more and specialy if US-pilots with much less fights and much less oponents got 30kills.
Of course, if i would see some facts(for now i couldnt find any), i also be able to change my opinion.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
ok, you wasnt the one who originaly posted the Kozhedub statement, but you did refer to it and had it as quote in your post(so at least you took it into your post) and since you disagree with him, he must be a liar in your eyes.
Knegel, you aren't even a good troll....
Over-claiming was common. It was especially rampant with the Soviet Union and Japan (both IJNAF and JAAF). That does not make the pilots liars. Whimsical requirements for confirming kills, plus the absolute need by local commands to inflate scores were the primary reasons for extraordinary claims. However, you can bet your thick skull that there were examples of unscrupulous pilots who did lie about claims, and they could be found in every air force.
Now, if you have nothing else to offer...Sod off.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I would like to know how VVS fliers could claim a kill if the wreckage could not be found, for this was a requirement for confirmation.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
I would like to know how VVS fliers could claim a kill if the wreckage could not be found, for this was a requirement for confirmation.
Simple - find some wreckage - any wreckage.
-
Soviet kill confirmation was very strict, palef.
A 'kill' had to be observed crashing and the wreckage found. Any 'kills' claimed in German held territory, since the wreckage could not be found, would not be counted. Also if more than 1 a/c fired on an a/c that went down, unlike the Americans, no 'kill' was awarded to any of the pilots - it became a unit 'kill'.
So, not just any wreckage, but a specific new wreck in the area of the combat.
-
Overlag why do you bash the F-15 when there parked in your country, on one of your bases?
And last time they told us it was 103 kills to no deaths for the F-15. But that was years ago. I'll have to ask the Boeing reps and see what the current numbers are. And it says alot when not when most base Generals want to fly the F-15 over any other airframe on there base. Maybe there biased who knows.
:D
-
Hi Widewing ,
maybe overclaiming in the war was common(so how few kills the best US-pilot had then??), but if a pilot state after the war he had much more kills and you disagree(dont tell me you dont disagree), you call him a liar!!
If you have facts that specialy Kozhedub had less kills, please offer them, if not, you be the troll.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Knegel, you aren't even a good troll....
Over-claiming was common. It was especially rampant with the Soviet Union and Japan (both IJNAF and JAAF). That does not make the pilots liars. Whimsical requirements for confirming kills, plus the absolute need by local commands to inflate scores were the primary reasons for extraordinary claims. However, you can bet your thick skull that there were examples of unscrupulous pilots who did lie about claims, and they could be found in every air force.
Now, if you have nothing else to offer...Sod off.
My regards,
Widewing
On a other end I would like you to back up your post.
Because if we start on the overclaiming research we can look more closely to some LW pilots and some surprise can be expected with pilots like Marseille for exemple or Lang.
Milo I don't know how the LW HQ attributed some victory at the end of the war when the VVS plane was shot down behind the soviet front line and they were doing nothing except retreating all day long...
-
Hi,
------------------------------
Milo I don't know how the LW HQ attributed some victory at the end of the war when the VVS plane was shot down behind the soviet front line and they were doing nothing except retreating all day long...
---------------------------------
Thats the reason why many kills never got confirmed, but for a german pilot it was enough if two other people(wingis or groundcrews) could confirm the kill, the wreck wasnt important, only the time and position of the impact.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Anyone who did a bit of reading before coming here (that excludes straffo right away) knows how strict the LW was about kill claims. Without eyewitnesses, they would not even start the confirmation procedure, not to mention accepting the kill, which in most cases required the wreck itself. And of course it wasnt just kill, or no kill, but there were half a dozen success categories, like well shot up, shot out of formation, confirmed destruction etc.
Anybody who read the JG 26 war diary can see for himself that are practically no confirmation of kills for the unit after the end of 1944 - kills were claimed, but not accepted , as there was no good enough proof, and the process was lenghty, taking sometimes a year.
Besides, kills of a pilot as stated in various literature are often different what the LW really accepted in RL. Knoke is often ragarded with some 50 kills in books - in newer editions he himself told that it is a misread by the atuhro, he had about 30 officially accepted kills.
-
You're blind or are unable to read Isegrim ?
I know certainly more than your the about the LW procedure.
I was not questionning the procedure but more the kill tally of Marseille and Lang (among others)
Have you been able to access the Afrika archiv or the JG54 ones ?
After mid 43 in the east almost all frontline kills of the LW are more than questionnable .
And if we speak about propaganda I've some old 'der adler' at home which are extremely funny to read some 60 year later :D
-
The only thing I am interested about you straffo is wheter you have born this way or your current mental state is a more lenghty proccess that took years of detoriation ?
I judge your knowladge by your posts and your site. Based on those, there is nothing to learn from you.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The only thing I am interested about you straffo is wheter you have born this way or your current mental state is a more lenghty proccess that took years of detoriation ?
I judge your knowladge by your posts and your site. Based on those, there is nothing to learn from you.
I see Barbi is making new friends.:eek:
Take note Scholzi.
-
Milo I've put him one ignore I should have done this early but I gave him benefit of the doubt.
So far the remaining credibility I gave him where already lost ,when he tried a "sub-pixel" demontration here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109977&perpage=50&pagenumber=1)
using his (http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/S14vsK4_nosecomp.jpg) superb drawing hability to proove nothing.
He have perhaps some knowledge of the 109 but unfortunately none outside this.
I've certainly not an extensive knowledge but a least when I produce a drawing I try to caption it correctly ...
especially when I'm the one making the drawing :rolleyes: .
-
Lot`s of talk, nothing to tell us.. Get out of here, Trolls. The more serious people are bothered by your child-like rantings.
Oh, and Milo... I am not "making a friend" here, just putting him back to his place. I do select my friends. I don`t need friends like him. I have friends, unlike you Milo. And I don`t need to launch flames to make someone bother to respond.
But you two make a perfect pair. The F.D.B. straffo, and the french-hater Milo. :lol But they love each other, as both are Trolls. :D
-
Fyi: I ran across this today in support of my position that the British used terror bombing (from aircraft) in the 1920s. So key names pop up and its no wonder during ww2 bomber command decided on the tactics of "de-housing" of German civilians.
WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq
How the British bombed Iraq in the 1920s
By Henry Michaels
1 April 2003
The US and British governments, and most Western media pundits, have tried to explain the determined resistance of the Iraqi people to the US-led assault by referring to the first Bush administration’s 1991 betrayal of the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. Once Iraqis are confident that the Allies are serious about occupying the country, the argument goes, they will rise up and welcome them as liberators.
These assertions ignore the deeply-felt hostility to decades of colonial and semi-colonial rule by the Western powers, who long plundered Iraq’s oil reserves. During World War I, Mesopotamia was occupied by British forces, and it became a British mandated territory in 1920. In 1921, a kingdom was established under Faisal I, son of King Hussein of Hejaz and leader of the Arab Army in World War I. Britain withdrew from Iraq in 1932, but British and American oil companies retained their grip over the country.
One of the most bitter chapters in this history, one with direct parallels to the current military campaign, occurred during the 1920s. In many respects, the air war now being employed in Iraq is an offshoot of a military policy developed by Britain as it clung to its Iraqi colony 80 years ago.
Confronting a financial crisis after World War I, in mid-February 1920 Minister of War and Air Winston Churchill asked Chief of the Air Staff Hugh Trenchard to draw up a plan whereby Mesopotamia could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops.
Several months later, a widespread uprising broke out, which was only put down through months of heavy aerial bombardment, including the use of mustard gas. At the height of the suppression, both Churchill and Trenchard tried to put the most flattering light upon actions of the Royal Air Force.
British historian David Omissi, author of Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force 1919-1939, records: “During the first week of July there was fierce fighting around Samawa and Rumaitha on the Euphrates but, Churchill told the Cabinet on 7 July, ‘our attack was successful.... The enemy were bombed and machine-gunned with effect by aeroplanes which cooperated with the troops’.”
The order issued by one RAF wing commander, J.A. Chamier, specified: “The attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle.”
Arthur “Bomber” Harris, a young RAF squadron commander, reported after a mission in 1924: “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: They know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”
The RAF sent a report to the British Parliament outlining the steps that its pilots had taken to avoid civilian casualties. The air war was less brutal than other forms of military control, it stated, concluding that “the main purpose is to bring about submission with the minimum of destruction and loss of life.”
Knowing the truth, at least one military officer resigned. Air Commander Lionel Charlton sent a letter of protest and resigned in 1923 over what he considered the “policy of intimidation by bomb” after visiting a local hospital full of injured civilians.
The methods pioneered in Iraq were applied throughout the Middle East. Omissi writes: “The policing role of most political moment carried out by the Royal Air Force during the 1920s was to maintain the power of the Arab kingdoms in Transjordan and Iraq; but aeroplanes also helped to dominate other populations under British sway.
“Schemes of air control similar to that practiced in Mesopotamia were set up in the Palestine Mandate in 1922 and in the Aden Protectorate six years later. Bombers were active at various times against rioters in Egypt, tribesmen on the Frontier, pastoralists in the Southern Sudan and nomads in the Somali hinterland.”
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Lot`s of talk, nothing to tell us.. Get out of here, Trolls. The more serious people are bothered by your child-like rantings.
Oh, and Milo... I am not "making a friend" here, just putting him back to his place. I do select my friends. I don`t need friends like him. I have friends, unlike you Milo. And I don`t need to launch flames to make someone bother to respond.
But you two make a perfect pair. The F.D.B. straffo, and the french-hater Milo. :lol But they love each other, as both are Trolls. :D
As usual your reading comprehension is nil:rofl Sarcasim Barbi, sarcasim.
This thread was doing well until you started with the derogatory comments, as usual.
Now what would you call your posts to straffo and me. I would call them trolling for flames.:rofl :aok
Are you saying there are more Nazi lovers like you around. So :(:(.
Still waiting for the name I used when I supposidly cussed you out after you supposidly shot me down so many times.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
I see Barbi is making new friends.:eek:
Take note Scholzi.
So I see.
I wish people would just stop doing that.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Fyi: I ran across this today in support of my position that the British used terror bombing (from aircraft) in the 1920s. So key names pop up and its no wonder during ww2 bomber command decided on the tactics of "de-housing" of German civilians.
You can find some more source using Druzes and Lebanon as keyword see : http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/delta/druse1925.htm
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Anyone who did a bit of reading before coming here (that excludes straffo right away) knows how strict the LW was about kill claims. Without eyewitnesses, they would not even start the confirmation procedure, not to mention accepting the kill, which in most cases required the wreck itself. And of course it wasnt just kill, or no kill, but there were half a dozen success categories, like well shot up, shot out of formation, confirmed destruction etc.
Anybody who read the JG 26 war diary can see for himself that are practically no confirmation of kills for the unit after the end of 1944 - kills were claimed, but not accepted , as there was no good enough proof, and the process was lenghty, taking sometimes a year.
Besides, kills of a pilot as stated in various literature are often different what the LW really accepted in RL. Knoke is often ragarded with some 50 kills in books - in newer editions he himself told that it is a misread by the atuhro, he had about 30 officially accepted kills.
Hmmm. I've done a fair amount of reading before coming here, including the Caldwell's book. Wish I had it here at the moment, because I believe he makes the point that there were no confirmation of kills for the unit after 1944 because the documents were destroyed. In fact, stretching my mind waaay back, seems to me that he said what we really have are squadron "claims" for most of the latter part of the war, not confirmed kills at all.
Would love to know the source for the first paragraph of your note...the one about eyewitnesses and so on. Because it appears to be completely at odds with known examples of false claims, such as when JG26 strafed old glider wrecks and claimed them as kills.
Knocke was proven to be a liar, I believe, particularly regarding a number of stories he told of the end of the war.
You may choose to believe that 100 German pilots shot down 15,000 planes, but frankly I think that is so completely at odds with the experience of all the other countries involved in the war that it is beyond belief.
- oldman
-
Would love to know the source for the first paragraph of your note...the one about eyewitnesses and so on.
You said you have done a "fair amount" of reading on that... how come you are not familiar with the very basics.. What exactly have you read ?
Because it appears to be completely at odds with known examples of false claims, such as when JG26 strafed old glider wrecks and claimed them as kills.
Do you know the difference between a kill claim and a confirmed kill ?
Knocke was proven to be a liar, I believe, particularly regarding a number of stories he told of the end of the war.
"Proven"? When, where, by whom, in what?
You may choose to believe that 100 German pilots shot down 15,000 planes, but frankly I think that is so completely at odds with the experience of all the other countries involved in the war that it is beyond belief.
The experience of the other counties ? Strictly from memo, Soviet losses were some 80 000 planes, Western Allied some 40 or 50 000. 130 000 in total.
The Germans lost some 7000 fighter pilots killed, plus a few thousend went missing.
Wasn`t the experience of other countries loosing many times the planes in total compared to the Germans, the Russians in particular ?
So yes, I choose the version about the 100 top German pilots knocking down 15 000 planes. It`s fully supported by the records of both sides. Besides, it was the aces that knocked down the planes, some 6% of the total pilot strenght was responsible for 50-60% of the kills. The rest were just assisting, perhaps never scoring a kill.
-
A typical LW kill claim procedure, from Ruy Horta`s site :
Luftwaffe Claims Confirmation Proceedure
As noted on the Luftwaffe Scoring and Awards System page, "victory claims" and "points" were two seperate issues. Whenever an Abschuss (Destruction) of an enemy aircraft was claimed a strict proceedure was followed before the claim was allowed.
Following the policy of "one pilot-one kill", the investigating authorities would determine if the claiming pilot was solely responsible for the destruction of the enemy plane. Every Abschuss had to be observed by a witness: either a ground observer or the encounter, the pilot's wingman, or a Staffelmate. Witnesses were necessary unless the victor's aircraft had been fitted with a gun-camera and the destruction of the plane or the vanquished pilot's bailout had been recorded on film, if the wreckage of the downed pilot or other crew crew member had been captured by German forces. In effect: No witness or tangible evidence - no victory.
Every Abschuss had to be confirmed by the Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe or Commander in Chief of the Air Force. Jagdwaffe pilots were at all times required to note their geographical position as well as the type and number of the aircraft in enemy formations engaged. Naturally, the victor was required to log the exact time of a kill, while he maneuvered for a tactical advantage over the remaining enemy aircraft! In addition, he had to observe other actions in the air in order to be able to witness victories by his Staffelmates. Upon landing, the claimant prepared his Abschuss report for review by the immediate supervisory officer, who either endorsed or rejected the claim. If endorsed, the pilot's report to the Geschwaderstab, or Wing Staff, which, in turn, filed its report and sent both to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM), or Air Ministry. After checking all the papers that were submitted, the official confirmation was prepared and sent to the unit. This very long bureaucratic proceedure sometimes took as long as a year! During 1944, another authority was created: the Abschusskommission, which received all reports on crashed aircraft remains found by search units. This commission checked conflicting claims between antiaircraft batteries and fighter pilots, and awarded credit for the victory to one claimant or the other. This system ensured that no more credits would be awarded than wrecks found.
The German system of confirming aerial victories was very effective in keeping human errors and weknesses within limits. Despite this, the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, or Luftwaffe High Command, considered the large victory totals during the early days of the Russian campaign as incredulous. On many occasions, they accused the Jagdgeschwader Kommodores of exaggerating the victory scores. In effect Goering was calling the frontline pilots liars. This was one of the grievances that brought about the Mutiny of the Fighters, or the Kommodores' Revolt Conference, in Berlin during January, 1945.
When a German fighter pilot scored a victory, he would call "Horrido" on the radio. This distinctive announcement of victory alerted his fellow pilots to watch for a crash or a flamer, as well as notify ground stations, which helped to confirm many victories.
Typical Luftwaffe Combat Report
Copy
Gottlob, Oblt.
Base of Operation, on 23.6.1941
1./JG No. 26
Combat Report
Start:
20.11 hours (8:11 PM)
Mission:
Alarmstart (Scramble)
Landed:
21.04 hours (9:04 PM)
I flew as the protection Rotte of our Staffel, as our Saffelkapitaen engaged a Spitfire. Then I saw that three other Spitfires tried to get behind the Staffel. I engaged them with my Rotte. The Spitfires went into a tight turn. I turned also and climbed above them. I saw one Spitfire flying in a northwesterly direction. The Spitfire was over land at 19, 680 feet altitude. I flew behind him at a range of about 70 feet and the pilot did not take evasive action.
I fired all guns from the rear and below. I saw a lot of smoke and parts falling from his fuselage and wings. The plane climbed and slowed and rolled over the left wing. It rolled 2 or 3 times. Then the Spitfire dived down. I dived after it and fired again. I pulled out of my dive and gained altititude. I turned into a bank and saw the Spitfire hit the water.
The pilot did not emerge from his plane.
Gottlob
Typical Luftwaffe Air Witness Report
(English Version)
auf Deutsch (in German)
Copy
Priller, Oblt.
Base of Operations, on 23.6.1941
1./JG No. 26
Air witness report of victory by Oblt. Gottlob on 23.6.1941 (8:50 PM)
Oblt. Gottlob, flying in the 2 Rotte in my Scwarm warned me that I was being attacked from the rear. I went into a left turn while climbing and saw that my protection Rotte engaged more Spitfires at a higher altitude. I saw Oblt. Gottlob, who was alone, attacking a Spitfire from the rear and shooting at it. The plane belched black smoke and dived, and we followed behind it and watched it crash into the sea 26 miles northwest of Calais.
-
Germany wasn't just any other country involved in the war Oldman. If you have a problem with the fact that 100 out of tens of thousands German pilots could amass 150 kills each during five years of war, then the problem is yours. How long did these 100 men fight? How many sorties did they fly? How often did they encounter the enemy? Compare that to "the experience of all the other countries involved in the war".
-
Typical Luftwaffe Victory Claim Report
Copy
1./JG No.26
Base of Operations on 23.6.1941
Victory Report
1. Time (day, hour, minute) and area of victory: 23.6.1941 8:50PM Hour, 5 Km northeast of Calais
2. Name of victor: Oblt. Gottlob
3. Type of plane shot down: Spitfire
4. Nationality of victim: England
Serial No. or other markings: Cockard
5. How was it destroyed:
a) Flame with dark smoke, flame with light smoke (cloud of smoke)
b) Single part shot (which parts) Body and wings
c) Was it forced to land (which side of the Front, good or crash landing)
d) If he crossed the lines did you still attack
6. How did victim crash (must be seen by victor)
a) This side or other side of front
b) Did it crash or crash-land or explode: (in water)
c) If did not see crash, why not?
7. What happened to crew (dead, bail out or not see.)
8. Combat Report is attached.
9. Witnesses:
a) air:
b) ground:
10. How often attacked enemy plane: 1 attack
11. From which direction were the attacks: from rear
12. Range when shooting: 70 ft.
13. From which position was attack started: from rear below
14. Were the pilots wounded: -/-
15. Type of Ammunition: P.m.k.v.,Sm.K.L. Spur v. Br. Spr. Gr. M. Muni Va.m.Muni 06.
16. Ammunition used: 300 shots M.G. and 110 shots cannon
17. Type and number of weapons used: 2 MG and 2 cannon
18. Type of airplane used: Me 109E7
19. Added technical remarks: -/-
20. Was your plane hit: no.
21. Were you assisted (including Flak)
Signed
Luftwaffe Scoring System and Awards System
The major difference between the German and Western Allies' method of scoring victories was that the Germans were not allowed to share a victory. Their cardinal rule was: "One pilot-one kill." In contrast Allied pilots were allowed to share victories. If two pilots fired at an enemy and it went down, each Allied pilot received one-half of the kill. Carried to absurdity, it is conceivable that an Allied pilot could become an ace with ten or more half-victories, never scoring any victories of his own! The Luftwaffe system of awarding victories was impartial, inflexible, and far less prone to error than the American or British method. That is not to say that errors were not made, history shows that both sides during the "Battle of Britain" tended to overclaim victories on a scale of 2:1.
The German's recorded victories in one of three categories: Abschuss (Destroyed), Herausschuss (Seperation), and endgueltige Vernichtung (Final Destruction.) These three categories were used for assessing "points" towards awards. Only an enemy aircraft in an Abschuss was counted towards the pilot's overall victory tally. A pilot that brought down and enemy plane with a Endgueltige Vernichtung or Final Destruction of a damaged aircraft was not awarded credit for the "kill", however he did earn "points" for the aircraft's destruction.
Luftwaffe Points Scoring System Aircraft-type:
Abschuss
(Destroyed)
Herausschuss
(Seperation)
Endgueltige Vernichtung
(Final Destruction)
Single-engined fighter
1
0
0
Twin-engined bomber
2
1
1/2
Four-engined bomber
3
2
1
The system recognized the fact that achieving a Herausschuss, that is, damaging a bomber enough to force it from its combat box, or "pulk" (as the Germans called it), was a more difficult task than the final destruction of a damaged straggler. The emphasis of the German fighter arm, the Jagdwaffe, was that of intercepting the Allied bombers. Dogfighting with Allied fighters was to be avoided if possible in favor of attacking the bomber stream when one was present. Decorations were awarded after the following point totals had been reached:
German Awards System
Iron Cross Second Class
1
Iron Cross First Class
3
Honor Cup
10
German Cross
20
Knight's Cross
40
The point system existed for the purpose of award qualification only. "Victory claims" and "points" were two distinct statistics. The requirements for the verification of victory claims remained unchanged; only the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) could confirm a claim, and this proceedure could take more than a year. The practice of claiming "Herausschuss" (seperations) died out in 1944 and many "seperation" claims were eventually awarded as "victories"; occassionally claims by other pilots were allowed for the "final destruction" of the same aircraft. This system led to a claims duplication by a factor of as much as two.
I hope this little cut/paste job will shine upon some minds that like to spell all those big words and sweeping statements on stg which they know next to nothing IMHO.
-
The experience of the other counties ? Strictly from memo, Soviet losses were some 80 000 planes, Western Allied some 40 or 50 000. 130 000 in total.
The Germans lost some 7000 fighter pilots killed, plus a few thousend went missing.
Mixing apples and oranges Barbi. Typical of your posts.
On one hand, Allied, he says a/c and one the other, German, he says pilot,:rolleyes: and just jagd pilots at that! :eek: :rolleyes: He also insults the pilots of other nations by not including them in the destuction of the EA total.
He also implies that all those 130000 a/c were shot down by LW pilots, forgetting that Flak was part of the LW.:eek: Goering even question why he had pilots because he had the Flak to shoot down enemy a/c.
He also kindly leaves out that not all LW shotdowns, at least in the West, where most of the combat took place, did not result in a pilot's death.
LW casualties to the end of 1944 were ~97000 KIA/WIA/MIA.
Of that 130000 he claims for the LW, not quite 60% of that number are those of the Jagdwaffe.
-
Try it again. Try to be constructive.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Try it again. Try to be constructive.
Your post only shows how correct I was with your bias in the post.:)
It was constructive Barbi because it pointed out the deceptive and slanted bs you tried to pass off, to show how uber the jagdwaffe was. We all know how devious you can be but don't be SO obvious next time.
btw, what was my online nick. You keep refusing to say. Proof that all your demented ranting was more of your typical BS lies.
-
Yes MiloMorai, Hartman was shot down eight times I believe, and Galland was shot down twice in one day. That means that Hartman alone gave allied pilots eight kills, and Galland gave some lucky RAF pilots two kills in one day.
Now, in your latest moronic post you completely fail to see that Isegrim was comparing LW pilots to Allied AIRCRAFT losses ... which of course is what is being discussed now. LW aircraft losses are completely irrelevant to this discussion!
The top LW pilots are some of the luckiest, and skilled, individuals in the history of war. NONE of the Allied pilots had the opportunity to amass the same number of kills as their German counterparts did.
-
If that`s your constructive manner, I have no idea what is your post like when you`re sole intention is to destruct threads.
BTW... your online name was "Chicken". Great choice for a nick of yours, I must add. :D And yeah I shot you down 6 times in a row, lame duck looser. :aok
-
What your moronic post shows Scholzi is that you cannot read. Barbi showed the Allied total, to all enemy action, losses and claims them as ALL as jagdwaffe .:eek: :eek:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
... and claims them as ALL as jagdwaffe .:eek: :eek:
No he did not.
-
Like GScholz in my reading of what Isegrim was saying was that he was comparing lw pilot losses to total allied losses to show that lw claims aren't as "impossible" as some may think.
I did not read where he claimed all allied losses were attributed to the jagdwaffe. He even mentioned 15000 of the total 130000 (his numbers).
So yes, I choose the version about the 100 top German pilots knocking down 15 000 planes. It`s fully supported by the records of both sides.
edited to include not
-
So what's the point? German pilots were forced to fly almost continuously from beginning to end. Allied pilots did not have to suffer the same fate. Does this make German pilots better?
Nope. Put any well trained pilots in the same situation and the numbers would look the same
Are you stat fanatics going to start breaking it down to comparable kills vs sorties?
If you took one of the LW top guns and matched his first 200 combat hours with one of the Allied top guns, how does it figure out? Is it similar? I would imagine it is, but in the end I don't care.
Many of the high scoring LW aces from the Eastern front, were killed on the Western front. Does that mean the Russian pilots were worse? Were the LW Aces just that tired that the West pilots were able to kill them easier? Were the situations on the Eastern front different from an airwar perspective, as in were the Russian pilots at a disadvantage being so oriented to ground attack and protecting the troops that the LW drivers always had the advantage?
The questions, comparisons could go on and on. That's where all this find a statistic to prove who was better is pointless in so many ways.
Oh, and btw every side overclaimed. Hard to avoid it in the heat of battle. And easier to confirm when the wrecks are falling on your own turf, but in the end that means you are losing so.........?
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Batz
I did read where he claimed all allied losses were attributed to the jagdwaffe. He even mentioned 15000 of the total 130000 (his numbers).
That's not what he said, and I don't think that's what he meant. He said that the Allies lost approx. 130 000 planes, and that he did belive that the top 100 LW pilots very well could have destroyed 15 000 of them. I fail to se where he says the Jagdwaffe destroyed all the 130 000 planes.
-
I believe Guppy got it down pretty well.
-
MiloMorai, take a look at most of your contributions to this thread ...
Originally posted by MiloMorai
More Messicraps got shot down than any other single fighter type. :rofl:aok
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The only bull is from you Barbi. How many 109s left on May 8 1945, when Germany unconditionally surrendered?
Out of the ~55,000 109s and 190s manufactured there was less than 1300 able to fly.
There was also more LW pilots killed in the 109 than any other fighter type.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Always with the sexual comments, Barbi. With your pre-occupation with sex, one can conclude you get none.:D:D:D:rofl :aok
Originally posted by MiloMorai
I see Barbi is making new friends.:eek:
Take note Scholzi.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
As usual your reading comprehension is nil:rofl Sarcasim Barbi, sarcasim.
This thread was doing well until you started with the derogatory comments, as usual.
Now what would you call your posts to straffo and me. I would call them trolling for flames.:rofl :aok
Are you saying there are more Nazi lovers like you around. So :(:(.
Still waiting for the name I used when I supposidly cussed you out after you supposidly shot me down so many times.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Your post only shows how correct I was with your bias in the post.:)
It was constructive Barbi because it pointed out the deceptive and slanted bs you tried to pass off, to show how uber the jagdwaffe was. We all know how devious you can be but don't be SO obvious next time.
btw, what was my online nick. You keep refusing to say. Proof that all your demented ranting was more of your typical BS lies.
... now can you say Obsessive Compulsion Disorder? Doesn't it strike you as mildly insane to be waging some kind of feud against someone on an internet forum? Isegrim may be obnoxious sometimes, but at least he adds value to the discussion ... at least until you show up. I honestly can't remember you adding anything to any discussion. I'm sure you have, but all I can remember is you attacking Isegrim in every thread he posts in, and I for one am getting tired of you seemingly poisoning every thread of interest I can find in this forum. You're not alone in this ... but you're the one who's input I'll miss the least. I'm putting you on ignore. It won't solve the problem, but at least I'm spared half of it.
-
That was a typo should be did not
I did read where he claimed all allied ....
-
Far more important then number of sortis was number of enemies seen.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi Widewing ,
maybe overclaiming in the war was common(so how few kills the best US-pilot had then??), but if a pilot state after the war he had much more kills and you disagree(dont tell me you dont disagree), you call him a liar!!
If you have facts that specialy Kozhedub had less kills, please offer them, if not, you be the troll.
Greetings, Knegel
I'm probably wasting my time.....
Kozhedub's victory claims:
* Indicates claims not specifically verified by Luftwaffe records.
** Indicates claims probably attributed to “ground fire”.
*** Thought to be shared with several other pilots.
6 July 1943 1 Ju 88
7 July 1943 1 Ju 87
8 July 1943 1 Ju 88
9 July 1943 1 Bf 109
9 July 1943 1 Bf 109
9 Aug 1943 1 Bf 109
14 Aug 1943 2 Bf 109*
16 Aug 1943 1 Ju 87
22 Aug 1943 1 Fw 190
9 Sept 1943 1 Bf 109*
30 Sept 1943 1 Ju 87
1 Oct 1943 2 Ju 87***
2 Oct 1943 3 Ju 87*
4 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109
5 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109
5 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109*
6 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109
10 Oct 1943 1 Bf 109
12 Oct 1943 2 Ju 87, 1 Bf 109
29 Oct 1943 1 He 111, 1 Ju 87*
16 Jan 1944 1 Bf 109
30 Jan 1944 1 Ju 87*, 1 Bf 109
14 March 1944 1 Ju 87
21 March 1944 1 Ju 87
11 April 1944 1 Bf 109*
April 1944 1 He 111
28 April 1944 1 Ju 87
29 April 1944 2 Hs 129**
3 May 1944 1 Ju 87
31 May 1944 1 Fw 190
1 June 1944 1 Ju 87
2 June 1944 1 Hs 129*
3 June 1944 2 Fw 190*
3 June 1944 1 Fw 190
7 June 1944 1 Bf 109
22 Sept 1944 2 Fw 190*
25 Sept 1944 1 Fw 190
16 Jan 1945 1 Fw 190
10 Feb 1945 1 Fw 190
12 Feb 1945 3 Fw 190
19 Feb 1945 1 Me 262
11 March 1945 1 Fw 190
18 March 1945 2 Fw 190*
22 March 1945 2 Fw 190
23 March 1945 1 Fw 190
17 April 1945 2 Fw 190
As to the veracity of Kozhedub, in a 1990 interview he was asked about Soviet kills and losses during the Battle or Kursk. He replied; “Tactical aviation accounted for 76 percent of the total, long-range aviation for 18 percent, and air defense fighters for six percent. During that period, they destroyed 1,500 enemy planes. Our losses were 1,000 aircraft. During the counteroffensive, our flyers made 90,000 sorties, about 50 percent of which were designed to support attacking troops, and 31 percent to achieve supremacy in the air. The enemy lost up to 2,200 planes in that time.”
Actual Luftwaffe losses totaled about 937, and that included 273 operational losses (not due to enemy action). Since the actual Soviet losses can only be estimated, the most recent number put forward by Chattham and Ingles is 2,100+. Clearly Kozhedub believed the Party line…..Soviets overclaimed by 237%.
My regards
Widewing
-
"Nope. Put any well trained pilots in the same situation and the numbers would look the same
Are you stat fanatics going to start breaking it down to comparable kills vs sorties?
If you took one of the LW top guns and matched his first 200 combat hours with one of the Allied top guns, how does it figure out? Is it similar? I would imagine it is, but in the end I don't care. "
Werner Schroer 197 sortis 114 western kills including over 20 4 engine bombers.
Francis Gabreski 153 Sortis 28 kills.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
"Nope. Put any well trained pilots in the same situation and the numbers would look the same
Are you stat fanatics going to start breaking it down to comparable kills vs sorties?
If you took one of the LW top guns and matched his first 200 combat hours with one of the Allied top guns, how does it figure out? Is it similar? I would imagine it is, but in the end I don't care. "
Werner Schroer 197 sortis 114 western kills including over 20 4 engine bombers.
Francis Gabreski 153 Sortis 28 kills.
OK so flip em. Put Gabreski in the same situation as Schroer and vice versa. How do you think Gabby would do under the same circumstances, flying defensive sorties vs the long rang sweeps, escorts he was flying. Do you think Schroer would have done better then Gabby flying those type missions?
The targets were coming to Schroer, many in ground attack roles in North Africa where their primary mission was to hit the target while his was air defense. And you are talking North Africa for much of the action. In many ways similar to the Russian airwar as the focus of Allied Airpower was ground support, flying in many cases inferior equipment. Funny how those 300+ kill guys were scoring like that in Russia. Great pilots in a situation that allowed them to be the hunter not the hunted.
How bout we use Pips Priller who got all his kills on the Western front. Priller flew 1,307 combat missions to achieve 101 victories."
Do the math with Gabby's numbers and he ends up with 239 kills in those sorties.
How bout “Addi” Glunz? He flew a total of 574 missions, including 238 with enemy contact, in achieving 71 victories. All but three on the Western Front.
Using those sorties, Gabby gets 105 kills
Maybe Adolf Galland? He achieved 104 aerial victories in 705 missions, all on the Western front.
Hmm this time Gabby gets 129 kills
Funny how that all works out isn't it if you want to play the numbers game?
Once again, put the pilots in similar situations and the results would be alike.
Dan/Slack
-
Well done Dan.
But remember, you're talking to "poepl" who're still pissed about that Gott verlassen cheating bastidge Jesse Owens ;)
-
Originally posted by Westy
Well done Dan.
But remember, you're talking to "poepl" who're still pissed about that Gott verlassen cheating bastidge Jesse Owens ;)
LOL, well there is that :)
Hows life treating ya Westy?
Dan/Slack
-
My, touched a sore spot, I see. Sorry to get you so worked up about this. Actually, some of us have been over the topic before; see the thread at:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=62993&referrerid=4533.
Still, it can be fun, and with two people as sensitive and polite as you and Scholtz, it might be worth going over again.
Would love to know the source for the first paragraph of your note...the one about eyewitnesses and so on.
You said you have done a "fair amount" of reading on that... how come you are not familiar with the very basics.. What exactly have you read ?
Kind of scary, but it might well be that I was reading this stuff before you were born. Back when it was in books, with sources and such. I didn’t keep a running bibliography over the years, so I can’t really give you an “exact” list. Now that you mention it, though...what - exactly - have you read?
Because it appears to be completely at odds with known examples of false claims, such as when JG26 strafed old glider wrecks and claimed them as kills.
Do you know the difference between a kill claim and a confirmed kill ?
Sure do. Do you know whether the scores of your top German aces are confirmed, or only claims? At the end of the war, the Luftwaffe destroyed its master list of victory confirmations. Even before that, the RLM system of confirming gruppe claims had broken down. We have therefore been left with only “claims,” rather than “confirmed claims.”
Knocke was proven to be a liar, I believe, particularly regarding a number of stories he told of the end of the war.
"Proven"? When, where, by whom, in what?
Ah. Here I offer an apology. I was thinking of Willi Heilman, not Heinz Knocke. Sincerely sorry. However, on the assumption that you’ll question my characterization of Heilman, too, I’ll refer you to Caldwell’s “JG 26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe.” In my edition (Ivy Books, 1991), I’m thinking especially of the account at pages 357-358 where we learn that Heilman’s claim “that his departure from the war was preceded by a solemn ceremony in which he discharged his entire Staffel to return to their homes” was, as Caldwell notes, “rubbish.” Turns out Heilman and his pals deserted a month before the war ended. I never did believe his story of how he “instinctively” shot down the Spitfire that was escorting him to Allied lines, yet was spared by the gallant English pilots. But I do apologize about Knocke, I’ve always thought his book (“I Flew for the Fuhrer”) was refreshingly honest.
You may choose to believe that 100 German pilots shot down 15,000 planes, but frankly I think that is so completely at odds with the experience of all the other countries involved in the war that it is beyond belief.
[some omission of your material]
So yes, I choose the version about the 100 top German pilots knocking down 15 000 planes. It`s fully supported by the records of both sides. Besides, it was the aces that knocked down the planes, some 6% of the total pilot strenght was responsible for 50-60% of the kills. The rest were just assisting, perhaps never scoring a kill.
I’m perplexed at how Allied records could possibly support individual German pilot claims. As discussed a bit below, even the German records don’t necessarily support their claims. But that’s fine, of course, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Fact is, there were a number of other countries involved in the war for a long time, and many of them kept their pilots in constant action over that time, and not one of them produced even one ace whose claims even came close to half of what each of 100 German pilots claimed to be their minimum “confirmed” score. Not the Japanese (admittedly I do not buy the Nishizawa total), not the English, not the Russians, Canadians, Australians, Chinese or anyone - anyone - else. Length of time in service hardly explains it. Hartman didn’t even start flying until well into the war, as someone has already pointed out. Johnnie Johnson fought for most of the war, and had 38 kills - Britain’s top fighter pilot. The top US ace had 40. Widewing has already suggested that the top Russian ace didn’t have anything even close to 60. But the Germans had 100 guys with over 100 kills? Many with 200, one with over 300 (and he's the guy who only started flying halfway through the war)? I would think that there would be at least some skepticism about this from you folks.
So let me leave you with just a couple more passages from Caldwell’s book. I think most of us accept that he worked hard with original sources.
At pages 169-171 of my version, Caldwell discusses the famous point system. “The pilots of the western Geschwader were convinced that their eastern brethren received more than their fair share of battle honors.” So the point system was instituted. Caldwell notes that “It has been pointed out in many postwar references that the point system existed for the purpose of award qualification only. ‘Victory claims’ and ‘points’ were two distinct statistics. The requirements for the verification of victory claims remained unchanged; only the RLM in Berlin could confirm a claim, and this procedure could take more than a year. The practice of claiming ‘separations’ died out in JG 26 in 1944, but it was quite common during the savage combats of 1943. Research for this book revealed that many pilots’ ‘separation’ claims were ultimately awarded as ‘victories’; occasionally claims by other pilots were allowed for the ‘final destruction’ of the same aircraft. It is easy to see that the system led to claims duplication by a factor of as much as two.[/i] Perhaps not coincidentally, the daily Wehrmacht communiques of this period habitually overclaimed American bomber losses by a factor of roughly two. German claims for the destruction of heavy bombers (even when confirmed) are more difficult to reconcile with Allied losses than claims for any other aircraft type; it is probable that part of the explanation lies with the point system.” The emphasis is mine, not Caldwell’s.
The first post in the old thread, listed above, questioned one of Adolf Galland’s claims. Caldwell gives the example (p. 233) of the Kommodore of the 1st group of JG 26 himself leading a June 9, 1944 “attack” on abandoned gliders lying around in Normandy fields - claiming 15 of them as aerial victories. “This attack, and the pilots’ consequent ‘victory’ claims, are a sad commentary on the relevance and effectiveness of the German fighter force at this stage of the war.” No kidding. You’ll read in Heilman’s book of an “attack” he made on airborne gliders shortly after the Normandy invasion. Right.
So we know that, despite the very difficult “rules” pilots were supposed to follow in order to get their claims confirmed....it didn’t work, at least in these instances. Thank you for posting the nice AARs by the German pilots, which are quite similar to AARs of Allied pilots. Point is, if you lie on the report - or, more likely, if you really thought you got a kill and everyone is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, because you're a great guy, or because you're the Kommodore, or because everyone can use a good morale boost in this very ugly situation - how does your claim get properly classified? We had gun camera films on every plane. The Germans didn’t.
So. You may accept that their experience was not simply unique, but almost other-dimensional. I don't.
- oldman
-
originally posted by Gscholz:
Germany wasn't just any other country involved in the war Oldman.
Yeah, I think I remember reading somewhere that they actually started it! Something about a guy named Hitler, and some other ugly business about gas ovens I think. But that came later, in 1944 I think, and there were no records of any confirmed kills. But, what's really important are the records of the fighter pilots I think. Too bad they didn't win, we'd have records of all those kills, then you'd be able to STUFF everyone in this discussion, LOLOL! And Norway would be able to sell all that heavy water to Germany for their nuclear program, at least if the Nazis didn't decide to just take it instead. Unless of course the Norwegians became Nazis.
Mosca
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
OK so flip em. Put Gabreski in the same situation as Schroer and vice versa.
...
How bout we use Pips Priller who got all his kills on the Western front. Priller flew 1,307 combat missions to achieve 101 victories."
Do the math with Gabby's numbers and he ends up with 239 kills in those sorties.
....
Funny how that all works out isn't it if you want to play the numbers game?
Once again, put the pilots in similar situations and the results would be alike.
Dan/Slack
The trouble with your logic is that it aint working in real life. The forgot the fun part... not only Priller flew 1307 combat missions... he also SURVIVED THEM every time.
Put Gabby and Priller in the same Jagdgescwader. The result will not change. Priller will survive 1307 combat missions, knock down 101 planes, 2/3 of them being Spits...
Whta Gabby will do, is flying 192 combat missions, knocking down 28 planes, perhaps even lead the killboard for a time, then he gets shot down on the 194th Mission just the same, and spends the rest of the war in Scotland or some other place.
Like I said, the German aces not only ranked up a huge number of kills, but also survived all those missions, against all chances. What was the chance for that, taking loss rates as base ? Marginal, a pilot would be likely to be shot down on the by the 100th sorite of his. Yet somehow these guys were not.
You ain`t telling me that those 1307 sorites were easy rides over France and the Channel, do you ? After all, he met Spitfires, for most of the time, didn`t he ? ;) Some day you will have to accept that the simple reason for those score is that by the the grim of fate Germany was blessed with having the best aviators of all time during WW2. Simple as that. Those guys were just damned good. And they gained so much experience during all those sorties as nobody else. They had the opportunity to fly superb fighters, use effective tactics. None of the Allied pilots had such background, during the whole period of war. The Experten on the other hand, enjoyed these for a full six years. After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience).
-
You have to remember that the Luftwaffe had those two extra years over the Americans, fighting against the Poles and the French and the Belgians and the Greeks.
Oh, and don't forget all that training in Spain.
-
Originally posted by mosca
Yeah, I think I remember reading somewhere that they actually started it! Something about a guy named Hitler, and some other ugly business about gas ovens I think. But that came later, in 1944 I think, and there were no records of any confirmed kills. But, what's really important are the records of the fighter pilots I think. Too bad they didn't win, we'd have records of all those kills, then you'd be able to STUFF everyone in this discussion, LOLOL! And Norway would be able to sell all that heavy water to Germany for their nuclear program, at least if the Nazis didn't decide to just take it instead. Unless of course the Norwegians became Nazis.
Mosca
Well ... that was nice.
-
The Air War in the East
George Chen
Records kept by the German Air Force during World War II show that more than one hundred German fighter pilots were able to score over one hundred aerial victories apiece. Two of these men scored more than three hundred victories apiece, and thirteen others were able to account for two hundred each. When compared with the fact that the top American ace, Richard I. Bong, scored only forty victories against the Japanese, such figures are truly staggering (Shores 108). For a time, historians have questioned the accuracy of these figures, but since the end of hostilities, careful research has shown that the German crediting system was quite reliable. As a result, the figures themselves could no longer be disputed, but historians still felt it was necessary to come up with an explanation of why men like Germany’s Erich Hartmann, World War II’s highest scoring ace, was able to destroy some 352 enemy planes in a period of less than three years (Feist 117). As German records became available, it became obvious that the majority of victories scored by these “super aces” were accounted for on the Eastern Front. The theory developed by military historians was that due to the inferiority of Soviet pilots and equipment, air-to-air victories were easy to achieve in the skies above Russia, and as a result, these historians downplayed the achievements of these aces. Some historians have gone so far as to suggest that the destruction of a single American or British aircraft was equivalent to five Soviet planes (Overy 49). However, all these historians have arrived at an unsatisfactory conclusion because, instead of taking the entire picture into account, they have focused on only a few limited aspects of the air war, and, therefore, have made an incorrect judgment. A careful study of the other facts, such as geography, weather, and battle conditions, leads to an entirely different conclusion. Victories in Russia were not easily gained. Instead, it took great skill and talent to become an ace on the Eastern Front.
The air war over the vast Soviet Union can be seen as a two part conflict. The first lasted two years and ended in the summer of 1943. The second began that same summer and continued until Germany’s defeat two years later. During the first two years of combat, the Soviet air force was a huge, but unwieldy arm (Mizrahi 84). Many of its planes were obsolete by Western standards, and the majority were devoid of auxiliary systems such as hydraulic landing gear, bullet proof windshielding, oxygen, gun heaters, and even gunsights. Although Soviet equipment improved in the last two years of fighting, overall, it was still inferior to its German counterparts (Shores 129).
But what the Soviets lacked in quality, they made up with quantity. Throughout the war, the Red Air Force always flew in massed formations. Because the Soviet high command saw its air force as primarily a tactical arm, designed to support the army, Russian pilots flew at low attitudes where their ability to hit targets with bombs and cannon fire could be maximized (Overy 55). These Russian tactics made combat extremely dangerous for the Germans. When intercepting Russian formations, Luftwaffe pilots not only found themselves constantly outnumbered, but also extremely vulnerable to ground fire. Since most of the fighting took place around 2,000 feet, there was also the constant danger of crashing (Mizrahi 84).
“For the trained Luftwaffe pilot, however, these conditions offered the chance to score victories in bunches,” wrote historian Joseph V. Mizrahi (84). Diving out of the sun, an experienced “ace” and his wingman could often score three or four “kills” against the main bomber formation and then escape before the enemy could counterattack (Feist 53). Although such skills were not difficult to master, to perform them successfully on a continuous basis against a numerically superior enemy was. The war on the Eastern Front was always on the move, and this meant that tactical air support was always needed. On a typical day, it was not uncommon for a Luftwaffe fighter pilot stationed close to the front to fly between five to seven sorties in a twenty-four hour period, especially in the summer when the long North European day lasted from four in the morning until eleven at night. Because the enemy was always present, such routine proved to be exhausting. The gigantic air battles waged above the massive tank battles offered many targets. But it was also a place where one mistake could mean death. Mizrahi agrees: “This situation provided the opportunity to became an ace many times over, it also created a situation that could quickly end a combat career” (Mizrahi 84).
The battle was unending, the pressure to join combat unrelenting, and even though the Russians were not the most sophisticated of antagonists, the Germans always found themselves short handed. Hartmann once remarked that “thirty of us against 300 of them usually evened things out” (Mizrahi 84). However, even during the first two years of fighting, German pilots often found themselves in a much more desperate situation. When faced with such overwhelming odds, simply to survive was an accomplishment (Overy 57).
“Combat for Luftwaffe aces on the Eastern Front was similar to the oft-told dilemma of the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike,” wrote Mizrahi “the only difference being that there were more leaks in the structure than there were fighters on hand” (84). During the middle of 1943, however, the number of “leaks” increased, and the air war took a dramatic turn. The Russians took the initiative from the Germans, moved from defense to offense, and stepped up their pressure on all fronts. Although the Red Air Force had suffered huge losses, more planes of better quality were arriving at the front than the Germans could match (Overy 57). In addition, the skill of Soviet pilots also improved. The Russian offensive meant persistent bombing, and although bombers offered easy targets, they were now better protected. Members of the Guard Regiments, Soviet Union’s elite air unit, often provided the escort. Aces themselves, they flew planes that were faster and better armed. The gap that had existed between the Luftwaffe and the Red Air Force was closing quickly (Shores 131). In time, it would all but disappear. To even things out, Germany’s best pilots flew sorties around the clock, and it was during this time that many of these “super aces,” such as Hartmann, scored the majority of their kills. Under such pressures, the scores that men like Hartmann were able to run up are truly extraordinary (Feist 119).
But even the best crack occasionally under extreme pressure, and because a German pilot flew so many sorties, the chance that he would be shot down was very high. In fact, Gerhard Barkhorn, Germany’s second leading ace with 301 victories, was shot down nine times, and Hartmann sixteen. Yet both managed to survive the war (Mizrahi 37). Others, such as Otto Kittel and Anton Hafner, who scored over 470 victories between them, were not as fortunate (Shores 108). To be a great pilot was not enough. To amass a large number of kills, one had to be a great survivor and sometimes just plain lucky. The air over Russia was a very unforgiving place. Those who were unable to adapt to the conditions and continued to operate on the narrowing margin for error were quickly eliminated. Only the most able survived, and in time, a nucleus of “super aces” came to exist (Feist 116). “Their proficiency could not be matched anywhere,” wrote Mizrahi, “simply because nowhere else had pilots operated for so long, under such adverse conditions, and survived” (88).
The pilots of JG 52, stationed from 1941 onwards on the Eastern Front and considered by many as the best air wing of the Luftwaffe, claimed 11,000 aircraft destroyed during World War II, an indisputable proof of the scale of fighting that took place over the steppes of Russia (Feist 104). Although most German pilots were quick to point out that the caliber of fighter pilots in the West was definitely superior, they still found themselves more willing to serve against the Western Allies than against the Soviets. Hans Philipp, who scored 206 victories, once remarked that he was more willing to “dogfight a Spitfire,” than to “fight against twenty Russians out to kill you” (Mizrahi 88).
The foe in the West may have been more skilled, but combat there had its compensations. While the bomber streams were anything but easy to intercept, the Germans did have the advantage of fighting over their own airspace. And although the enemy was better armed and trained, there were fewer of them, and they came less often. In addition, quarters were permanent, food and drink were plentiful, and the pilots did not have the added strain of having to constantly change locations (Feist 71). Such was not the case in Russia. Russia was a crude and unforgiving place. While the 11,000 kills of JG 52 stands as everlasting proof of the skill and tenacity of its pilots, it also symbolized six sorties a day in good weather, few intermissions, rare leave, and perpetual combat (Shores 103). This kind of climate produced great aces. It also ended the lives of countless less able pilots.
-
... continued.
Life on the Eastern Front was always on the move. The massive ground offensives that have come to characterize war in Russia often meant that units had to move hundreds of miles in a matter of weeks. As a result, a fighter pilot could be stationed in as many as twenty or even thirty different places in the course of a year, all depending on where the pressure was the greatest (Overy 58). Therefore, there was little time to build permanent bases or airstrips. Instead, the Germans had to improvise. Luftwaffe pilots were frequently quartered in schools, farming buildings, or anything that could withstand the fierce Russian winter. In most cases, these buildings had no electricity, and were, instead, illuminated by gaslight or candles, which themselves were rarities. Mud, dust, and “a fly infested nightmare of seemingly endless, insufferably humid days,” wrote Mizrahi, were the constants in warm weather (Mizrahi 88). Although winter brought more permanent quarters, it also meant numbing cold and weeks of snowed in isolation. As Mizrahi said:
“Life in that frozen world has never really been related in the West, and statistics
do not tell the full story.” “What is known, however, is that there was no respite
from combat. The Luftwaffe’s fighter pilots did not close down for the winter
season, and, in fact, when they flew, did nearly as well in winter as in summer”
(Mizrahi 88).
To understand how men like Hartmann and Barkhorn were able to run up such incredible victory scores when the top aces of the Western Allies managed no more than forty, one has to remember that the Luftwaffe aces flew up to ten times as many sorties, and they usually met an enemy willing to engage (Feist 116). Targets were plentiful, and these “super aces” never had to go far to search for them. The longer they flew, the more they learned, and in time, these pilots “discovered techniques that few other pilots could employ, simply because they did it so often and under such unrelenting pressure” (Mizrahi 88). The Germans did not have a magic number of missions, like the Americans, that a pilot had to complete before he was rotated home (Shores 54). Only death retired a Luftwaffe pilot, and so those who survived amassed a unique type of experience that no training school could ever teach. “They truly became experts in their grim business and eventually flew into a realm of proficiency unknown and unknowable to others,” wrote Mizrahi. “Pressure will always promote performance, and in the case of the Luftwaffe’s aces, unrelenting pressure gave rise to truly amazing exploits. It also caused the death of many pilots who had nothing more to give” (Mizrahi 88).
Finally, it must be said that the conditions that applied to German pilots also applied to Russian pilots. In this world of non-stop fighting, the Russians were able to produce many incredible aces themselves. Ivan Kozhedub with 62 victories and Aleksandr Pokryshkin with 59 were two of the most famous (Shores 133). And as the war progressed, the number of aces in the Red Air Force increased dramatically. One of Hartmann’s final victories was a Russian ace who had scored 26 victories, proving once again that to completely downgrade the quality of Russian pilots is unjustified (Mizrahi 96).
The Luftwaffe claimed the destruction of approximately 42,000 Soviet aircraft during World War II. Although the Germans only claimed a total of 25,000 victories against the American and British, the notion that “kills” were easier to gain on the Eastern Front is not true (Feist 118). The Russians were a formidable enemy in the sky, and although, they were not as well trained or equipped, they were tough, combative, and incredibly brave. Forced to fight a ceaseless battle always outnumbered, thousands of German pilots lost their lives. Only those who survived these titanic battles could hope to become great aces, and in time, these men became a truly remarkable group. Mizrahi agrees: “Because they were always outnumbered, because their living conditions were the most primitive by far, even worse that that of Africa, those German fighter pilots who survived the war in the East are a very special breed. Their accomplishments cannot be overlooked or played down” (Mizrahi 88).
Bibliography
Feist, Uwe, Norman E. Harms, and Mike Dario. The Fighting 109. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1978.
Mizrahi, Joseph V. Knights of the Black Cross. Granada Hills, CA: Sentry Books Inc., 1972.
Overy, R. J. The Air War: 1939-1945. New York, NY: Stein and Day, 1980.
Shores, Christopher. Fighter Aces. London: The Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1975.
When you look at the numbers Hartmann flew for almost three years on the Eastern Front, the greatest battle in the history of human conflict. Is it really so hard to believe that he managed to shoot down two planes per week?
Günther Rall served for the entire war and scored his first kills in the Battle of Britton. After the BoB he fought in Greece and over Crete, before being posted to the Eastern Front where he fought most of the war ... including in the battles of Dniepropetrovsk and Stalingrad. He was of course extremely lucky to survive the war, and was wounded several times. Is it really so hard to believe that he on average managed to shoot down one enemy plane per week?
-
Ah ... and I was wrong. Hartmann was shot down sixteen times, not eight.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The trouble with your logic is that it aint working in real life. The forgot the fun part... not only Priller flew 1307 combat missions... he also SURVIVED THEM every time.
Put Gabby and Priller in the same Jagdgescwader. The result will not change. Priller will survive 1307 combat missions, knock down 101 planes, 2/3 of them being Spits...
Whta Gabby will do, is flying 192 combat missions, knocking down 28 planes, perhaps even lead the killboard for a time, then he gets shot down on the 194th Mission just the same, and spends the rest of the war in Scotland or some other place.
Like I said, the German aces not only ranked up a huge number of kills, but also survived all those missions, against all chances. What was the chance for that, taking loss rates as base ? Marginal, a pilot would be likely to be shot down on the by the 100th sorite of his. Yet somehow these guys were not.
You ain`t telling me that those 1307 sorites were easy rides over France and the Channel, do you ? After all, he met Spitfires, for most of the time, didn`t he ? ;) Some day you will have to accept that the simple reason for those score is that by the the grim of fate Germany was blessed with having the best aviators of all time during WW2. Simple as that. Those guys were just damned good. And they gained so much experience during all those sorties as nobody else. They had the opportunity to fly superb fighters, use effective tactics. None of the Allied pilots had such background, during the whole period of war. The Experten on the other hand, enjoyed these for a full six years. After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience).
No question they were good, but so were the pilots of other countries. Keep in mind that had Gabreski been flying with JG26 he would have been over his own turf and NOT strafing an airfield over England, so he would not have become a POW. Pips wasn't over England when he flew those 1300 missions. For the majority he was on the defensive over his own turf where if he went down, he could be back flying again soon :)
The issue still remains the same. Put any group ofwell trained pilots in the situation described and you will turn out those kind of numbers. Tactics will evolve, experience will be gained. In the end, feel sorry for those LW drivers who had to fly all the time. What a horrific system that would put that kind of a demand on a man. I doubt any Allied pilot would have traded places with them just to pursue kill numbers and I can bet that many a LW pilot would have appreciated the Allied system that allowed them a greater chance of survival and a break from the pressures of combat.
I think sometimes people forget that these pilots were also just people doing a very dangerous job. It's easy to try and make them supermen, but in my mind that negates their accomplishments, as they were ordinary men, doing extraordinary things. And I mean that in reference to what the soldiers, sailors and airmen of all the countries had to endure during that war. I remember as a kid thinking that fighter pilots were literally bigger then life. They always looked huge in the photos. Then as I got older I was able to meet and get to know a lot of WW2 vet pilots, and they were not larger then life. They were just decent people. Most had gone on to do other things postwar, raising their families, working their jobs and getting on with their lives, just like anyone would. That these ordinary men had done what they had done under the stress of combat made them bigger heros to me.
Obviously we'll disagree about aircraft quality as I'd say that it was a seesaw back and forth in development with each side having the edge at times.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Some day you will have to accept that the simple reason for those score is that by the the grim of fate Germany was blessed with having the best aviators of all time during WW2. Simple as that. Those guys were just damned good. And they gained so much experience during all those sorties as nobody else. They had the opportunity to fly superb fighters, use effective tactics. None of the Allied pilots had such background, during the whole period of war. The Experten on the other hand, enjoyed these for a full six years. After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience).
Well. I guess this has to be a troll. Isegrim seems to be too bright to actually believe this.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience).
A very simple answer. Who was the attacker and who was defending? The LW faced the flak guns for how long? The Allied bombers were over Germany without fighter escort for how long?
The defenders hold many of the advantages, the radar control, shorter duration flights, over their own turf etc. Yet they never turned back the attacking Allied bombers and fighters. And naturally with the continuing increase in numbers of Allied aircraft, the numbers lost are also going to increase, but we've been through that. percentage wise, losses dropped and flak was the greater risk then the fighters.
Keep in mind if I send 270 unescorted bombers and lose 60, those losses are devasating and not sustainable. If I send 1100 bombers escorted by 900 fighters and I lose 60 aircraft, those losses are sustainable/tolerable and that's what was happening. No matter what the LW did, the Allied Air Forces just kept coming.
You keep trying to present it like the LW accomplished something. Hate to break it to ya, but they lost. Those 352 kills of Hartmann accomplished what? Getting him 10 years in a Soviet POW cage? Command of a West German Fighter Wing flying American designed F86s and 104s for NATO? A spot on the Airshow circuit in the US before his death? Did it keep the Soviet Air Forces from hammering German ground troops? Seems to me the Soviet Army still ended up in Berlin anyway.
Once again, you put any group of well trained pilots in a similar situation to what the LW drivers faced and you will turn out the same sort of numbers. You gotta quit dehuminizing those men by trying to make them supermen. In the end THAT becomes the bigger insult to what they accomplished and endured as human beings.
Dan/Slack
-
It is pretty clear that some people here have axes to grind. We all know who won the war. That has never been the issue, and has no bearing on the discussion. Like all wars WWII was won on a strategic level. No soldier could change the outcome.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It is pretty clear that some people here have axes to grind. We all know who won the war. That has never been the issue, and has no bearing on the discussion. Like all wars WWII was won on a strategic level. No soldier could change the outcome.
I would agree with you GScholz, but if you are referring to me, I think you miss my point.
To somehow Mythologize German fighter pilots into some kind of supermen is doing them a great disservice in that it minimizes what those who survived accomplished under very difficult circumstances. They were not 10 feet tall, they were not made of titanium, they did not have X-Ray vision nor a big "S" on their chests, regardless if some folks want to believe that.
And to somehow portray them as 'better' then any other pilots is also wrong, and I suspect they would tell you the same.
As I've said over and over, if you put a group of well trained US, RAF, Russian, Finnish, Norwegian, name your country, Pilots into the same circumstances as those faced by LW pilots, you'd see the same result.
Dan/Slack
-
No the German pilots were just human ... like everybody else. But one must admit that the LW by far had the most experienced individual pilots. As a whole, the Allied air forces had more experienced pilots by the end of the war, but those few "Experten" still alive in the LW were unmatched ... and still are unmatched when it comes to combat experience which directly relates to skill. Given time and opportunity, I see no reason why the Allied airmen should not achieve similar results. However they did not have the same time or opportunity as their LW counterparts, and I would surmise that the LW "Experten" were by a significant magnitude more skilled in their aircraft than the best of their opponents.
However I fail to see how this has anything to do with the LW victory claims being correct or false.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No the German pilots were just human ... like everybody else. But one must admit that the LW by far had the most experienced individual pilots. As a whole, the Allied air forces had more experienced pilots by the end of the war, but those few "Experten" still alive in the LW were unmatched ... and still are unmatched when it comes to combat experience which directly relates to skill. Given time and opportunity, I see no reason why the Allied airmen should not achieve similar results. However they did not have the same time or opportunity as their LW counterparts, and I would surmise that the LW "Experten" were by a significant magnitude more skilled in their aircraft than the best of their opponents.
However I fail to see how this has anything to do with the LW victory claims being correct or false.
Basically I think it comes down to the perception that any document/statistic that is credited to German sources must be accurate and irrefutable, while anything else non-German is suspect whenever these threads come up.
As for Pilot expertise, I think you are not taking into account the stress of combat and the impact it had on pilots, soldiers etc. One of the reasons the Allies had tour limits was because of this. The RAF called it "The Twitch". It referred to a point in a tour where the affects of constant operations began to show up in a deterioration of skills, pilots beyond caring that tooks risks that they would not have taken when they were at the top of their skills. Fatigue and stress deadened the senses and reaction time so that they were not as effective. And at a certain point there are only so many things you can do with an aircraft regardless of the hours in it.
How many of the 'experten' lost their lives because of this? Look at the photos of Hartmann from beginning to end. He looks like hell by the time he's done. Photos of Nowatny(sp) show the same. Go back to WWI and look at the before and afters of Oswald Boelcke. Same thing.
As for expertise, as I was typing this, the name of John Landers popped into my head. He'd flown P40s in the Pacific from 41, then ended up in England in 38s and finally 51s. He'd probably flown more varieties of missions then most of the 'experten' who were flying defensive sorties. Landers didn't have that many kills, but his experience in those different roles is probably unmatched. Does that make him a better pilot then anyone else? I doubt it. As for kills, he no doubt had far less opportunities then the 'experten' who were having the targets come to them based on the role they were in.
Hans-Ulrich Rudel logged 2530 combat missions. Was he a better pilot then Hartmann with his 352 kills? He only shot down 9 planes, does that mean Gabreski was a better pilot then Rudel since he got 28? Hmmmmm, gets a bit tough to call then doesn't it.
So if you want to state that for example Hartmann had more kills then Johnnie Johnson, there is no arguement. If you want to tell me that he was a better pilot, I don't know that, nor do you.
Dan/Slack
-
Many of the Experten probably were killed as a result of combat fatigue ... and the fact that statistics have a way of catching up with you.
We are now discussing things that are subjective, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do believe that the Experten were better fighter pilots than their Allied counterparts. You don't, and that doesn't bother me at all. It's just an opinion, and it is irrelevant to the discussion. Why don't we just leave it at that?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Many of the Experten probably were killed as a result of combat fatigue ... and the fact that statistics have a way of catching up with you.
We are now discussing things that are subjective, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I do believe that the Experten were better fighter pilots than their Allied counterparts. You don't, and that doesn't bother me at all. It's just an opinion, and it is irrelevant to the discussion. Why don't we just leave it at that?
Fair enough :)
Dan/Slack
Here, have a 109 profile on me. Last one I did. Kinda like Emils
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1078346050.jpg)
-
Very nice indeed. I see it has a filtered SC intake, where did this Emil serve?
I'm partial to Fritz' myself :)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_245_1078347009.jpg)
That's Marseilles btw.
-
JG27 Emil serving on Sicily in the Spring of 41
Dan/Slack
-
That would explain the filter. You do profiles as a hobby?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That would explain the filter. You do profiles as a hobby?
Yep, just for fun. Kind of my way of getting back in to model building without the glue :)
So far Spits, Mustangs, Hurri's T-bolts an 109Es(JG51 B of B Emil included)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_169_1078348468.jpg)
-
They are very nice. You should make a few skins for AHII when the Emil is added. I love that yellow 11 paintjob with the black and white spinner. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well ... that was nice.
My point was that you guys are arguing this like it was soccer teams. It's one thing to respect the pilots and the machinery, but the vehemence devoted to who should have won, or who was better, takes the event out of its context. It's like trying to imagine the universe without gravity, disregarding that it is gravity that makes the universe one. Who was better? Which planes were better? It can't be taken out of its period. Was the N1K2 (to pick an example neutral to this discussion) a great plane for its capabilities, or a lousy plane for its complexity and build quality? I don't know, but if the Allies didn't shoot them down, they were going to lose. Were the Luftwaffe pilots the best ever? I don't know, but one side was going to have to go over the bodies of the other to win, and we all know what happened.
The statistics can be scrutinized like baseball box scores, but you could take the men and machines and switch their sides, and that would still be meaningless because the Axis and Allies had different resources, different research programs, and different reasons for and attitudes toward deploying those assets. That, more than anything, makes the entire discussion a sky castle, with no foundation in reality.
I'll go back into 17 year locust mode now, you may proceed unimpeded with your arguing of minutae.
Mosca
-
"Like all wars WWII was won on a strategic level. No soldier could change the outcome."
Agreed.
For while the Germans were the best at sucker punching other countries and they made neat "precision" toys (they are cuckoo clock masters and it's only natural to see that skill expressed in thier war machines) they were awfully stupid. As in they had no "common sense" not to start a war against the world on four fronts type of stupid. And I guess that makes those that Allied themselveswith Germany morons (except the Fins. IMO they were stuck between a rock (Nazi's) and a hard place (Stalinizm).
-
Westy, cuckoo clocks come from Switzerland, not Germany...
-
Bzzzzt. Revisionist clap_trap.
Check out the history of cuckooo clocks. Look for the keywords; Black Forest, Ketterer,Schönwald....
-
You are absolutely right Westy...
---
The History
The first cuckoo clock dates back to around 1730. It was a product of the almost 100 years of clock making in the Black Forest of Germany that started sometime in the mid 17th century. Though there are a number stories of who built the first clock, Franz Anton Ketterer has been given the credit.
The first cuckoo clocks were primitive compared to those made later. Their movements were made with wooden plates and gears. Many of the clocks had square faces painted with water color paints. As time went on, the clocks became more and more sophisticated in their designs and decorations. The birds' wings and beaks were animated and some decorated with feathers. The many themes decorating the clocks were only limited to the imagination of the painters of the faces for the clocks. They included scenes of family, hunting, military motifs and more. Some were even decorated with porcelain columns and enameled dials.
Some of the more famous early cuckoo clock makers in the Black Forest were Theodore Ketterer, Johann Baptist Beha and Fidel Hepting.
By the late 1800s the cuckoo industry was some what industrialized. As well as factories where the clocks where made and assembled, Families would live and work together in large cottages, each individual working on the part of the clock they specialized in. Some carved the decorations, others assembling the movement and still others fitting movements in the cases. There were an estimated 13,500 men and women engaged in the clock making industry in the villages in and around Triberg.
---
I stand corrected...
-
So who had the best cuckoo clocks? Germans or the Swiss?
(seeks cover) :cool:
-
Originally posted by mosca
My point was ...
... to insult me and my country for reasons unknown, and that are irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't want to take part in the discussion ... then simply don't.
-
Here we go once more....
"Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience). "
Hehe, the Allied also bombed the crap out of Germany, raining a whooping million tonnes of bombs over it. The sank their fleets, and DESTROYED the LW down to a rarity level.
A bit costly, but completely effective....
-
And what does that have to do with his question?
-
Anyone else find it ironic that moelders was shotup, wounded and forced to make an emergency landing by a spitfire?:D
-
Because of their method vs the LW tactics.
The LW could not stop them so they had to revert to the tactics of nuicance interceptions, preferrably only intercepting under favourable cirkumstances. Basically a clever thought, for a dead pilot would not shoot down a plane on the next day.
Although the British did not utilize this in the BoB, they still managed to shoot down more planes than they lost themselves.
All a question of the ultimate goal. The LW produced aces with unparalelled scores, but lost the fight. They'd have lost it anyhow.
As for Mölders, he was outmaneuvered before he was shot down.
Galland also got shot down by a Spitfire;)
Rudorffer got shot down 17 times, Rall got shot down 8 times, and so on....
p.s. Funny how this thread even twisted into the making of cuckoo clocks, hehe.
-
You still haven't answered his question, or refuted his opinion.
"Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience). "
-
His question is pretty open and vague.
In which period 39>40 ,40>43 ,44>45 (to make it simple) ?
In which theater ?
You need to look at war like a whole.
For exemple a single german tank crew can kill 10 T34 it's certainly a great achievement but it serve no purpose if the enemy is able to send 20 T34.
A war is not about killing/disabling enemy units ,it's more draining/killing ressources of the enemy and the German failed to do that.
It's nothing except comptability.
The K4 the Ta152 the 262 are perhaps superb piece of engineering but they have no purpose when you're out of fuel and pilots.
I've a question myself : is it true that the flack victory were added to the total of the LuftWaffe Abschluß ?
-
I think this question is answerd.
Here:
Why were the losses of the allies so high?
Because of the allied method (subduing the enemy at all costs) vs the LW tactics (causing as much attrition to the enemy as possible)
And that does not really count all the years. In 1940, the tables were a bit different, - LW and RAF were pretty even, with LW doing better from jan to may, then the other way around.
In 1940, the LW lost more planes to the RAF than they did on the eastern front in 1944, - that is to say if LW figures are right.
Was it because of better pilot quality? Certainly in the beginning of the war, and certainly for a long time on the eastern front. Same applies to the tactics.
Late war the LW pilot quality was vastly lower, and an average LW pilot no longer a match for a RAF/USAAF pilot of average quality.
Then on to aircraft quality.
The LW was nicely equipped, no doubt about that. Their main escort fighter (109) however had nothing so much in its favour vs. allied interceptors (typically Spitfire), and their Interceptors (190's) had a hard time vs the Allied escort fihters (typically P51). No superiority there at least.
Play it around, 109E vs Hurricane, or 190A vs LAGG-3.......all a matter of setups.
Look better into the ground-jobs done by the airforces.
Did the LW have a ground attacker in the quality of the Tempest, P47 etc, i.e. dual quality? Did they have any heavy worker that hauled 20.000 lbs of bombs? Sure, they had fine planes, but they did definately not excel significantly in many categories in a given timeframe
:D
On to the pilot kill factor.
I think actually, that Scholzie put this spot on:
" NONE of the Allied pilots had the opportunity to amass the same number of kills as their German counterparts did."
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You still haven't answered his question, or refuted his opinion.
"Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
After all, pray tell me if there was other reason why the Allied losses were so high - they outnumbered the Germans in practically every case, yet they lost many times the manpower and equipment in the air. Why, Guppy? Forget all the rest, just answer this single question. My answer is better overall quality (planes, tactics, experience). "
I answered it once, I'll answer again. The LW was on the defensive with the Allies coming to them. Remember that the flak gunners were there too.
Go check the day to day Battle of Britain losses. They are well documented. How many days were there that the RAF suffered more losses then the Luftwaffe from July 1-October 1? Luftwaffe is on the offensive over the RAF's turf where they have Radar etc to help set them up to defend. Flak gunners are on the RAF side. I find 3 days in those 121 where the RAF had more aircraft down and then it was only single digits more. Most days the Luftwaffe was losing many more aircraft then the RAF often twice as many.
Now factor in the LW attacking numbers vs the RAF defending numbers at the same numbers as the Allies had attacking vs LW defending later in the war. Throw in the improvements in Radar technology, the longer ranges etc and how would the LW numbers come out? Would their losses be larger? You bet.
Remember, the comment was better tactics, weapons, experience caused the disparity in losses. Of course since the RAF was an essentially untried force during the B of B and the LW had the tactics, experience and quality, how come they lost more planes?
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, the Allied also bombed the crap out of Germany, raining a whooping million tonnes of bombs over it. The sank their fleets, and DESTROYED the LW down to a rarity level.
A bit costly, but completely effective....
I your wild yet surrealistic fantasies, dear Angie. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I answered it once, I'll answer again. The LW was on the defensive with the Allies coming to them. Remember that the flak gunners were there too.
Except of course the Luftwaffe was on offense between at least 1939-43, and the Allies loss ratio to the Germans was even worser than later on, when the LW was on defense.
Just compare any German ace during BoB vs. any British ace... even the best like Johnson during their whole carreer could not shot down as many planes as Galland or Moelders did in BoB ALONE.
Sadly you can`t put up with the simple fact that these guys were just BETTER than the rest. There were many trainee pilots with JG 52 in 1943. All had the same possibilities, planes, conditions.
Why did only Hartmann emerge as the very best ? Something that your theories can`t asnwer.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Except of course the Luftwaffe was on offense between at least 1939-43, and the Allies loss ratio to the Germans was even worser than later on, when the LW was on defense.
Just compare any German ace during BoB vs. any British ace... even the best like Johnson during their whole carreer could not shot down as many planes as Galland or Moelders did in BoB ALONE.
Sadly you can`t put up with the simple fact that these guys were just BETTER than the rest. There were many trainee pilots with JG 52 in 1943. All had the same possibilities, planes, conditions.
Why did only Hartmann emerge as the very best ? Something that your theories can`t asnwer.
LOL, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then won't we? :)
Short of raising Hartmann, Galland, Malan, Johnson etc from the dead and letting them have at it, we'll never know. It will always be opinion. It is not a fact.
John Dundas shot down 50+ kill LW ace Helmut Wicke. That's a fact. Does that make John Dundas a better fighter pilot? Hard to say. That would be an opinion.
Wicke's wingman shot down Dundas. Fact. Was he the best pilot of the three involved in that engagement? That would be opinion.
Seems to me it was a 9th AF ground attack P47 pilot who downed Galland in a 262. That must make that Jug driver a better pilot right? Considering the difference in experience and the performance gap in aircraft, that Jug driver must be superman to have accomplished that. The conclusion could be drawn he's the best fighter pilot ever. I doubt you'd agree though right? :)
See how it works? So you are entitled to your opinion, and I have mine.
Dan/Slack
-
soccer team A wins 100% of the time
soccer team B wins 70% of the time
wich team is better?
now we add this to the equation
soccer team A only ever played 1 game
soccer team B played 100
now wich team is better
add this to the equation
soccer team A is world class
soccer team B is a farm team
which team is better?
now add this
Team A always played in the best conditions
team B played in the rain on a dirt field without shoes
which team is better now?
and in the end people will still disagree...
-
Hehe...Vorticon...good equation..
And then, Oh dear, Isengrim, why are you so pathetically stupid...
Now you are in for a spanking lesson.
Firstly, get this right. The terrible aircraft-to-aircraft losses sustained by the allies to the dreadful Luftwaffe resulted in the destruction of the Luftwaffe. They also DID shovel a million tonnes or more of bombs over the Reich. The Surface fleet of the Reich (anything bigger than a hide-away) was also sunk or disabled. They also won the war. However, you give this as an argument:
"I your wild yet surrealistic fantasies, dear Angie."
I will debate this into the detail, so:
Please prove me wrong there, you bed-wetting type!:D
Then we move on to your religion.
"Sadly you can`t put up with the simple fact that these guys were just BETTER than the rest. "
So, cirkumstances do have nothing to do with it?
How about Molders vs Malan then?
How about Galland vs an unknown pilot from the Duxford wing then?
How about Galland vs R.S. Tuck then (each one shooting the other ones wingman down, then Galland escaping)?
How about the times Hartmann was shot down. Or Rudorffer? Or Rall? Galland for that sake? Divide their score with it, what do you get?
Well, anyway, let the aces be in peace..for a moment.
Comparing German scores vs. Allied during 1943 must not necessarily be compared with the BoB.
If so, Imagine LW planes attacking targets off N-Scotland, flying from the south over the whole of England. Or rather, normally, cruising over enemy/radar-visible area for roughly 90 minutes....EACH WAY. And possibly in DAYLIGHT! Sustained!
The LW NEVER got far enough to mount anything into that direction. You simply cannot really discuss any topic in this direction anyway without looking at the setup. The best of LW bomber offensive was hopping over a channel of gliding-distance, loosing more than the gain. Learning from that, they managed to nibble nicely at the allied bombers cruising many times the distance over LW territory.
But of course. You have been seen manipulating things into your favour, many times it is said. The recent thing I recall is the cockpit view thingie, I am sure you remember. If not, Straffo will provide a link :D
Conclusion:
Were the LW aircraft better?
Depending on time and category, sometimes, and sometimes not.
And:
Were the LW pilots better?
Overall, in the beginning, YES.
Average from 1943 or so onwards...NO
At the war's end: A handful of very skilful aces, but no proper strength of experienced pilots.
Total result:
No Kriegsmarine, No LW, No Wehrmacht to speak of.....
-
Total result:
No Kriegsmarine, No LW, No Wehrmacht to speak of.....
And Germany nothing but rubble.
Angus, after the BoB and the Blitz, the only German activety in the West was defensive and the odd nusance raid.
Nothing like some spring skiing for a week.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Sadly you can`t put up with the simple fact that these guys were just BETTER than the rest.
Heh heh. You never replied to my earlier post. I'm still not convinced that these guys were just better in their own minds.
- oldman
-
I don't think that on average, any German pilot with the same experience as an allied pilot is any better. However, it's hard to dispute the simple fact that the longer you fly and more experience you have, the better you'll get. Luftwaffe pilots flew until death or the war's end. Some of the aces fought for the full 6 year duration of the war.
So, it's tough for me to believe that by 1945, these guys weren't the best of the best.
Remember, as we see in Aces High every day, even the best of the best get shot down by lesser pilots sometimes. Nobody is invincible. Also, I believe of the German aces who were downed several times, the number one cause was ground fire.
-
Quite some allied pilots had about the same operational flight hours as even the German aces.
However, many of those flew a multi-hour sortie after sortie without even seeing an enemy. Tedious work.
The late war German pilots on the other hand, had plenty of targets. They were too few, and knew so. There would be no stopping of the allied offence by sheer force. They would not be able to intercept every attack. They would not be able to stop anything. The only chance was in staying alive and causing as much damage as possible. So, the tactic was basically to engage only under favourable conditions. Those conditions could be set up nicely in cases when allied bombers cruised within German airspace and radar for as much as 2 hours.
Therefor, I don't have much doubts about their combat claims.
The bulk of allied pilots never even saw as many enemy aircraft as were downed by the German top aces.
However, this has nothing to do with pilot or plane quality, as long as the quality factor is within acceptable limits.
You may wonder how many aircraft the LW lost in Poland and France. If my memory serves me, they lost more than they claimed in Poland! I'll look it up.
-
this one! prove me wrong!
(http://www.1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2472.jpg)
-
Why were the losses of the allies so high?
Because of the allied method (subduing the enemy at all costs) vs the LW tactics (causing as much attrition to the enemy as possible)
These... "methods"?... "Subduing the enemy at all costs" - were the Allies so blatantly stupid, to choose a method
And that does not really count all the years. In 1940, the tables were a bit different, - LW and RAF were pretty even, with LW doing better from jan to may, then the other way around.
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.
Late war the LW pilot quality was vastly lower, and an average LW pilot no longer a match for a RAF/USAAF pilot of average quality.
Correct, however the thing you forget is that it wasn`t the avarage pilot scoring most of the kills. In each airforce, it was the elite, the tip of the iceberg, that made most kills and victories, while the rest was more like assisting in that.
Then on to aircraft quality.
The LW was nicely equipped, no doubt about that. Their main escort fighter (109) however had nothing so much in its favour vs. allied interceptors (typically Spitfire), and their Interceptors (190's) had a hard time vs the Allied escort fihters (typically P51).
Probably you should start understanding the definitions first... Both the 109 and 190s were interceptors, the 109 was never designed to be an "escort fighter".
The Spitfire was not a typical fighter of the RAF as was the the 109 in the LW. The majority of the RAF fighters were Hurris, much inferior in performance to the typical LW fighter, the Bf 109E.
And this legacy was carried on - the RAF could always fielded new types of Spit with apprx. equal quality to the actual 109s, though less successfully in 1941-42. What the RAF could never do, was to match the avarage quality of LW fighters. The 109F, G, later Gs and K become widespread in the LW very quickly, but faced usually older types of Spits - 109F was common, and typicall faced Hurris and SpitVs, the 109G/190A was common, and typically faced Spit Vs, the Mark IX being far from being widespread in 1943.. it become the backbone by 1944, but then again it faced those 109Gs and Ks with much superior performance at altitude, the Mk XIV appearing only in meaningless numbers with a handful of squadrons, and even then, some were STILL flying the MkV, that was hopelessly outclassed for 2 years by then...
It appears that during the war, the RAF could compete with the best designs of the LW in quality, but failed to bring those quality aircraft onto the battlefield in numbers.
Look better into the ground-jobs done by the airforces.
Did the LW have a ground attacker in the quality of the Tempest, P47 etc, i.e. dual quality?
I guess you would have to do a bit of reading before coming here... first of all, neither the Tempest, Typhoon, nor the P-47 was designed to be a "ground-attacker". They were designed to be short ranged fighters initially, and were more or less a failure in that, that`s why they become primarly ground attackers.
They were not very fit for that, neither having the neccesary armament, and practically lacked any kind of armor needed for that role - their capabilities were rather limited, nothing comparable to REAL ground pounders. An ad hoc solutions at best, fighter bombers. Everybody fielded fighter bombers, Angie, that`s merely a fighter with a bombrack attached to it.
Otherwise, the LW, and the VVS had plenty of specialized ground pounders - FW 190 series, that carried the largest payload for a single engined fighter, for that matter... Il-2, Stukas, Hs 129.. these were all well armored, and had the specialized armament type absolutely neccesary for the task.
Grab your seat, Angie, the Allies never did have a real ground pounder/anti tank a/c. The P-47, Typhoon, Tempest was not such thing. The Hurricane w 40mm cannon was probably the best they have come up - hardly widespread.
So the question really is, did the Allies had anything comparable to the Stuka, Hs 129, FW 190F/G ? Did they fielded special anti tank armament in widespread service like the Germans (and Soviets) did?
Did they have any heavy worker that hauled 20.000 lbs of bombs?
Well, they didn`t, neither did the Allies for that matter, except if you count the B-29, which wasn`t widespread by any means, appearing only late in the PTO. Otherswise, the He 177 was, technically speaking, a better aircraft than any of the Allied heavy bombers in ETO. Faster, carrying more payload to equal or greater range (7.2 ton), having strong defense armament (unlike RAF heavies for example). So yes, they were competitive, technically, but it never become as widespread. German medium bombers, on the other hand, were the best of the war with heavier bombload than typical on Allied mediums - the total tonnage they dropped was comparable to the Allies, who had more and heavier bombers.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And then, Oh dear, Isengrim, why are you so pathetically stupid...
Now you are in for a spanking lesson.
Please prove me wrong there, you bed-wetting type!:D
Angie, what is the highest level of education you have completed? I guess you will not answer that question. :D
Firstly, get this right. The terrible aircraft-to-aircraft losses sustained by the allies to the dreadful Luftwaffe resulted in the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
LW strenght:
1940 : ~4000 planes
1943 : ~6000 planes
1945 : ~8000 planes
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. :p Not really surprising, considering they were mostly bombing empty fields in Germany.
So, cirkumstances do have nothing to do with it?
How about Molders vs Malan then?
Moelders shot down 25 Spitfires. How many 109s did Malan actually shot down?
How about Galland vs an unknown pilot from the Duxford wing then?
How about Galland vs R.S. Tuck then (each one shooting the other ones wingman down, then Galland escaping)?
Moelders shot down 50 Spitfires. How many 109s did Tuck actually shot down? Or the guy that doesn`t even have a name ?
You want to make the exception a rule.
How about the times Hartmann was shot down. Or Rudorffer? Or Rall? Galland for that sake? Divide their score with it, what do you get?
Let`s try Hartmann`s example.
Hartmann scored 352 victories.
He was shot down 0 times.
AFAIK, by math theory, this means Hartmann had an infinitive number of kills (divide by zero).
If so, Imagine LW planes attacking targets off N-Scotland, flying from the south over the whole of England. Or rather, normally, cruising over enemy/radar-visible area for roughly 90 minutes....EACH WAY. And possibly in DAYLIGHT! Sustained!
The LW NEVER got far enough to mount anything into that direction.
Simple because they never needed bombing Scotland..
Why? Possible reasons :
a, England was finished off as a threat at Dunkirk. Simple as it is, they were not a real threat any longer. Yes, Winnie to Pooh could make up fantasies about the 1000-year British Empire, and speak very bravely in the BBC while being drunk, but that doesn`t change the fact after 1940 Britain was not, and never would be, in a position to challange the Germans, or disturb them significantly. Why keep flogging a dead horse? An extra hundred thousend dead Brits wouldn`t change anything, it wouldn`t make the British position any worser than it already was. It would be stupid decision from the Germans to waste resources on a country they already beaten beyond the possiblity of recovery.
b, And of course, there`s nothing in the whole of Scotland that would worth to be bombed - except for Scapa Flow, which WAS bombed, reconed on a regular basis.
You simply cannot really discuss any topic in this direction anyway without looking at the setup. The best of LW bomber offensive was hopping over a channel of gliding-distance, loosing more than the gain.
Could the RAF ever stop the LW`s bombers...? No... Did those bombers reached their target, bombed it at will ? Yes.
But of course. You have been seen manipulating things into your favour, many times it is said.
So you are not only stupid, but also a liar.
The recent thing I recall is the cockpit view thingie, I am sure you remember. If not, Straffo will provide a link :D
:lol The question was that the Spit had inferior cocpit visibility than the 109 over the nose and wings. This was proven beyond doubt, to anybody, even to Milo. :eek: If Straffo, and you Angie want to make yourself look an even bigger prettythanghat, I have no problems with that. :rofl
-
Isogrim - the master race lost WW2. Get over it.
An extra hundred thousend dead Brits wouldn`t change anything, it wouldn`t make the British position any worser than it already was.
Well 350,000 escaped from Dunkirk... and then, rearmed and with the help of the US, proceeded to kick the Germans out of Africa, Italy and France and all the way to Berlin.
Yes, Winnie to Pooh could make up fantasies about the 1000-year British Empire, and speak very bravely in the BBC...
So Lord Haw-Haw, are you some kind of admirer of Dr Goebbels? The slurs on Churchill by Hitler, weren't funny in the 1940s - they are just pathetic now.
So, my question for you is - did the right side win WW2?
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
This was proven beyond doubt, to anybody, even to Milo. :eek: If Straffo, and you Angie want to make yourself look an even bigger prettythanghat, I have no problems with that. :rofl
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
-
Actually what I should have said was:
The Germans lost the War for Democracy, Humanity and Freedom. Get over it.
-
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. :cool:
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...
-
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.
-
Banned for what, and who, Troll ? Like for calling others a Nazi ?
-
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?
-
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 :D
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......
-
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?:D
What is 'on hand' and what is 'capable of combat'(sevicable) is two seperate categories.
-
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 :D
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
On hand and what were capable of combat are NOT the same Barbi.:rolleyes:
~55,000 Me109s and Fw190s produced but only 1462 capable of flying missions in Jan 1945.:eek: 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
-
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? :D
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.
-
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.....
-
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.:aok
-
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.
And the other bridges? Allied victory(British XXX Corps).:) 9 days to defeat lightly armed Allied soldiers against German troops with years of battle experience, and 23% of the soldiers escaped.
Should Stalingrad be mentioned? A whole German Army destroyed.:eek:
Crete, a wholesale wasted German effort. Stopped the invasion of Malta. LOL, the Germans could not even stop the re-supply of Malta.:eek:
No, it killed a lot more.
Over several centuries and in different times and not so deliberately. Unlike the Germans and its allies which did their deliberate killing in only a few very short years.:eek:
-
OK, give me one example where the British Empire killed 6 million people, started a war that killed 20 million+ all within 6 years. Try as you might to paint the BE as the Third Reich, I'm afraid you'll fail. Even going to the extremes of talking about slavery etc gets you nowhere - they were global norms at the time. Now exporting people like cattle to be murdered has never been a norm - congratulations to your blonde friends for inventing that one!
The camps in the Boer war were more like refugee camps - plenty of people went there to escape the fighting. The problem was poor organisation and sanitation, and an unresponsive government thousands of miles away. Hardly Auschwitz. An indefensible oversight, but the result was not the desired one. Public pressure after the reports got back to Britain changed the policy entirely.
Public pressure in Nazi Germany would bring what? A knock on the door at 2am by jack booted minions and a one way trip to Dachau? Did that happen in Britain too?
Austro-Hungary is the generic term I'm using for the two countries... I'm sure that is not too hard to understand.
I don`t care much about the Germans.
Who are you trying to kid?
So how do you feel about the holocaust? Exaggerated half-truth or full blown myth? What is the current thinking among master race obsessives?
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Originally posted by Angus
How about the times Hartmann was shot down. Or Rudorffer? Or Rall? Galland for that sake? Divide their score with it, what do you get?
Let`s try Hartmann`s example.
Hartmann scored 352 victories.
He was shot down 0 times.
AFAIK, by math theory, this means Hartmann had an infinitive number of kills (divide by zero).[/B]
Well, except for the fact that Erich Hartmann was shot down sixteen times, your logic is flawless.
Wait -- that's a flaw, isn't it? Then that means your line of reasoning is chock full of manure here, right?
Remember, being shot down does not equate to being killed. Being shot down ended the careers of most Allied pilots in Europe once the Allied bombing offensive started, because if they were shot down, they were almost always captured and put in prison camps (as happened the other way during the Battle of Britain), but they weren't necessarily killed when shot down. Hartmann either landed in friendly territory or was able to make his way back to friendly territory after each time he was shot down.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
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.
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.:aok
Might want to lighten up on the cheapshots to American
airborne forces there chum. The 101st did just fine at Bastogne
with very limited logistics and facing alot more troops.
Not to take anything away from the valiant Brits at Arnhem,
they performed magnificently.
Rino
-
Originally posted by Rino
Might want to lighten up on the cheapshots to American
airborne forces there chum. The 101st did just fine at Bastogne
with very limited logistics and facing alot more troops.
Not to take anything away from the valiant Brits at Arnhem,
they performed magnificently.
Rino
i wasnt bashing them that much, but then i suppose my post did kinda seem that way, sorry ...but at the time of market garden, the 101st wasnt really elite force that paras are made out to be. The 82nd was good having fought as a force for a bit longer. Was just trying to say i think the British paras did a great job of lasting more than a week without supplys and dropped way over extended.
I think the only real reason market garden failed was down to not enough troop transport planes for the size of the plan....
and the fact the plan was found by the germans who then filled the landing fields with MG's so the later drops was mowed down.
Isegrim seems to think EVERYthing the allies did was inferior to what the Germans did, sure the 109 was great (which is what this topic WAS about) but its turned into everything non German was crap which is simply not true......:eek:
-
Originally posted by Overlag
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.
Wasn't it the 101st Airborne who ferried the Brits across the Rhine to safety?
Moreover, the 101st with elements of the 10th Armored CCB (little more than battalion strength) and the 9th's CCR held Bastogne for 8 days much of it in below freezing and even sub-zero temperatures. They went into the line with zero heavy equipment. Since they came straight from a R&R camp, as many as 20% didn't even have rifles (turned in to armorers for repair).
The Germans threw two Panzer Divisions and two Infantry Divisions against the 101st and failed to break into the city. Don't you remember Brig. Gen. McAuliffe's reply to German demands that he surrender the city? The Germans received a one-word reply in writing; "Nuts!".
The 101st was a tough as any Airborne unit on earth, bar none.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Wasn't it the 101st Airborne who ferried the Brits across the Rhine to safety?
Moreover, the 101st with elements of the 10th Armored CCB (little more than battalion strength) and the 9th's CCR held Bastogne for 8 days much of it in below freezing and even sub-zero temperatures. They went into the line with zero heavy equipment. Since they came straight from a R&R camp, as many as 20% didn't even have rifles (turned in to armorers for repair).
The Germans threw two Panzer Divisions and two Infantry Divisions against the 101st and failed to break into the city. Don't you remember Brig. Gen. McAuliffe's reply to German demands that he surrender the city? The Germans received a one-word reply in writing; "Nuts!".
The 101st was a tough as any Airborne unit on earth, bar none.
My regards,
Widewing
arrg your all taking my comment of them not lasting as long way to far.
i DIDNT say they was crap :(
-
Originally posted by Overlag
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.
Britain had some help in North Africa... remember Operation Torch?
When did the Brits take Caen? The British 3rd Division failed to reach their D-Day objective.... Had they moved their bustles a bit, they could have taken Caen before the 21st Panzer got there.
I'll not take any credit away from the Brits, God knows they fought like demons for two years before the U.S. was even involved. I have nothing but the highest regard for the armed forces of Great Britain. I do believe that Montgomery was Britain's version of Gen. George McClellan (research that for an interesting comparison).
Adam, I urge you to research a bit deeper about those claims when arguing with these guys... They will fall on any error and use it try and prove that the Master Race was really the "way, the truth and the light".
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Overlag
arrg your all taking my comment of them not lasting as long way to far.
i DIDNT say they was crap :(
And it's a good thing you didn't!!! LOLOL
I'm not bashing you Adam, just correcting misconception.
Here's a neat little story about the 82nd Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge. The 82nd was tossed in just like 101st, IE: Unprepared.
Lt. Will Rogers jr. (son of the famous American humorist) was headed west from Stavelot with two Shermans, several trucks and jeeps and perhaps 70 troops. As they drove down the road they came upon a GI wearing the 82nd patch on his sleeve, digging a foxhole alongside a bend in the road. Stopping his small force, Roger's asked the GI what he was doing.
Holding up his Bazooka, the GI replied; "Well Sir, I'm digging me a proper position."
"What unit are you with?" asked Rogers.
"I'm the 82nd Airborne Sir, and (pointing to his hole) this is as far as those bastards are going."
A big grin broke across Rogers' face. He turned to the tank commander and said; "pull these tanks in behind that man's position and deploy the men on both sides of the road".
For the record, that was as far as those bastards got.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Was not 21 Pz already in the area of Caen? They made a counter attack in the afternoon. Caen was ~7 miles from the 'beach'.
Must dig into Estes' D-Day book.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
And it's a good thing you didn't!!! LOLOL
I'm not bashing you Adam, just correcting misconception.
Here's a neat little story about the 82nd Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge. The 82nd was tossed in just like 101st, IE: Unprepared.
Lt. Will Rogers jr. (son of the famous American humorist) was headed west from Stavelot with two Shermans, several trucks and jeeps and perhaps 70 troops. As they drove down the road they came upon a GI wearing the 82nd patch on his sleeve, digging a foxhole alongside a bend in the road. Stopping his small force, Roger's asked the GI what he was doing.
Holding up his Bazooka, the GI replied; "Well Sir, I'm digging me a proper position."
"What unit are you with?" asked Rogers.
"I'm the 82nd Airborne Sir, and (pointing to his hole) this is as far as those bastards are going."
A big grin broke across Rogers' face. He turned to the tank commander and said; "pull these tanks in behind that man's position and deploy the men on both sides of the road".
For the record, that was as far as those bastards got.....
My regards,
Widewing
i know all about the bulge... i had my history teacher talk about it 2 hours a week for 3 years as if HE was there :lol
oh and about the Dday objectives...i think it was only the candanians that done theres infact? lol
or maybe i ment the british airbourne forces was the only ones to compleat objectives...... :confused: lol
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Was not 21 Pz already in the area of Caen? They made a counter attack in the afternoon. Caen was ~7 miles from the 'beach'.
Must dig into Estes' D-Day book.
yes and no...they was closer than the brits was to it (at the beach). Taking of caen was overoptimistic, but WAS possible as it would have been relativitly lightly defended until they the 21pz got there, supprise was on the Brits side...
(please ignore my spelling errors, im still flying as i type lol)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Was not 21 Pz already in the area of Caen? They made a counter attack in the afternoon. Caen was ~7 miles from the 'beach'.
Must dig into Estes' D-Day book.
It was nearby, but utterly unprepared for battle on short notice. Elements of the division didn't even begine moving towards Caen until 1PM.
Grandmothers with walkers could have made it to Caen before 1PM. Typical of the lethergy that plagued the Brits in Normandy, they simply didn't get their show on the road fast enough.
John Barrett wrote of this lack of motivation.
"If 3rd Division was to reach its planned objectives for the day, both speed and a willingness to take risks were essential. Unfortunately neither were apparent. The congestion was probably inevitable, but both commanders and troops displayed a lack of urgency which still further reduced chances of success. The 3rd Division had seen no action since Dunkirk, and their training had emphasised the initial landing at the expense of follow-up operations.
As a result, the troops, and their senior commanders, were so relieved at the relatively light casualties suffered in the first stages of the landing, that their reaction was to halt and consolidate what they had gained against probable counterattack rather than press quickly onwards to exploit it.
The problem was demonstrated not only by the South Lancs at Hermanville and Periers Rise, but also by the Brigade reserve, the 1st Suffolk, which , despite light resistance, made heavy weather of capturing the village of Colleville and clearing the two nearby German strongpoints codenamed "Morris" and Hillman". It would be late in the day before any real progress was made here; not only had 3rd Brigade failed to link up with the Canadians to the west, they had also not made contact with 6th Airborne, under increasingly heavy pressure east of the Orne.
It was not until about 1pm that the advance on Caen, the main objective of the day, began. The mission was assigned to 185 Brigade, consisting of three battalions - 2nd King's Shropshire Light Infantry (KSLI), which was to thrust down the main road from Hermanville to Caen, supported on the flanks by the 2nd Warwicks and 1st Norfolks."
Caen was ripe for the taking, if someone had made the effort. As it was, 21st Panzer took a serious beating, first from Allied fighter-bombers, then from Brit anti-tank guns, which caught them in the open.
The Brits fought very well, once their commanders got their forces moving. Problem was they took the better part of the day to do so.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Arnhem failed, but it was a long shot anyway, also hampered with lots of bad luck. However, if my memory serves me, the Germans lost roughly the same amount of soldiers there, which is amazing.
The Bulge was another thing, but if the same memory serves me, the Germans lost more people there than the US. They also failed in their objective.
In N-Africa there was a while untill the Brits got the hang of it. The key to victory was Malta. Crete was lost, but the Germans realized that it was a Phyrric victory. (Sp?) With Malta, the Allies could hold their supply line, although it was a very long road compared to the Axis line. They could also seriously threaten the Axis supply line from Malta, but it must be said that the Italian merchant navy did an amazing job there.
The most crucial engagement in N-Africa was presumably El-Alamein, where the Brits had a total victory. Gerries for breakfast really. After that, Axis were on the run, and at the final mopping up at the end of Torch, there were 300.000+ Axis POW's.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
i wasnt bashing them that much, but then i suppose my post did kinda seem that way, sorry ...but at the time of market garden, the 101st wasnt really elite force that paras are made out to be. The 82nd was good having fought as a force for a bit longer. Was just trying to say i think the British paras did a great job of lasting more than a week without supplys and dropped way over extended.
I think the only real reason market garden failed was down to not enough troop transport planes for the size of the plan....
and the fact the plan was found by the germans who then filled the landing fields with MG's so the later drops was mowed down.
Isegrim seems to think EVERYthing the allies did was inferior to what the Germans did, sure the 109 was great (which is what this topic WAS about) but its turned into everything non German was crap which is simply not true......:eek:
I think the real reason Market Garden failed was actually a
pair of reasons, poor intel on the panzer divisions and trying to
force XXX corp down one road to relieve the paras.
-
Britain had some help in North Africa... remember Operation Torch?
Not at El Alamein. The groundwork the British had laid in preparation for dealing a killing blow had taken the previous couple of years. The destruction of the Italian fleet at Tarranto (the remnants of which then turned tail and headed North to Naples) meant the England-Gibralter-Malta-Alexandria convoys could continue to supply North African forces. Additionally, the holding of Malta with a bunch of clapped out biplanes in the early days was crucial to the harrassment of Axis supply lines which eventually strangled Rommel's forces. El Alamein saw the first deployment of Shermans, and after that was won (by British forces), the US became involved with the Torch landings and the resulting pincer movement.
The Battle for the Med was a predominantly British victory, and if it had been lost - and it was a pretty close run thing - the whole war might have been lost.
-
Talking about El Alamein and paratroopers, one name:
Folgore !!
-
Originally posted by Rino
I think the real reason Market Garden failed was actually a
pair of reasons, poor intel on the panzer divisions and trying to
force XXX corp down one road to relieve the paras.
yup the british knew about them, but didnt tell anyone as it was too late to make a difference. :rolleyes: :(
-
Originally posted by Shiva
Well, except for the fact that Erich Hartmann was shot down sixteen times, your logic is flawless.
Well, then my logic is flawless as you say, because Hartmann was never shot down by any enemy fighter. It`s well known.. so please keep that in mind if you want to compare his fighter vs. fighter score. 352 victories, no defeats.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The camps in the Boer war were more like refugee camps - plenty of people went there to escape the fighting.
A classic form of denial as usual.
Let`s see, the Brits say it was more like "refugee camps", people went their in their "own will to escape the fighting". Possibly that`s why the 15 feet high barbed wire fence and armed guards...
The Boer say the Brits could not cope with Boer guerilla tactics, they tried terrorizing the population, they hung women on their trains as human shields, they went to Boer houses, where the men were gone fighting the invaders, killed their sheep so they have nothing to eat or earn money from, burned down their houses, and forced those women and children them into places located in the worst possible conditions anywhere in Africa, where they died by hunger and illness. The Boers themselves call them "hell camps".
(http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/doodskape2.gif)
Now who is to believe, the killers or the victims ? The sad thing is, he says the same as relativizers of Holocaust...
The problem was poor organisation and sanitation, and an unresponsive government thousands of miles away. Hardly Auschwitz.
Really ? You know, these pictures taken in British concentration camps during the Boer wars REMIND me to the ones of Auschwitz 40 years later.. I don`t put direct links here, because these are some very sad pictures :
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind2.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind1.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind3.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/lillyvzyl.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kis1.gif
Fatality rate was 45% in these "refugee camps" per year. Very comparable to Auswitz, if not worser considering the timescale.
So how do you feel about the holocaust? Exaggerated half-truth or full blown myth? What is the current thinking among master race obsessives?
VERY pathethic try to put me like a Holocaust denier. That would be you. It`s evident from your thoughst about those Boer camps, and your denial of the events there. We don`t need your excuse, you already showed that according you, the Boer Holocaust never happened, it was a "full blown myth". Replacing your words about the words with "WW2" and "Jews" would give a mirror image of those guys that are actively deny the jewish holocaust. It`s pretty distgusting when a Holocaust denier like you accuses others with holocaust denial... your comments about "the master race" in every of your posts is a sign to me that your racist approach does not only limit to Boers only...
To me it appears that the main difference between modern Germany and the UK is that in the former is willing to admit it`s crimes in the past and apologize for them in every possible way. In Britain, it seems the "rule of the white man" is still a very fundamental idea in the society, and denial/relativization of past crimes is a nation-wide characteristic from the lowest to the highest level. I cannot remember the British ever apologizing for what horror happened in those camps. I would not like to make generalisations, and believe that all Brits feel in a shameful way as Dowding does, but I cannot find any good examples. I can only hope I am wrong in that, and there are Brits with the right moral attitude.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
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.
Errr, there was no dreaded "heavy armor divisions taking a rest from the Eastern front"... that appeared later, but when the British landed, they found 2nd line troops, plus remains of some Pz units, who basically lost all their armor during the retreat from France, tired, and waiting to be refitted, reorganised, and reinforced. Hardly was it like they bumped into some heavy armor right away. It was more like the Germans were very good in improvizing a defense from what ragtag troops they had there, hold the paras at bay until the reinforcements arrive. Did you read Kershaw`s book ? Possibly the best on that battle.
oh and the British didnt win anything? thats laughable, didnt they kick Rommel out of affrica?
I can faintly remember some truely irrevelant American presence there, too. :rolleyes There`s some pitiful aid from those Amis in a form of some 1500 US-made tanks the 8th Army could finally use to get advantage over the Germans (who could deal pretty well with British tanks until then, however even Rommel notes the Sherman was better than the tanks he got from the HCommand). Not to mention of course the US help alone was some 4 times as many tanks Rommel had on the whole... there`s also an interesting coincidence between a series of British defeats happening in the desert until US supplies arrived. Then things started to change..
Wasnt they the only ones that compleated there D-day objectives?
Your history books must be different than mine... mine tell the Brits were supposed to capture Caem on D-Day or so.
They managed to capture it some.... 1 1/2 months later ? And they were still near the beach when the Americans managed to break through the bocage, the Brits supposed to encircle the Germans at Falaise, but they failed and 2/3s of them got through.
BTW, that`s not the funny part about it. Things not always happen in war as it was planned... in any army. The funny is to read Monty`s memoir about his failings, he always says "oh, nevermind, that`s EXACTLY how I wanted it to be". :eek:
Didnt they wipe out the German surface fleet on there own?
I think you are exxegerating it quite a bit.
Didnt they WIN the BOB? Air superiority over Europe maybe, but over the UK, NO.
Sure. But don`t you think the whole continent is a bit larger than the isles? Don`t you think air superiority maintained over the continent when outnumber by a factor of 3-4 isn`t really that of a bad achievement?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Arnhem failed, but it was a long shot anyway, also hampered with lots of bad luck. However, if my memory serves me, the Germans lost roughly the same amount of soldiers there, which is amazing.
They lost about 1/3rd.
The Bulge was another thing, but if the same memory serves me, the Germans lost more people there than the US.
Roughl 80-80 000 on both sides, more tanks lost on the US side.
Crete was lost, but the Germans realized that it was a Phyrric victory.
Well, only Churchill managed to "realize" that in his book. Can`t remember ever reading such opinion from the German side. Factually, the Germans succeeded in kicking the Brits out of the Balkans, secure the Ploiesti oil fields from air attacks. The Royal Navy took some heavy losses in process, and was forced to retreat to Egypt, and not much later it was practically neutrilzed by LW, Uboot, and Italian commando attacks.
BTW, the definition for Pyrhussian victory is loosing more than the enemy despite the victory. I can`t see how this applies to Crete : the Germans lost some 6000 men out of about 16 000, the Brits lost some 16-18 000 out of 32 000 they had, plus hundreds in form of the RN losses and ships sunk.
The most crucial engagement in N-Africa was presumably El-Alamein, where the Brits had a total victory.
Well, total victory would be something to crush the Afrika Korps. In that they didn`t succeed, the DAK retreated in order, and lossess in manpower weren`t serious (save for the Italians...).
The Allies lost some 700 tanks, and despite they had very good chance destroying the DAK (they were much better motorized and mobile), they failed - mostly because of Monty`s inability to grab the opportunity and behave aggressively. Despite he outnumber the German troops by almost 9 to 1 (30 000 Germans, 40 000 Italians vs. some quarter million brits, plus reserves..). Tanks, some 230 German (+250 Italian, but those... well.. ;) ). 1300 Brits tanks, many hundred from US production..
Well, I wonder what would happened if the two armies would swap commanders. :cool:
-
Let`s see, the Brits say it was more like "refugee camps", people went their in their "own will to escape the fighting". Possibly that`s why the 15 feet high barbed wire fence and armed guards...
At the Boer congress in Vereeninging in 1902 the Boer leaders complained bitterly because the British would no longer take their families into the camps.
The Boer say the Brits could not cope with Boer guerilla tactics, they tried terrorizing the population, they hung women on their trains as human shields,
I've asked for the source for this several times in the past, and never got it. Ashamed to post the site it comes from? It must be bad if it's worse than boer.co.za
they went to Boer houses, where the men were gone fighting the invaders, killed their sheep so they have nothing to eat or earn money from, burned down their houses, and forced those women and children them into places located in the worst possible conditions anywhere in Africa, where they died by hunger and illness.
Which of course was still pretty much standard tactics for western armies as late as the Vietnam war, with "protected villages".
The difference between the Boer war and German tactics during the second world war is that the British destroyed houses and villages in areas to deny support to the partisans, the Germans murdered litteraly millions by not just destroying the villages but killing the inhabitants.
And as to illness, nearly all the victims in the camps were children. I dread to think what infant mortality was in turn of the century Africa was to begin with. It's worth noting that 4 times as many British soldiers died of disease as Boer women in the camps.
Really ? You know, these pictures taken in British concentration camps during the Boer wars REMIND me to the ones of Auschwitz 40 years later.. I don`t put direct links here, because these are some very sad pictures :
Any pictures of the firing squads, gas showers, prisoners being hung with barbed wire, medical experiments etc that were the standard practice of the Germans during the war?
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind2.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind1.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind3.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/lillyvzyl.gif
http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kis1.gif
Fatality rate was 45% in these "refugee camps" per year. Very comparable to Auswitz, if not worser considering the timescale
Nice site Isegrim, a bunch of neo Nazis.
Some quotes from your source on the "history" of the Boer war:
Moreover, proportionately fewer Jews were killed than Boer women and children during the Second War of Independence.
More neo Nazi holocaust denial.
According to the Simon Wiesenthal centre, approx 9,700,000 Jews lived in countries overrun by the Nazis. Nearly 6 million of those were killed. That's a death rate of 60% of the TOTAL Jewish population.
The British took around 120,000 Boer civilians into camps, approx 25,000 died. That's a lower death rate in the camps than of the TOTAL Jewish population. The death rate amongst Boer civilians as a percentage of the total population was around 10%, compared to 60% for Jews.
Yet, after World War 2, England mercilessly insisted on a frantic retribution campaign against the whole German nation for the Jewish holocaust. To this day, Germany is being forced to pay annual compensation to the Jews, which means that Germans who were not even born at the time of World War 2, still have to suffer today for alleged atrocities committed by the Germans.
Alleged atrocities?
Should England subject herself to the same principles applied to Germany, then England must do everything within her power to reinstitute the Boer republics and to pay annual compensation to the Boerevolk for the atrocities committed against the Boerevolk.
This is code for bringing back Apartheid.
England's pretence for the invasion was the rights of the foreign miners. Yet after the war, these very same miners were treated so badly by their English and Jewish bosses
There you go, the Boer war is the fault of not just the English but the Jews as well
:rolleyes:
Yet, after World War 2, England mercilessly insisted on a frantic retribution campaign against the whole German nation for the purported Jewish holocaust
Purported holocaust?
This is the sort of neo Nazi rubbish Isegrim quotes.
-
Really ? You know, these pictures taken in British concentration camps during the Boer wars REMIND me to the ones of Auschwitz 40 years later.. I don`t put direct links here, because these are some very sad pictures
really?
at Burchenwald
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/buchenwald/images/buchenwald03.jpg
at Auschwitz
http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49276/docs/auschwitz/bilder/corps.jpg
at Mauthausen
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Liberation_of_the_Western_Conc/bodies.jpg
at Gusen
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Liberation_of_the_Western_Conc/bodiesgusen.jpg
A list of concentration camps
* Germany:
o Bergen-Belsen (probably 2 sub-camps but location is unknown)
o Börgermoor (no sub-camp known)
o Buchenwald ( 174 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Dachau (123 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Dieburg (no sub-camp known)
o Esterwegen (1 sub-camp)
o Flossenburg (94 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Gundelsheim (no sub-camp known)
o Neuengamme (96 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Papenburg (no sub-camp known)
o Ravensbruck (31 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Sachsenhausen (44 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Sachsenburg (no sub-camp known)
* Austria:
o Mauthausen (49 sub-camps and external kommandos)
* Belgium:
o Breendonck (no sub-camp known )
* Czechoslovakia:
o Theresienstadt (9 sub-camps)
* Estonia:
o Vivara
* Finland:
o Kangasjarvi
o Koveri
* France:
o Argeles
o Aurigny
o Brens
o Drancy (click here for more information about this camp)
o Gurs
o Les Milles
o Le Vernet
o Natzweiler-Struthof (70 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Noé
o Récébédou
o Rieucros
o Rivesaltes
o Suresnes
o Thill
+ for these camps, no sub-camp known
Work camps created by the Government of Vichy in Maroco and Algeria. Following the Atlas of the Holocaust by Martin Gilbert, thousands of jews were sent to these camps by the French pro-nazi government of Petain:
o Abadla
o Ain el Ourak
o Bechar
o Berguent
o Bogari
o Bouarfa
o Djelfa
o Kenadsa
o Meridja
o Missour
o Tendrara
* Holland:
o Amersfoort
o Ommen
o Vught (12 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Westerbork (transit camp - click here for more information about this camp)
* Italy:
o Bolzano
o Fossoli
o Risiera di San Sabba (no sub-camp known)
* Lattvia
o Riga
o Riga-Kaiserwald
o Dundaga
o Eleje-Meitenes
o Jungfernhof
o Lenta
o Spilwe
* Lithuania
o Kaunas
o Aleksotaskowno
o Palemonas
o Pravieniskès
o Volary
* Norway:
o Baerum
o Berg
o Bredtvet
o Falstadt
o Tromsdalen
o Ulven
* Poland:
o Auschwitz/Birkenau - Oswiecim-Brzezinka (extermination camp - 51 sub-camps)
o Belzec (extermination camp - 1 sub-camp)
o Bierznow
o Biesiadka
o Dzierzazna & Litzmannstadt (These two camps were "Jugenverwahrlage", children camps. Hundreds of children and teenagers considered as not good enough to be "Germanized" were transfered to these places - see our article about the Lebensborn - and later sent to the extermination canters)
o Gross-Rosen - Rogoznica (77 sub-camps)
o Huta-Komarowska
o Janowska
o Krakow
o Kulmhof - Chelmno (extermination camp - no sub-camp known)
o Lublin (prison - no sub-camp known)
o Lwow (Lemberg)
+ Czwartaki
+ Lemberg
o Majdanek (extermination camp - 3 sub-camps)
o Mielec
o Pawiak (prison - no sub-camp known)
o Plaszow (work camp but became later sub-camp of Majdanek)
o Poniatowa
o Pustkow (work camp - no sub-camp known)
o Radogosz (prison - no sub-camp known)
o Radom
o Schmolz
o Schokken
o Sobibor (extermination camp - no sub-camp known)
o Stutthof - Sztutowo (40 sub-camps and external kommandos)
o Treblinka (extermination camp - no sub-camp known)
o Wieliczka
o Zabiwoko (work camp - no sub-camp known)
o Zakopane
* Russia: (The real number of concentration and extermination camps established in occupied Soviet Union by the Nazies is unknown. The following list contains the name of the major camps. Some of these camps were under Romanian control; e.g. Akmétchetka or Bogdanovka where 54,000 were executed between December 21th and December 31th, 1941)
o Akmétchetka
o Balanowka
o Bar
o Bisjumujsje
o Bogdanovka
o "Citadelle" (The real name of this camp is unknown. The camp was located near Lvov. Thousands of Russian POWs were killed in this camp)
o Czwartaki
o Daugavpils
o Domanievka
o Edineti
o Kielbasin (or Kelbassino)
o Khorol
o Klooga
o Lemberg
o Mezjapark
o Ponary
o Rawa-Russkaja
o Salapils
o Strazdumujsje
o Yanowski
o Vertugen
(for all these camps, no sub-camp known).
* Yougoslavia:
o Banjica
o Brocice
o Chabatz
o Danica
o Dakovo
o Gornja reka
o Gradiska
o Jadovno
o Jasenovac
o Jastrebarsko
o Kragujevac
o Krapje
o Kruscica
o Lepoglava
o Loborgrad
o Sajmite
o Sisak
o Slano
o Slavonska-Pozega
o Stara-Gradiska
o Tasmajdan
o Zemun
+ (for all these camps, no sub-camp known).
http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/index.html
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Well, then my logic is flawless as you say, because Hartmann was never shot down by any enemy fighter. It`s well known.. so please keep that in mind if you want to compare his fighter vs. fighter score. 352 victories, no defeats.
Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't see where you specified, in the text "Erich Hartmann scored 352 victories. He was shot down 0 times." you had written "by fighters". What? It wasn't there? Then quit trying to pull the "what I meant was..." game and admit that you screwed up.
And if my copy of The Blond Knight of Germany hadn't decided to go AWOL, I'd call you on your "...by fighters" amendment, too. He was downed by a collision with a LaGG-3 on 25 May 1943; if I had all my resources, I expect that I would be able to refute your amended claim as well.
-
Actually Hartmann was shot down 16 times, but he survived them all. On the other hand he never lost a wingman.
... Oh, and btw. you're all morons for continuing this senseless debate.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... Oh, and btw. you're all morons for continuing this senseless debate.
GScholz, I believe you and I may have common ground, after all.
- oldman
-
At the Boer congress in Vereeninging in 1902 the Boer leaders complained bitterly because the British would no longer take their families into the camps.
Naswhan states that the Boer leaders even asked for their families to be mass murdered...
You are one really sick person.
Which of course was still pretty much standard tactics for western armies as late as the Vietnam war, with "protected villages".
That doesn`t make it any less of a crime - typical relativisation attempt from one of the most notorious online apologists.
"Protected villages"? The Mai Lai Messarcre comes to mind, a whole village was razed, all inhabitants killed. Wasn`t a single case either. But that doesn saves British guilt of the Boer war, for which the British goverment, the British queen, and some of the population REFUSES to apologize, in fact, some of them outright deny it happened.
The difference between the Boer war and German tactics during the second world war is that the British destroyed houses and villages in areas to deny support to the partisans, the Germans murdered litteraly millions by not just destroying the villages but killing the inhabitants.
The British deliberately killed hundreds of thousends of civillians during WW2 - French, German, Dutch etc.. They only didn`t kill more because they couldn`t. In fact the British aimed to kill the German civillians, not the soldiers.
Mass terror against civillian population as a way of war was an accepted tradition by the British during the Boer War and WW2. When they failed on the battlefield against able men, they started their sadisctic little games against women and children...
And as to illness, nearly all the victims in the camps were children.
OH, that would make it totally different, right ? "Those little nazi maggots... we sent them to hell for good!" :rolleyes:
You are just utterly distgusting. "They were only children". Geez...
It's worth noting that 4 times as many British soldiers died of disease as Boer women in the camps.
Another distgusting relativization attempt from Nashwan...
"The Welshman, Lloyd George, stated: "The fatality rate of our soldiers on the battlefields, who were exposed to all the risks of war, was 52 per thousand per year, while the fatalities of women and children in the camps were 450 per thousand per year. We have no right to put women and children into such a position."
British soldier`s fatality rate, including war, disease etc. : 5.2%
Boer women/children fatality rate in Brit death camps : 45%..
Nice site Isegrim, a bunch of neo Nazis.
Nashwan`s "bunch of neo Nazis" :
(http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind2.gif )
(http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind1.gif )
(http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kind3.gif )
(http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/lillyvzyl.gif )
(http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/fotos/kis1.gif )
The guys who committed this are Nashwan`s heroes...
This is most distgusting thing I have seen yet from you. I start to get used to your constant anti-israeli rantings even on these boards (whoever checks Nashwan`s post history here can see his attitude towards jewish people), I got used to your *****ing distgusting relativization of terror bombing, your denial of all crimes. One`s stomach can bear Nashwan`s style after much experience with his rotten morals.
But calling dead children, some of them only a few months old, mercilessly starved to the death by the British a "bunch of Neo Nazis" is something so utterly distgusting, so clearly wrong, that I have to throw up even from reading the first letter of your post.
Some quotes from your source on the "history" of the Boer war:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, proportionately fewer Jews were killed than Boer women and children during the Second War of Independence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Simon Wiesenthal centre, approx 9,700,000 Jews lived in countries overrun by the Nazis. Nearly 6 million of those were killed. [/b]
Hmm... interesting... "nearly". Oh, that`s familiar. "Nearly. " It probably wasn`t 6 six million, perhaps only less... perhaps only half... perhaps it never happened.
One has to read between Nashwan`s lines. :rolleyes: Especially if it comes from someone notorious here for his anti-israeli posts, constanstly accusing israelis with mass murder etc. Read Nashwan`s post history if you don`t believe.. he`s regular participant of those Middle east threads.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Should England subject herself to the same principles applied to Germany, then England must do everything within her power to reinstitute the Boer republics and to pay annual compensation to the Boerevolk for the atrocities committed against the Boerevolk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is code for bringing back Apartheid.
Oh really... England should pay compensation for something inhumen it commited.
Blasphemy ! Britain will never pay for mass murdering ten thousends of Boers in death camps. It would be unfair...
In fact, this British poster seem to be proud of that fact.
Ind it very hard to see how Britain paying compensation for British committed attoricities and genocide would return the Apertheid... especially since it was the British themselves who invented Apertheid. The site itself condemns Apertheid BTW:
"The British system of apartheid, which they applied all over the world (for instance also in India, Australia and New-Zealand), had to be imported to control the mixed population. The first manifestation of this were signs reading "Europeans" and "Non-Europeans". No Boer ever regarded himself as a "European". Apartheid invoked racial friction and even racial hatred which has in no means abated to this very day, and the bitter irony is that the Boerevolk, who had not been in power since 1902 and who also suffered severely under apartheid in the sense that apartheid robbed them of their land and their work-ethics, are being blamed for apartheid today. "
Also:
"What makes this even more odious is that the present defamatory campaign against the Afrikaner people is being conducted on the assertion that Afrikaners are responsible for "apartheid", and that "apartheid" is a crime against humanity.
This encompasses a kaleidoscope of lies. Apartheid was not introduced by the Afrikaner Nationalist Government (ANG) in 1948. Every aspect of the apartheid policy was introduced in South Africa by British colonial governments - pass laws, segregation in schools and sports teams, residential separation of races, political and economic discrimination against Blacks, and prohibition of interracial sexual intercourse. "
What do you think, how many black African friends Naswhan has ? Or Jewish? Or Afrikaaner?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
England's pretence for the invasion was the rights of the foreign miners. Yet after the war, these very same miners were treated so badly by their English and Jewish bosses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you go, the Boer war is the fault of not just the English but the Jews as well
Where does it say that ? It says foreign miners were treated badly by their English and Jewish employers after the war. I don`t know if it`s true or not, but it`s very well known that those mines were taken by the Brits by force from their rightful owners, as in fact the whole war`s reason was England`s greed to take something that belonged to others. Neither it is a secret that diamond industry is dominantly in the hands of jewish families, who run this business for centuries by now... nothing bad in that.
BTW, Nashwan naturally cut the sentence in half... do you know why ? He asked for examples of firing squads killing innocents. That happened in British ruled South Africa; the sentence continoues as :
"Yet after the war, these very same miners were treated so badly by their English and Jewish bosses.........
.... that they had to resort to general strikes in 1913 and 1922 (3 and 12 years after the establishment of the British ruled Union), during which many mine-workers were shot dead in the streets of Johannesburg by the British disposed Union government. So much for the rights of the foreign miners under English rule. "
Ever wondered why Nashwan has a reputation for selective quoting ?
It`s distgusting to see these POS like Naswhan crawl under the rocks, and while he`s busy posting anti-israeli crap almost every day on these boards, he weeps crocodile tears for Jews when it becomes beneficial in the denial and relativization of crimes against humanity committed by Britain.
I do not wish to sunk myself into the swamp of these morally rotten individuals, but I only ask a last question from Dowding and Nashwan, the most prominent boer holocaust deniers:
Do you apologize for what was commited against the Boers in those death camps ?
What would you do to compensate them for what your ancestors did to them ?
But from their posts, we already know their answer.
Apologize for what ? Compensate for what?
IT DIDN`T EVEN HAPPEN !!
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Hmm... interesting... "nearly". Oh, that`s familiar. "Nearly. " It probably wasn`t 6 six million, perhaps only less... perhaps only half... perhaps it never happened.
It's not Nashwan who wrote that : it's you.
-
Skuzzy, please, lock this S..T
-
Has this aviation forum turned into a board for neo-nazii holocaust deniers?
Would seen so, with the demented rantings of this Barbarrosa Isegrim. So :(:(
-
Well, since Dowding and Naswhan felt need to bring up the Holocaust as a subject... it`s a sad thing that they can`t discuss the matter itself, and start pointing fingers all the time. Instead they should think about their own attitude towards those events.
I cannot see anybody else doing here holocaust denial than those two. They describe death camps as "paradise" and "refugee camps" to which people went into on their own will to be butchered like animals.... :eek: :rolleyes:
Someone has to stop them and raise a word until they "only" speak about how it is right to murder innocents, before they get to the next stage... :eek:
-
At the Boer congress in Vereeninging in 1902 the Boer leaders complained bitterly because the British would no longer take their families into the camps.
Naswhan states that the Boer leaders even asked for their families to be mass murdered...
You are one really sick person.
I didn't Isegrim, I said they complained that their families were no longer being taken into the camps.
It's you who wishes to characterise the camps as centres for mass murder, in your usuall effort to "mormalize" the holocaust.
The camps had high death rates amongst the most vulnerable (ie children) due to disease. It was 19th century Africa, after all.
When the conditions in the camps became known, they recieved increased medical attention, food etc, and the death rate by 1902 had dropped to lower than the city of Glasgow.
The Boer leaders were asking for their people to be taken into the camps at this point.
It's a point of historrical fact, however you try to call me sick for repeating it.
Which of course was still pretty much standard tactics for western armies as late as the Vietnam war, with "protected villages".
That doesn`t make it any less of a crime - typical relativisation attempt from one of the most notorious online apologists.
"Protected villages"? The Mai Lai Messarcre comes to mind, a whole village was razed, all inhabitants killed.
No, the Mai Lai massacre was a massacre, not part of the policy of protected villages. BTW, what were the equivalent massacres during the Boer war?
But that doesn saves British guilt of the Boer war, for which the British goverment, the British queen, and some of the population REFUSES to apologize, in fact, some of them outright deny it happened.
Who denies the death in the camps during the Boer war?
The British deliberately killed hundreds of thousends of civillians during WW2 - French, German, Dutch etc.. They only didn`t kill more because they couldn`t.
Huh?
Mass terror against civillian population as a way of war was an accepted tradition by the British during the Boer War and WW2. When they failed on the battlefield against able men, they started their sadisctic little games against women and children...
I think you'll find that was the Germans, Isegrim. I could trot out a very long list, if you'd like, but then you've already claimed shooting innocent civilians as reprisals was legitimate, haven't you? The massacre at Oradour was legitimate, according to Isegrim.
And as to illness, nearly all the victims in the camps were children.
OH, that would make it totally different, right ? "Those little nazi maggots... we sent them to hell for good!"
You are just utterly distgusting. "They were only children". Geez...
Where do I say they were only children, Isegrim? Making up quotes again, I see.
I said most victims were children, and pointed to the high infant mortality rate in Africa (especially before the advent of modern medicine)
It's worth noting that 4 times as many British soldiers died of disease as Boer women in the camps.
Another distgusting relativization attempt from Nashwan...
It's not relativization, it's point to the conditions that prevailed in Africa. If soldiers, who are invariably fit young men, died by the thousands of disease, it's not that suprising it afflicted women and children as well.
"The Welshman, Lloyd George, stated: "The fatality rate of our soldiers on the battlefields, who were exposed to all the risks of war, was 52 per thousand per year, while the fatalities of women and children in the camps were 450 per thousand per year. We have no right to put women and children into such a position."
More quotes from the neo Nazis?
The LLoyd George quote, if indeed he ever said it, ignores the deaths from disease of British soldiers, and overstates the deaths of Boer civiliains. Around 120,000 civilians were held in the camps, around 25,000 died. That's not 45%, is it?
Nice site Isegrim, a bunch of neo Nazis.
Nashwan`s "bunch of neo Nazis" :
No, Isegrim, the people who run the site. The people who call the Holocaust "purported" and "alleged", the people who call for the return of apartheid and blame Jews for problems in South Africa.
The guys who committed this are Nashwan`s heroes...
Isegrim, that was "committed" by typhoid, which killed the vast majority of the people who died in the Boer war.
This is most distgusting thing I have seen yet from you. I start to get used to your constant anti-israeli rantings even on these boards (whoever checks Nashwan`s post history here can see his attitude towards jewish people),
Please do. I don't like the policies of the current Israeli government, I do not blame the Jews for mistreating the poor workers, or deny the Holocaust. I also do not blame the Jews for the spread of Bolshevism, as Isegrim does.
According to the Simon Wiesenthal centre, approx 9,700,000 Jews lived in countries overrun by the Nazis. Nearly 6 million of those were killed. [/b]
Hmm... interesting... "nearly". Oh, that`s familiar. "Nearly. " It probably wasn`t 6 six million, perhaps only less... perhaps only half... perhaps it never happened.
No Isegrim, it's not me who is trying to dny or "normailize" the Holocaust. I am quoting from the Simon Wiesenthal centre:
"While it is impossible to ascertain the exact number of Jewish victims, statistics indicate that the total was over 5,860,000. Six million is the round figure accepted by most authorities"
This is code for bringing back Apartheid.
Oh really... England should pay compensation for something inhumen it commited.
They're not just asking for compensation, they're asking for the restitution of the Boer republics. Think there's much room for black people in a Boer republic?
Ind it very hard to see how Britain paying compensation for British committed attoricities and genocide would return the Apertheid... especially since it was the British themselves who invented Apertheid. The site itself condemns Apertheid BTW:
"The British system of apartheid, which they applied all over the world (for instance also in India, Australia and New-Zealand), had to be imported to control the mixed population. The first manifestation of this were signs reading "Europeans" and "Non-Europeans". No Boer ever regarded himself as a "European". Apartheid invoked racial friction and even racial hatred which has in no means abated to this very day, and the bitter irony is that the Boerevolk, who had not been in power since 1902 and who also suffered severely under apartheid in the sense that apartheid robbed them of their land and their work-ethics, are being blamed for apartheid today. "
Isegrim, it's a neo nazi site, they don't tell the truth.
Apartheid was created by the South African National Party (an Africaana party) after their election victory following WW2. South Africa was expelled from the commonwealth because of it.
From Wikipedia, the apartheid laws:
The principal apartheid laws were as follows:
The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949)
Amendment to The Immorality Act (1950)
This law made it a criminal offence for a white person to have any sexual relations with a person of a different race.
The Population Registration Act (1950)
This law required all citizens to register as black, white or coloured.
The Suppression of Communism Act (1950)
This law banned any opposition party the government chose to label as "communist".
The Group Areas Act (27 April 1950)
This law barred people of particular races from various urban areas.
The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953)
This law prohibited people of different races from using the same public amenities, such as drinking fountains, restrooms, and so on.
The Bantu Education Act (1953)
This law brought in various measures expressly designed to reduce the level of education attainable by black people.
The Mines and Work Act (1956)
This law formalised racial discrimination in employment.
The Promotion of Black Self-Government Act (1958)
This law set up nominally independent "homelands" for black people. In practice, the South African government had a strong influence over these bantustans.
Black Homeland Citizenship Act (1971)
This law changed the status of the inhabitants of the 'homelands' so that they were no longer citizens of South Africa, and therefore had none of the rights that came with citizenship.
This encompasses a kaleidoscope of lies. Apartheid was not introduced by the Afrikaner Nationalist Government (ANG) in 1948. Every aspect of the apartheid policy was introduced in South Africa by British colonial governments - pass laws, segregation in schools and sports teams, residential separation of races, political and economic discrimination against Blacks, and prohibition of interracial sexual intercourse. "
Isegrim, I find your confidence in Nazis not to tell lies disturbing. Try a google search for Apartheid, and you will see when it was introduced.
Of course, going by this site you love so much there was no Holocaust during WW2.
BTW, Nashwan naturally cut the sentence in half... do you know why ? He asked for examples of firing squads killing innocents.
Nope, I asked for the source for the British hanging Boer women from their trains.
Still not forthcoming, I see.
Ever wondered why Nashwan has a reputation for selective quoting ?
Whereas you are quoting a Nazi propoganda site verbatim :rolleyes:
-
I cannot see anybody else doing here holocaust denial than those two. They describe death camps as "paradise" and "refugee camps" to which people went into on their own will to be butchered like animals....
Where has anyone called them paradise, and where have you seen that people were "butchered"? People died of disease, how is this "butchered"?
A new low for you Isegrim, in your attempts to claim the Holocaust as a normal event in history.
-
How did this debate bend itself towards a horrible conflict a 100 years ago? Isengrim's job, it looks.
As things were going about whether WW2 had any ethic or cause, they suddenly shifted towards the Boer war.
Well, I hope this will close. Anyway, IMHO the darker sides of the Boer war, or for that sake, probably any conflict in our history, does not match up to the attrocities performed by the NAZIS in WW2. Sadly, the German nation happened to be their tool.
WW2 is also unique to discuss for one thing, we still have survivors from the conflict. We still have the opportunity to have an eye-to-eye conversation with people who went through WW2.
There are holocaust deniers today, their strength is growing as the survivers of the Holocaust grow fewer. Their logics remind me very much of Isengrims logics, turning things around and bluffing.
I must be dumb, since I can not yet spot Nashwan as a Holocaust denier. How about you Isengrim, a straight question?
And to add on to that, you still have not given an answer to what the Brits should have done instead of foolishly fighting on in WW2. "Surrender to Hitler perhaps?" I said. Please give me an answer.
-
Oh, and this for you Isengrim:
"The British deliberately killed hundreds of thousends of civillians during WW2 - French, German, Dutch etc.. They only didn`t kill more because they couldn`t."
I guess that's why those same nations were cheering so much when the Allies pushed the Axis out.
My country was occupied by the allies. It was completely allright, in fact, the best time we ever had so far. No forced labour, labour was paid. No confiscation of goods, goods were bought. No camps, no executions, no martial law, no problems really, apart from the growing pains of rapidly expanding economy system.
We are thankful that the Germans didn't get here before.
Basically, your acid view of WW2 history has earned you a branded swastika on yer butt, and I´ll volunteer to put it there, that is if you haven't got one there already :D
-
I didn't Isegrim, I said they complained that their families were no longer being taken into the camps.
At least in all neo nazi revisionist booklets you have read, huh?
If it`s wasn`t distgusting enough already, he keeps repeating.
It's you who wishes to characterise the camps as centres for mass murder, in your usuall effort to "mormalize" the holocaust.
No, sorry Naswhan, your trick doesn`t work. You, or anybody, cannot find any quote from me where I relativize any mass murder, let it be the Boear or jewish, or indian, armanian or whatever Holocaust. I feel sorry for all of those people that suffered and died.
From you on the other hand, there are prime examples of Holocaust denial in your posts above.
The camps had high death rates amongst the most vulnerable (ie children) due to disease. It was 19th century Africa, after all.
You are the notorious for your holocaust apologist posts, after all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass terror against civillian population as a way of war was an accepted tradition by the British during the Boer War and WW2. When they failed on the battlefield against able men, they started their sadisctic little games against women and children...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll find that was the Germans, Isegrim.
You also think Israel is doing mass murder nowadays when protecting itself from terrorist, you think the Boer death camps didn`t exists...
I could trot out a very long list, if you'd like, but then you've already claimed shooting innocent civilians as reprisals was legitimate, haven't you?
No, I haven`t. The thing you refer to, and of which you have no idea, had strict rules, which, if not followed, would make the event a pitiful act of sadism born from the impotence of the killers, as often the case in the history of british military.
The massacre at Oradour was legitimate, according to Isegrim.
You keep lying Nashwan. Find a quote where I state Oradour was legitimate... OH wait, you will not be able. How surprising !
Until then, you are just a *****ing little Liar.
Even the superiors of those soldiers who gave orders to the Oradour messarcre call the event a crime, and ordered a military tribunal to be held for those responsble.
In Britain, the usual way to threat mass murderers is to give them nice titles like in the case of "Sir" Arthur Harris, and "Lord" Kitchener.
Where do I say they were only children, Isegrim? Making up quotes again, I see.
Constant, blatant lying is your department, not mine.
I said most victims were children, and pointed to the high infant mortality rate in Africa (especially before the advent of modern medicine)
Especially if you burn their homes, kill their sheep, force them into death camps, deny them from medical service, and starve them to death, as the Brits did to Boers after their failures on the battlefield.
But it was not British to blamed, says Nashwan.
Those bad conditions, says Nashwan.
Poor Africa in 1900 (sniff-sniff), says Nashwan.
Too weak children... says Nashwan.
Like if a holocaust denier would blame it all on the Cyklon-B instead of the nazi party...
You NAZIs all think the same.
It's not relativization, it's point to the conditions that prevailed in Africa. If soldiers, who are invariably fit young men, died by the thousands of disease, it's not that suprising it afflicted women and children as well.
Read that guy. He`s a classic.
Those bad conditions. Not the men responsible for those bad conditions.
More quotes from the neo Nazis?
I wasn`t quoting from You, but LLoyd George. He wasn`t a nazi AFAIK. But I guess you will make one from him soon enough.
The LLoyd George quote, if indeed he ever said it, ignores the deaths from disease of British soldiers, and overstates the deaths of Boer civiliains. Around 120,000 civilians were held in the camps, around 25,000 died. That's not 45%, is it?
450 per 1000 inhabitants per year.
Isegrim, that was "committed" by typhoid, which killed the vast majority of the people who died in the Boer war.
Read it. Read him if you want to get rid of some extra weight, because you definietely WON`T eat for a while after this guy`s words.
It wasn`t us. It was typhoid.
It wasn`t us. It was Cyklon-B.
How similiar... same crap.
Please do. I don't like the policies of the current Israeli government, I do not blame the Jews for mistreating the poor workers, or deny the Holocaust.
Really ? How about compensation to be paid for those Jewish families that lost their lives when the British navy shelled their ship to pieces and they burned alive on the ship they used to get to the Holy Land?
You can guess that Nashwan won`t answer that part.
Just as he didn`t answer how many black friends he has.
Neither did he answer the following :
"Do you apologize for what was commited against the Boers in those death camps ?
What would you do to compensate them for what your ancestors did to them ? "
I also do not blame the Jews for the spread of Bolshevism, as Isegrim does.
When did I ever blame Jews for the spread of Bolshevism, Liar ?
You are even more pathetic than you used to be. Everyone can see from your post how severe your anti semitism is. You constantly keep bashing Israel.
Nobody can find any such post from me, for a simple reason : I am not anti semitic like you.
Isegrim, it's a neo nazi site, they don't tell the truth.
Of course, Nashwan. If they were neo Nazis, you would threat them as your ideological brothers.
Whereas you are quoting a Nazi propoganda site verbatim
More denial...
Boer holocaust : "nazi propaganda" according to Naswhan.... :eek:
I told you he would say it didn`t even happen.
Now answer the question :
Do you apologize for what was commited against the Boers in those death camps ?
What would you do to compensate them for what your ancestors did to them ?
And BTW... how about taking responsibility for your views, Naswhan? Hiding behind a nickname on an internet forum ?
How about posting under your real name ?
Are you perhaps afraid that some descendant of those children the Brits didn`t manage to murder in those camps reads your words and will know who you are ?
Liars and cowards are often the same.
-
A typical quote from Nashwan from his anti-israeli rantings.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=202512#post202512
Decide for yourself how does he feels towards Jews... for myself, I have no doubts about he is dropping crocodile tears for jewish sufferings during WW@ only to relativize other sad events.
These "Allah-freaks" are doing exactly what Israel does, attacking the enemy. Israel does it more effectively, and uses greater force, but the principle is exactly the same. For every car bomb there are several air raids, artillery stikes, etc. For every dead Jew there are many dead Palestinians. For every dead Israeli child Israel has killed many Palestinian children. Approx 70 children have been shot dead by the Israeli army in the last year.
Since last September, when the current fighting began, 513 people have been killed, 88 Israelis and 425 Palestinians. By far the bulk of the killing is done by Israelis, using a wide variety of methods, including car bombs of their own.
there was a recent case in which an armed Israeli settler caught a 10 year old Palestinian boy he believed had been throwing stones at settler's cars. The man kicked the boy to the ground, put his foot on his neck (fracturing his spinal cord) and beat him to death with the butt of a pistol. The settler recieved a six month community service sentence.
and
It's interesting to see the way Israel enforces justice. Two extremist Jewish activists are suspected of murdering 3 Palestinians, including a young child. The Israeli police have asked the men to report for questioning, and they have both refused. Will Israel now launch guided missiles at the houses of those suspected of harbouring them?
[/b]
Angie, is this Nashwan who you call your hero ?
Do you share his views regarding Isreal, Angie ?
That would well explain why you back him up in his denial.
-
I didn't Isegrim, I said they complained that their families were no longer being taken into the camps.
At least in all neo nazi revisionist booklets you have read, huh?
If it`s wasn`t distgusting enough already, he keeps repeating.
Isegrim, Neo Nazis like to compare the Holocaust to the deaths of Boers during the Boer war, to normalise the actions of the Nazis. Calling someone a Nazi because they are arguing that the Holocaust was uniquely evil seems bizarre, even for you.
As to the Boers complaining because the British would no longer take families into the camps, see Methods of Barbarism? by S B Spies, a South African author.
It's you who wishes to characterise the camps as centres for mass murder, in your usuall effort to "mormalize" the holocaust.
No, sorry Naswhan, your trick doesn`t work. You, or anybody, cannot find any quote from me where I relativize any mass murder, let it be the Boear or jewish, or indian, armanian or whatever Holocaust. I feel sorry for all of those people that suffered and died.
Isegrim, you do it all the time. You are doing it now.
You have compared the camps in South Africa to Auschwitz in this thread. In fact, you've called them "worser":
Fatality rate was 45% in these "refugee camps" per year. Very comparable to Auswitz, if not worser considering the timescale
and:
You know, these pictures taken in British concentration camps during the Boer wars REMIND me to the ones of Auschwitz 40 years later
Your agenda is clear, to minimize the Holocaust by claiming it is no worse than what went on in South Africa during the Boer war.
You also use hyper inflated figures for deaths at Dresden to argue it was a crime comparable to the Holocaust.
The massacre at Oradour was legitimate, according to Isegrim.
You keep lying Nashwan. Find a quote where I state Oradour was legitimate... OH wait, you will not be able. How surprising !
Until then, you are just a *****ing little Liar.
What happened at Oradour?
From massacres of the second world war:
On their 450 mile drive from the south of France to the Normandy invasion area, the 2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich' (15,000 men aboard 1,400 vehicles, including 209 tanks) under the command of SS General Lammerding, arrived at Limoges, a town famous for its porcelain. In the small town of St. Junien (30 kilometres from Limoges) the 'Der Führer Regiment' was regrouping. Following many encounters with the local maquis in which two German soldiers were killed, a unit of the regiment arrived at ORADOUR (believed to be a hotbed of maquis activity) in a convoy of trucks and half-tracks. At about 2 PM on this Saturday afternoon the 120 man SS unit surrounded the village ordering all inhabitants to parade in the market square for an identity check. Women and children were separated from the menfolk and herded into the local church. The men were herded in groups into six carefully chosen local garages and barns and shot. Their bodies were then covered with straw and set on fire. The 452 women and children in the church were then suffocated by smoke grenades lobbed in through the windows and sharpnel grenades that were thrown down the nave while machine-guns raked the interior. The church was then set on fire.
So, according to the SS, it was a reprisal for partisan attacks on their troops.
Quote from Isegrim at another forum:
And also, this is very important: these laws of war are very different than the just "healty" moral feelings of the individuals. For example, taking "innoncent" hostages and executing them in response to partisan warfare was a LEGITIME way of war, during WW2.
Perhaps you meant the many OTHER massacres of civilians in reprisal that the Germans carried out was ligitimate, and Oradour? You certainly didn't say so at the time, and I find it hard to see why massacring Italians, Russians, Yugoslavs, Poles etc is any different from massacring the French.
Where do I say they were only children, Isegrim? Making up quotes again, I see.
Constant, blatant lying is your department, not mine.
Isegrim, you gave two quotes from me, neither of which I said.
Especially if you burn their homes, kill their sheep, force them into death camps, deny them from medical service, and starve them to death.
Which is of course exactly what the Germans did to millions of people they considered sub human.
In South Africa, however, they were not starved, although the food supply was certainly inadequate, and they were not denied medical care, indeed there was much argument between the camp doctors and the Boer women, who believed in traditonal mediicine rather than modern medical techniques of cleanliness, disenfectants etc.
I wasn`t quoting from You, but LLoyd George. He wasn`t a nazi AFAIK
No, you are quoting fom a neo nazi site that denies the existence of the Holocaust.
450 per 1000 inhabitants per year.
And yet it clearly wasn't, as in 3 years of war the death rate was approx 20% of those in the camps.
It wasn`t us. It was typhoid.
It wasn`t us. It was Cyklon-B.
One is a disease that mankid has spent a long time trying to suppress, the other is a gas deliberatley used to murder 6 million people.
Again, Isegrim tries to normalise the Holocaust. There is no difference between people dying of disease and being herded into rooms and gassed to death.
Please do. I don't like the policies of the current Israeli government, I do not blame the Jews for mistreating the poor workers, or deny the Holocaust.
Really ? How about compensation to be paid for those Jewish families that lost their lives when the British navy shelled their ship to pieces and they burned alive on the ship they used to get to the Holy Land?
Huh?
Do you apologize for what was commited against the Boers in those death camps ?
How can I, it happened 70 years before I was born.
What would you do to compensate them for what your ancestors did to them ?
About as much as I would do to compensate victims of the Romans. Rather less than I would do to compensate victims of Apartheid, as there are a great many people living who have suffered greatly from that regieme.
I also do not blame the Jews for the spread of Bolshevism, as Isegrim does.
When did I ever blame Jews for the spread of Bolshevism, Liar ?
Quote from Isegrim in another forum:
Still, most premiere communist leaders were of jewish origin in every country. Just for example, Marx, Engels, Trocky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Szamuely, Kun, Rakosi, Peter, Beriya, Trapp etc. were all of jewish origin. Jewish presence in the high communist ranks were many-mnay times higher than their actual percentage in the population.
Whereas you are quoting a Nazi propoganda site verbatim
More denial...
Isegrim, what would you call a site that denied the existence of the Jewish Holocaust? I'd call it Nazi propoganda, and have done so frequently.
Boer holocaust : "nazi propaganda" according to Naswhan....
I told you he would say it didn`t even happen.
No, I have said repeatedly that around 25,000 Boer civilians died. How is that saying it didn't happen? In the same way saying nearly 6 million Jews were murdered is saying no Jews were murdered?
-
I have no time to deal with the revisionist filth of Nashwan, and his holocaust denial.
But I think it`s worthy of note to uncover his dirty tricks to manipulate readers.
He accuses me with blaming jews for Bolshevism. Apart from that accusation sounds outright ridiuculus from Nashwan, known even here for his anti-semitic posts, this is still a very serious accusation.
Below it will be shown how he uses selective qouting to manipulate quotes from others. He does the same when it comes to rewriting history.
This is the quote he took from me. Notice that he gave no URL - then my whole text could be checkek vs. his selective quotes.
But let`s see how he cheats. Below is my full posts; it was written in a thread that was started by a polish member inquiring Jewish presence in Soviet politcal leadership.
Compare Nashwan`s version :
Quote from Isegrim in another forum:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, most premiere communist leaders were of jewish origin in every country. Just for example, Marx, Engels, Trocky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Szamuely, Kun, Rakosi, Peter, Beriya, Trapp etc. were all of jewish origin. Jewish presence in the high communist ranks were many-mnay times higher than their actual percentage in the population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naswhan cut the rest of the text. You will see why; his agenda is to prove me as an anti-semite.
You can decide for yourself wheter I am an anti-semite or not. The full post (used bold to show the parts Nashwan left out from the quote):
Beriya was also jewish, wasn`t he ? Still, one just wonder how much his origin meant, he sent his jewish and non-jewish comrades into hell the same.
Still, most premiere communist leaders were of jewish origin in every country. Just for example, Marx, Engels, Trocky, Lenin, Luxemburg, Szamuely, Kun, Rakosi, Peter, Beriya, Trapp etc. were all of jewish origin. Jewish presence in the high communist ranks were many-mnay times higher than their actual percentage in the population. What are the reasons for that ? I don`t know for sure, but one possible being that studying was always highly regarding in jewsih communities. But this doesn`t explains it all, so I believe there`s some sort of cultural/political reason to that. They were from the securalized jewish groups, who gave up their old religious traditions completely, often being very anti-religious. I believe they wanted something different, and found it in politics, but the very ancient separation of jews (both forced and voluntary) from other parts of a nation meant that right-wing/nation-based political ideas weren`t accepted by them, and they probably wouldn`t be accepted by groups of these ideas. So, they moved towards internationalism and communist ideas, ignoring the national feelings of the larger groups. As a result, jews concentrated in communist groups, and when the communist regimes came to power, they were naturally choosen for positions : they were both fellow jews, and old communists as well.
It would also prove interesting what a Jewish immigrant from Ukraine, Panfilov, who otherwise can`t be accused of sympthatizing me, replied to my post :
You are very close to the truth. Actually many minorities found refuge with the communist party including Greeks, Lithuanians, Georgians, Jews, Poles and such.... But in general you are right there was a large number of Jews in the governing circles with such predominant names as Bukharin, Kaganovich, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kaminev, Kesior (I bet Skorzeny loves the guy!), and many others. With time the Jewish cadres were more or less slowly removed from the governing and internal/external security. [/i]
Nashwan, your lying and tricks are now completely exposed. :eek:
Nashwan also failed to back up his following accusation :
"The massacre at Oradour was legitimate, according to Isegrim. "
To prove that, he quotes me
"And also, this is very important: these laws of war are very different than the just "healty" moral feelings of the individuals. For example, taking "innoncent" hostages and executing them in response to partisan warfare was a LEGITIME way of war, during WW2. "
Hardly I can say where this equals me saying Oradour was a "legitim messacre".
You were lying again, Naswhan.
In fact, repraisal actions were accepted by all combatants; for such action to be legitim, according to customs of war, the civillian population should get knowladge of the consequences if they support partisan action. If that is followed, in WW2 any army was allowed to apply penal action on the population - in general, 10 : 1 ratio of executing hostages was allowed.
This was also the practice on the Allied side. Including the British army, to quote paragraph 454. of the British Manual of Military Law about repraisal actions:
"Repraisal actions are to be considered last, as these in most cases cause suffering to innocent people. However, since their power of enforcement lays within this suffering, they cannot be put aside as an ultimate tool."
Allied armies often used this way, to put fear into enemy civillians and keep order. The Soviet Army in Berlin treatened civillians with 50 citizen being executed for every Soviet soldier; the US Army in the Harz mountains in 1945 threatened in public with that 200 Germans be executed for every US soldier killed.
So, according to the SS, it was a reprisal for partisan attacks on their troops.
No, only according to the lies of Nashwan. According to the SS, the actions committed by Waffen SS soldiers at Oraduor were crimes, and needed to be punished by martial law. The responsible officer, Adolf Diekmann, faced German military court process. He was only "saved" from that by the fact he died in battle two weeks later.
It`s also worth mentioning that the Oradour messarcre wasn`t quite as a clear case - just a day before German soldiers who maintained garrison there were captured by partisans, were all killed, some of them were impaled, body parts were cut off...
ie. from the same link
THE TULLE MURDERS
(Near Limoges, Central France, June 9, 1944)
The day before the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane , the SS murdered 99 men in the town of Tulle in central France. This was in response to activities by the local FTP resistance groups who had attacked and taken over the town. When the 2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich' took over the town they found 40 dead bodies of the German 3rd Battalion/95th Security Regiment garrison troops near the school, their bodies badly mutilated. Other bodies were found around the town, bringing the total German dead in Tulle to sixty-four. Next day, the reprisals began. All males in the town were gathered together and 130 suspects were selected for execution. A number were released because of their youth and the remaining 99 were executed by the Pioneer platoon of SS-Panzer Aufklarungs Abteilung 2. Their bodies were hung up on lamp-posts and from balconies along the main streets of the town in the hope that the hanging bodies would deter future attacks by the Maquis and the FTP. More would have been hanged had not the SS ran out of rope. Instead, they rounded up 149 civilians and deported them to Germany for slave labour. Of these, 101 did not return.
-
It`s also foolish to believe other sides didn`t do such things... the following example is a US one, but dozens of suchs stories could be quoted either from British or Soviet side...
Just a few examples :
"TROCITIES IN SICILY
(1943)
Many massacres of prisoners of war were committed by the American 45th (Thunderbird) Division during the invasion of Sicily in 1943. At Comise airfield, a truck load of German prisoners were machine-gunned as they climbed down on to the tarmac, prior to be air-lifted out. Later the same day, 60 Italian prisoners were cut down the same way. On July 14, thirty six prisoners were gunned down near Gela by their guard, US Sergeant Barry West. At Buttera airfield, US Captain Jerry Compton, lined up his 43 prisoners against a wall and machine-gunned them to death. West and Compton were both arrested and convicted of murder. They were sent to the front where both were later killed in action. On April 29, 1945, units of the 45th. liberated the concentration camp of Dachau where more atrocities were committed.
FRENCH POW CAMPS
The standards set by the Geneva Convention were, in most cases, totally ignored by the Americans and French in relation to their treatment of German prisoners-of-war. The French deliberately starved many of their POWs in order to force them to join the French Foreign Legion. Thousands of Legionaires who fought in the Viet Nam conflict were Germans, handed over by the Americans to the French in 1945/46 to work as slave labourers in the rebuilding of France's war damaged cities. Conditions in the French camps were just as bad if not worse than in the American camps. It is estimated that at least 167,000 German soldiers died in French captivity between 1945 and 1948.
STARVATION AT REMAGEN
After the capture of the Remagen Bridge, the US Army hastily erected dozens of Prisoner of War cages around the bridge-head. The camps were simply open fields surrounded by concertina wire. Those at the Rhine Meadows were situated at Remagen, Bad Kreuznach, Andernach, Buderich, Rheinbach and Sinzig. The German prisoners were hopeful of good treatment from the GIs but in this they were sadly disappointed. Herded into the open spaces like cattle, some were beaten and mistreated. No tents or toilets were supplied. The camps became huge latrines, a sea of urine from one end to the other. They had to sleep in holes in the ground which they dug with their bare hands. In the Bad Kreuznach cage, 560,000 men were interned in an area that could only comfortably hold 45,000. Denied enough food and water, they were forced to eat the grass under their feet and the camps soon became a sea of mud. After the concentration camps were discovered, their treatment became worse as the GIs vented their rage on the hapless prisoners.
In the five camps around Bretzenheim, prisoners had to survive on 600-850 calories per day. With bloated bellies and teeth falling out, they died by the thousands. During the two and a half months (April-May, 1945) when the camps were under American control, a total of 18,100 prisoners died from malnutrition, disease and exposure. This extremely harsh treatment at the hands of the Americans resulted in the deaths of over 50,000 German prisoners of war in the Rhine Meadows camps alone in the months just before and after the war ended.
NAHRENDORF
( Near Hamburg. 1945 )
A week after the discovery of the Belsen Concentration Camp, a rumour reached the British Army's 'Desert Rats' that the 18th SS Training Regiment of the Hitler Jugend Division, had shot their prisoners at the nearby village of Rather. The 'Rats' were engaged in a fierce battle with the SS defenders in the village of Nahrendorf. Slowly, and in groups, the SS began to surrender. As the noise of battle died away the villagers emerged from their cellars and found the bodies of 42 SS soldiers lying in a shallow grave. The bodies were then interned on a hilltop cemetery near the village. Each year, hundreds of SS veterans visit the cemetery to pay tribute to their fallen comrades whom, they say, were shot in cold blood on the orders of a ‘crazed blood-thirsty British NCO’. Perpetrators are honoured, victims are forgotten.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
In fact the British aimed to kill the German civillians, not the soldiers.
They sowed the wind and now they will reap the whirlwind
Germans own bloody fault for bombing london, even if it was a mistake.
:rolleyes:
not one country on this earth, has NEVER made a mistake.
-
not one country on this earth, has NEVER made a mistake.
This is true, however I think you will have search for the reasons of the escalation of bombing warfare in some other place, rather than the accidental bombing of London despite Hitler`s prohibition bombing civillian objectives before BoB.
Here`s only relevant quote from Churchill:
Churchill`s letter to Lord Beaverbrook, on 5th July 1940.
"Nothing else will get the Germans to their minds, and on their knees, than an absolutely devastating extermination campaign against their homeland with heavy bombers."
See: John Colville : Fringes of Power. Downing Street Diaries 1939-1955. London 1985, pg. 186.
As you can see, he had already made up his mind well before those Heinkel jettisoned their bombload over London in navigational error in the end of August 1940. BoB didn`t even started yet...
"We started to bomb targets on Germam soil before the Germans began bombing British soil. That is a historical fact."
-J. M. Spaight english expert of international law, Secretary of State, British Air Ministry, in 1944
-
Ok, but what does this have to do with the argument of which is the best fighter of all time?
-
Isengrim, you are the one trying to whirl up smoke to make the Holocaust look a bit smaller, equally you pull forth everything you canto make the allied side of WW2 look as bad as possible to minimize the possible logic about who was on the dark side in ww2.
I asked if you were a Holocaust denialist, you chose not to answer. I asked what your opinion on what the British should have done instead of fighting on, you chose not to answer.
Your method reminds me of the method of typical denialist, so please prove othervise.
Surely, WW2 was a brutal war, and every side had blood on their hands. I still do see a difference between the Nazi way of waging a war and the others, distinguishing this as a rather unique war, where the basic lines were not always politics, but sometimes cleanly good vs bad.
The Germans were the first to apply terror bombing in WW2, the Russians followed shortly after, and so on.
Hitler had a little crush on the Brits, and rather preferred peace with them than war, so they broke his heart in a manner of speaking.
The Brits underestimated the Germans strength and vice versa. The British high command however knew more about what the Germans were doing (through many intelligence channels, i.e. Enigma), than many commanders of the German army did themselves.
So, by 1940, it was rather clear to the Brits, that the Nazi way was a bloodstained way of tyranny, and the way the treated the Poles in the first months of the war could possibly be the new way that would be applied to everyone that fell under their power.
BTW, from oct 1939 to Jan 1940, civilian death in Poland was 15.000+. 15.000 people killed after the conflict ended.
The British defined the Nazi regime as evil and were determined to stop them. They did, it was costly, but I'm glad about it anyway.
Agree?
-
And the Oscar for The Highjacked Beyond Recognition Thread of All Time goes to ...
The Best Fighter Aircraft of All Time!
-
and to think all I wanted to do was read about the best fighter a/c of all time......
-
FW-190 gets me lotsa kills. P-38 is great also.
:D
-
Widewing,
F15? Sukhoi SU-27 beats it in just about evey regard. Let alone the latest generation of Sukhoi fighters.
...-Gixer
-
gotta luv em SU fighters:)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Widewing,
F15? Sukhoi SU-27 beats it in just about evey regard. Let alone the latest generation of Sukhoi fighters.
...-Gixer
What's the SU-27's combat record? Where the rubber meets the road, the F-15 has the best combat record of any major fighter, ever.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
What's the SU-27's combat record? Where the rubber meets the road, the F-15 has the best combat record of any major fighter, ever.
My regards,
Widewing
Look widewing, an empty Su27 can do all sorts of crazy manuvers that no combat loaded F15 could ever do. So the Su27 is waaay better, let alone an empty later model Su...
-
My opinion re the SU-27 was based on technical facts rather then just K/D ratios.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Widewing,
F15? Sukhoi SU-27 beats it in just about evey regard. Let alone the latest generation of Sukhoi fighters.
I have russian document about comparing Su-27 to F-15, F16 and Tornado G-2. Its a bit less optimistic than you ;).
Altitude 4000-7000 meters. Speed 300-600 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - Su-27 markedly better.
Continuous maneuvering - same abilities.
Acceleration and energetic climb - same abilities.
Altitude 4000-7000 meters. Speed 600-800 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - same abilities.
Continuous maneuvering - same abilities.
Acceleration and energetic climb - same abilities.
Altitude 200-4000 meters. Speed 300-600 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - Su-27 markedly better.
Continuous maneuvering - Su-27 better.
Acceleration and energetic climb - F-15 better.
Altitude 200-4000 meters. Speed 500-1050 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - same abilities.
Continuous maneuvering - F-15 better.
Acceleration and energetic climb - F-15 better.
Altitude 200-4000 meters. Speed above 1050 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - same abilities.
Continuous maneuvering - F-15 markedly better.
Acceleration and energetic climb - F-15 better.
The funny thing is that Su-27 loadout was 2xK-73 and 2xK-27 and F-15 - 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
My opinion re the SU-27 was based on technical facts rather then just K/D ratios.
...-Gixer
What K/D ratio? Has any Su27 family ever seen combat?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What K/D ratio? Has any Su27 family ever seen combat?
Yes. Even shot down some MiG-29s... No losses AFAIR.
-
So, can the Su stay with a Harrier?
-
Sure. On the airfield :D.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, can the Su stay with a Harrier?
Harrier's can do amazing things. Unfortunately, they have a heat signature like a Malibu brush fire. That makes them IR missile magnets.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Can Harrier jet can shot down a jet fighter? I know Harrier is attacker, but wonder if Harrier can really shot down a jet fighter? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
Can Harrier jet can shot down a jet fighter? I know Harrier is attacker, but wonder if Harrier can really shot down a jet fighter? :confused:
Sea Harriers did very well in the Falkland dispute where they filled the role of air superiority fighters. They were just too slow to intercept or run down the Argentine Mirages. Harriers are very dangerous dogfighters using VIFF (Vector In Forward Flight) tactics. Why do you think they are armed with IR missiles for?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Rumour went that the Harriers actually dodged the IR missiles, but I have not seen it confirmed in post-war accounts.
I think that in air-to-air combat their record was close to 30 vs 0.
Bear in mind that the Argentinian Air force had about ten times the amount of aircraft as the British in that engagement, - rather a unique situation in a western force engagement in the latest years.
-
A20 :aok
-
How can you make a judgement call that the F-15 is worse than the SU-27 by maneuverability specs alone? A planes maneuverability in this day and age means little when the fights come from BVR.
I highly doubt anyone here has even the slightest idea what both aircraft are capable let alone even one of them when it comes to their avionics packages. That is what makes the aircraft in a BVR fight not their maneuverability. I can guarantee that atleast on one side of this debate there are capabilities of one of these aircraft that many here couldn't even fathom.
Don't judge a book by it's cover or by many of the minute bits of information that you can find on the web. They are very misleading and won't ever cover what the aircrafts real capabilities are. Debating over who's better purely by flight characteristics is silly.
Do you honestly think that all that data you find out there is extremely precise? Do you honestly think that with todays technology any of these aircraft would even come that close to where maneuverability is the key to winning the fight? Though systems like JHCMS have come out to counter the Russian aircrafts extreme maneuverability it's only there just incase it comes into a close dogfight. Guns are still used just incase. The F4 found out the hard way during Vietnam that the gun was still needed for those just in case scenarios hence why it's still placed on modern fighters. The probability of them being used in a dogfight is slim to none but they dont' want another F4 incident.
With how the information battle field has grown to allow data link capabilities across the AOR the probability of getting jumped is very slim.
-
Ask Voss, I'm sure he's flown both.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Rumour went that the Harriers actually dodged the IR missiles, but I have not seen it confirmed in post-war accounts.
I think that in air-to-air combat their record was close to 30 vs 0.
Bear in mind that the Argentinian Air force had about ten times the amount of aircraft as the British in that engagement, - rather a unique situation in a western force engagement in the latest years.
Actually I think the Argentinian were doomed just because thier plane were not based in the Malouines and so having range problem (I know I should have typed Falkland ;))
-
Originally posted by VooDoo
I have russian document about comparing Su-27 to F-15, F16 and Tornado G-2. Its a bit less optimistic than you ;).
Altitude 4000-7000 meters. Speed 300-600 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - Su-27 markedly better.
Continuous maneuvering - same abilities.
Acceleration and energetic climb - same abilities.
Altitude 4000-7000 meters. Speed 600-800 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - same abilities.
Continuous maneuvering - same abilities.
Acceleration and energetic climb - same abilities.
Altitude 200-4000 meters. Speed 300-600 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - Su-27 markedly better.
Continuous maneuvering - Su-27 better.
Acceleration and energetic climb - F-15 better.
Altitude 200-4000 meters. Speed 500-1050 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - same abilities.
Continuous maneuvering - F-15 better.
Acceleration and energetic climb - F-15 better.
Altitude 200-4000 meters. Speed above 1050 kmh.
Instantaneous maneuvering - same abilities.
Continuous maneuvering - F-15 markedly better.
Acceleration and energetic climb - F-15 better.
The funny thing is that Su-27 loadout was 2xK-73 and 2xK-27 and F-15 - 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9.
I want to see the Su-37 in the same comparison.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Rumour went that the Harriers actually dodged the IR missiles, but I have not seen it confirmed in post-war accounts.
I think that in air-to-air combat their record was close to 30 vs 0.
But how many did they lose in 'accidents'?
-
8 I belive.
Not sure about accidents as such, I recall an out-of-fuel case and some cases where the aircraft were shot down by man carried missiles/sams.
It's probably all available on the net, just picking this from memory from news reading 22 years ago....
-
The best Fighters of WWII, where the combine efforts of the allied pilots and ground troops fighting in the Air, Land and Sea against the germans onslot or in the pacific against the Japanise.
Let Freedom Ring!