Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Angus on February 25, 2005, 04:25:11 AM
-
Well, As promised, for the 109 thread had practically been hijacked into this.
Dunkirk was the first time where 109's started clashing with Spitfires in some quantity, so basically the first proper encounter of an equally matched aircraft.
The BoB was the second time, and also the first time the LW clashed with something in their own strength group.
Izzy posted some numbers of the Dunkirk campaign losses and kills, showing as a contrary to what I have read in many places, that it was a massive LW victory.
Well, the LW managed to harass Dunkirk quite a bit, and the soldiers on the ground did not see much of RAF in the skies.
But....I finally found some numbers, and needless to say, they do not match the ones of Izzy.
Neither will my BoB ones, hehe :D
Anyway, here goes, little odds and ends...
27th of may, the LW loses more aircraft than the previous ten days combined.
RAF sorties total on the 9 days of fighting: 2793
RAF losses 177
LW losses 240
Any of you have some numbers on this? Will try to dig up Izzy's numbers later today.
Now the BoB keeps coming back at me with 4 months of fighting, LW loses nearly 1700 aircraft in BoB related action, RAF loses 800 or so. I have a quite good article on this actually.
Anyway, dump some numbers in plz.
-
Related to another thread asking for numbers, so....
PUNT :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Related to another thread asking for numbers, so....
PUNT :D
Get a copy of After The Battle's "The Battle of Britain-Then and Now".
It lists losses for each day with serial numbers, pilot names, causes etc for both sides from beginning to end of the B of B. This includes accidents as well.
It's as comprehensive a break down of the B of B casualties as I've ever seen, covering July 10, 1940 -October 31, 1940
Dan
-
TY Guppy.
By glancing at it, - if you have it, - how does it correspond to the numbers I promoted?
-
Couldn't find them at first, but another glance turned up the totals in the book. I was fearful I'd be counting em day to day :)
Royal Air Force airmen killed: 537
Luftwaffe Airmen killed: 2,662
Me109 and 110 airmen killed: 549
Royal Air Force aircraft lost: 1,017
Luftwaffe aircraft lost: 1,882
Me109 and 110 aircraft lost: 871
The 109 and 110 numbers are included in the first Luftwaffe totals, but then broken down to seperate them from bomber losses.
Looks like if you compare just fighter numbers it's about even, as you'd have to take out Blenheims etc from the RAF totals, and obviously there were losses to return fire from LW bombers.
Dan
-
Lovely, lovely.
I think I have a second copy of that artice I mentioned (uh, in another thread, - the Hurricane IIB thread). Anyway, I could mail it to you, - by snailmail.
If you want it, plonk an email on info@gardsauki.is, and we'll be in touch.
Best regards
-
After stripping the numbers in most Bob articles I come to the conclusion that fighter losses to both sides were pretty even.
Many RAF fighters were intercepting bombers and some LW fighters were lost to AA.
The key historical point was who won..........?
In fact from June thru to december the RAF recieved more new fighters and trained more pilots than the LW by some pretty margin.
The LW had no inkling of this and added to their belief in their own propaganda the sight of 12 group massing over London at the end of Eagle day was something of a shock!
The LW failed to destroy the RAF either on the ground or in the air and "success" could only be so defined for the LW.
So who won the BoB?...........it was Lord Beaverbrook;)
-
Well after reading the stuff from angus (no reference again, 'I read it everywhere'), here`s what Mike Spick states on the losses of the LW/RAF over dunkirk :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1102087573_dunkirklosses.jpg)
97 Spits/Hurris were lost vs. 29 Bf 109s.
In addition, some 6000 troops, 250 ships (inc 50 warships, 10 destroyers) were lost at see according the 'Burning Bridgehead'.
On the BoB, there was an interesting and revealing discussion on the axishistory forums, some post that worth re-posting :
Most authors have based the "Losses on both sides during the Battle of Britain" on the official history..."The Defence of the United Kingdom" printed in London UK 1957. The records of the RAF and the Luftwaffe quartermaster General were used. Authors have been using the figures in different ways: in the book "Battle of Britain" by Richard Hough(1989) he states 915 fighters were lost, in "Fighter" by Len Deighton(1977) the number is 934, and the "Narrow Margin" by Derek Wood(1969) states 1,140 destroyed and 710 damaged. The reason that the numbers are different, is that most authors show the number of Spitfires & Hurricanes that were shot "down", then compare them to the Luftwaffe Quartermaster General's official numbers. The Luftwaffe numbers show "All" losses. The total number of losses for Bf109's was 663, yet if you want to show this figure as "915 Spitfires & Hurricanes lost", the Bf-109's lost are now only 502!(502 due to combat, 98 on operations, 63 not on operations. This was from July 10th to October 31) similar are the Bf-110's, 252 were lost,
224 from combat, 11 on operations, and 17 not on operations. and finally 395 He-111's are listed as losses, out of this number 160 of them(40%) were not to combat, but to taxiing accidents, collisions on take-off and landings, improper maintenance. The Narrow Margin gives the most realistic losses on both sides during July 10 to October 31 Luftwaffe: 1733 destroyed and 643 damaged, the RAF 1603 destroyed and 876 damaged. Out of the above stated losses, Luftwaffe lost 873 fighters and the RAF 1140. The Duxford Big Wing was credited with the destruction of 105 Luftwaffe aircraft and 40 probables from Sept. 7-15. This "official" score was the most exaggerated of the war, and led to the dismissal of Dowding and Park, the two men who won the "Battle" for Britain.
I might add that "Fighter" by Len Deighton notes that altough 915 fighter RAF was destroyed, a total of 1960 was written down during the Battle.
What is of matter of interest here is the number of s-e fighters lost in combat on both sides, 915 Hurricanes and Spitfires vs. 502 Bf 109s.
Certainly an improvement over Dunkirk, there the RAF lost 4 fighters for every 109, by BoB it lost 'only' twice as many.
-
tsk tsk, not so hasty ;)
Part 1. the BoB
John Alcorn's "Top guns of the BoB" article
Looks like very well compiled data, and he put a lot of work into it, starting in 1970.
Ok, some conclusions.
Period: July to and with October, so 4 months (AFAIK)
LW battle related losses:
1.609
To RAF fighters:
Between 1197 and 1231
Top scoring sqn is 603 with 57 kills, there off 47 109's.
(based on LW losses, not RAF claims)
Actually, the Hurricane equipped 501 has 40 kills, there off 30 109's!
He breaks it down sqn to sqn, claims vs LW losses he could allocate. It's probably about the best piece of work I have seen yet.
Then Dunkirk, from Christopher Shore's "10 cruicial air battles of WW2"
RAF sorties total on the 9 days of fighting: 2793
RAF losses 177
LW losses 240
-
Oh, and I'd take Shores over Spick any day :D
-
It's my understanding that the Atrition was in favour of the LW fighters and the LW in general since the RAF couldn't replenish the losses the LW was putting it was just a miscalculation of what Hitler thought would take to defeat the RAF that he postponed sealowe indefenetly.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and I'd take Shores over Spick any day :D
Why?
-
On the BoB, I would expect the British fighter losses to exceed the German fighter ones, even if everything else was equal. The reason is simple: the RAF was trying to get at the bombers and only engaged the escort fighters when they had to. The escort fighters were solely focused on getting the RAF fighters.
A similar situation occurred over Germany later in the war, when the Luftwaffe fighters attacking US bomber fleets suffered severe losses to the USAAF escort fighters.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
On the BoB, I would expect the British fighter losses to exceed the German fighter ones, even if everything else was equal. The reason is simple: the RAF was trying to get at the bombers and only engaged the escort fighters when they had to. The escort fighters were solely focused on getting the RAF fighters.
A similar situation occurred over Germany later in the war, when the Luftwaffe fighters attacking US bomber fleets suffered severe losses to the USAAF escort fighters.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
I am deepy afraid that such logic has no effect on Barbi here. Certainly the lack of enemy aircraft Allied fighter pilots encountered failed to move him as an explanation of why no Allied fighter pilot approached 100 kills, let alone 350 kills. No, his take was that the Germans were that much better.
-
Well Karnak, Marseilles had 150 kills in 1941, and he was not the first German pilot to make 100 kills. Skill definitively had a part in it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well Karnak, Marseilles had 150 kills in 1941, and he was not the first German pilot to make 100 kills. Skill definitively had a part in it.
The Germans had excellent pilots and their top pilots were great. No arguement.
However, Allied pilots that didn't see 150 enemy aircraft, let alone the number that Marseilles saw, could not possible be expected to have killed that many, regardless of how good they were.
Do you seriously contend, as Barbi did, that even if the UK or USA had been in Germany's situation that some British or American pilots would not have climbed into the hundreds of kills?
If Britain had been under heavy daylight attack for years, with her pilots always able to bail to friendly territory?
That a USA being assaulted by German and Japanese aircraft from Canada and Mexico for years would not have likewise had a group of young men to get into the hundreds of kills?
Of course they would, just as Germany did. Barbi sees it otherwise though. He sees it as an afirmation of the inferiority of the Allied nations.
-
Marseille is an interest of mine.
I have some internet atricles about him, but would be delighted to get some more stuff about him.
Ok, here's what I have, which probably forms the backbone of his success.
- He was a phenomenally good shooter, and learned his ride to the utmost (Flying in tennis shoes for a better rudder feel for instance)
- He would engage close and nail his opponents at very short range, usually aiming at the cockpit/engine
- He would engage Spitfires in an unexpected way, - i.e. by breaking and throttling down rather than zooming away, - that gave him an opportunity for a shot.
- His squadmates would keep him clear while he went around with the butcher's axe.
Some of his kills are still under hot debate, since the claims do not match allied loss reports.
And, regardless of the amazing Axis scores or score claims in N-Africa, and their vastly shorter route to the theater, they lost the game. Absolutely.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Germans had excellent pilots and their top pilots were great. No arguement.
However, Allied pilots that didn't see 150 enemy aircraft, let alone the number that Marseilles saw, could not possible be expected to have killed that many, regardless of how good they were.
Do you seriously contend, as Barbi did, that even if the UK or USA had been in Germany's situation that some British or American pilots would not have climbed into the hundreds of kills?
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that by 1941 Marseilles had 150 kills, and please don’t tell me the Allies in Africa didn’t have enough Germans to shoot at in 1941. They did. Also in 1941 ... before the Allied strategic bombing campaign against Germany ... there were several German pilots that had scored 100 kills and many more that had already outscored the highest scoring Allied aces of the war.
Clearly the superior training (pre-and early war) and subsequent unrivalled war time experience the German pilots had made them superior pilots. The late-war trained German pilots were lams to the slaughter.
-
GScholz,
The differing policies of the Allied Air Forces may have had just a wee bit to do with that, don't you think? You know, stuff like rotating pilots out to train new pilots and rest up? Tours that had an end instead of when you died.
Unless I see some evidence that the Allied pilots had the same oportunity as the Germans, I remain unconvinced. The Allies got thrown into the thick of it with an experienced adversary. The Germans got to use the woefully underequipped Spainiards and Poles as training targets.
-
The British did not have tours, and by 1941 the US had not yet entered the war. Marseilles was on leave in Berlin several times during his stay in Africa.
All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The British did not have tours, and by 1941 the US had not yet entered the war. Marseilles was on leave in Berlin several times during his stay in Africa.
RAF squadrons and the pilots during BoB were rotated in and out of combat in the south. And yes British pilots had 'tours'.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The British did not have tours, and by 1941 the US had not yet entered the war. Marseilles was on leave in Berlin several times during his stay in Africa.
All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?
RAF pilots did have tours. As an example, a Spit pilot friend, started with a Squadron in August 40 and flew his first tour into 1941. He was then seconded to Supermarine as a service test pilot and was not involved in active combat flying again until the summer of 44 when he did his second tour.
That being said, the argument is pointless as we're talking about human beings in different circumstances. Certainly the LW produced some fantastic pilots, as did any of the powers involved in the war.
I wouldn't have wanted to be in the circumstances the LW pilots were in from the end of the B of B on. I'm sure they'd have preferred to know there was an end to their tour too, but it wasn't to be. Think of all those young men who built up those kill totals and got the chop after being at it too long. Photos of Merseille, sure seem to show the wear and tear as he clearly looks fatigued just prior to his death.
Regardless of who wrote the biographies and from which country, there is a constant theme of knowing they'd pushed it too far. LW pilots got the 'twitch' just like RAF and USAAF pilots. The stress of combat took effect regardless of who they flew for.
Bottom line is there seems to be this need to say that 109s were best, and LW pilots were best. OK if that's what you need to hear, so be it.
Personally I think they were all remarkable men dealing with stuff I'm glad I'll never have to.
Throw all the stats you want out there. All it means is you are missing the essential point.
I respect them all
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that by 1941 Marseilles had 150 kills,
hahem ... his 150th kill is the 15 september 1942 according to the article I'm currently reading :)
And so he had the "brillanten"
-
My mistake, however none of you answered my question.
All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?
-
Because they are German ?
;)
More seriously it doesn't really matter because a soldier is only the tool of the HQ and politicians.
You can have the best training but if your order is "stay close to the bomber" and put you at disadvantage your doomed anyway :)
It just make you harder to kill.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
My mistake, however none of you answered my question.
All I'm seing is you giving more reasons why some German pilots were better that the best of their Allied conterparts. Better training, Spanish and Polish "traning", longer war service, more actual engagements ... can you think of one reason why the Germans shouldn't be better?
I was trying to address it in my last post, but didn't do it very well.
It seems clear from reading biographies of pilots from all the warring nations, that at a certain point the wear and tear/fatigue begain to take it's toll.
I think Johnny Johnson in his book described it well in talking about a fatalism that starts to set in. A pilot was more apt to take risks that they wouldn't have at the peak of their abilities. They'd make decisions that just weren't good ones based on how worn down they'd become from the constant stress of combat.
That being said, I do believe there were pilots who handled that stress better then others. Don Blakslee is one who was described as an "Ironman" in the USAAF when it came to combat. Sailor Malan was another with the RAF.
I believe there were men from all the countries who fit that kind of profile, yet those guys, outside of the LW flew their tours and were done.
The LW "Ironmen' just kept going on as there was no end to their tour. Think about all those 100 plus kill guys who bought it, many when they switched to flying against the West. How many of them were not as good as they were earlier due to being worn down from combat.
I believe that putting American, English, Russian, pilots in the same situation as the LW pilots were in from the Fall of 1940 on, that there would have been pilots producing the same numbers.
You can throw numbers at the argument all you want, but no other pilots were put in that situation so the LW numbers will remain higher. I suppose you'd have to take all the pilot from all countries and compare sorties, to combat encounters etc to really know for sure. As I posted in another thread, I have the logbook of a 2 tour Spit pilot. on 289 combat sorties, totalling 325 hours of flying, he encountered LW fighters 5 times and never fired his guns.
I'd guess that Erich Hartmann encountered Soviet fighters a whole lot more often then that.
As I believe people are the same all over, regardless of country, there will be the 'ironmen' rising to the top in whatever air force is in that situation.
Hopefully we'll never have to find out.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I believe that putting American, English, Russian, pilots in the same situation as the LW pilots were in from the Fall of 1940 on, that there would have been pilots producing the same numbers.
Of course ... BUT the LW pilots were the only ones that ACTUALLY did it.
Originally posted by Guppy35
You can throw numbers at the argument all you want, but no other pilots were put in that situation so the LW numbers will remain higher. I suppose you'd have to take all the pilot from all countries and compare sorties, to combat encounters etc to really know for sure. As I posted in another thread, I have the logbook of a 2 tour Spit pilot. on 289 combat sorties, totalling 325 hours of flying, he encountered LW fighters 5 times and never fired his guns.
I'd guess that Erich Hartmann encountered Soviet fighters a whole lot more often then that.
EXACTLY! And that’s why Hartmann was a much better fighter pilot than the Spit pilot you refer to. The Spit pilot never got the chance to develop into a “Experten class” pilot. The Germans were the only ones that could accumulate the necessary experience.
Were the Germans somehow “genetically” better fighter pilots than their allied counterparts? Of course not. Were they better fighter pilots? Of course they were.
-
Malan's last victory was in July '41. He was taken off operations not long after and shortly became a chief instructor at 58 OTU before travelling to America. It wasn't until Jan 1943 he returned as station commander of Biggin hill even then his flights were limited. For instance when Al Deere was Wing Leader, he would allow Malan only on certain missions, with Malan bitterly complaining.
He was rested for a month in Oct, then was posted as CO to 19 and then 145 Fighter Wing, spending his time training pilots for d-day. From July onwards he was CO of the advanced gunnery school at catfoss.
If Malan had the opportunities he had in 40-41 i'm sure he would have had many more victories than his 32.
Edit: found a Marseille quote-
(to Nathaniel Flesker, RAF)
"I am Hans Marseille; you are number 56. You British pilots fly a tour of 50 sorties, and then retire from combat. We Germans continue to fly. The more we fly, the more experienced and effective we become. That is why Germany is winning the war. I have flown over 200 sorties"
-
it is true that many of the top scoring germans were fighting over safe territory, and would bail at the first signs the plane was in trouble..(this tactic is no to be critisised,, it was a smart move)..
I don't belive that axis pilots were any better than their allied counterparts, take sailor malan and put him into the same enviroment and im sure he would have been a double centurean..
the allies had a few out dated tactics at wars start but soon caught up with the axis who had been fighting and honing their skills in spain..
its always harder to fight in the enemies back yard where he has all the luxuries that brings..it just make you more proud of the courage the young guys had back in the 40s in the air on the land and in the sea...
away win 3 points , best side won..
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Of course ... BUT the LW pilots were the only ones that ACTUALLY did it.
EXACTLY! And that’s why Hartmann was a much better fighter pilot than the Spit pilot you refer to. The Spit pilot never got the chance to develop into a “Experten class” pilot. The Germans were the only ones that could accumulate the necessary experience.
Were the Germans somehow “genetically” better fighter pilots than their allied counterparts? Of course not. Were they better fighter pilots? Of course they were.
I think you missed it completely.
You are not taking into account the point where the stresses were counterproductive to the ability.
You argument would suggest that given a 1 v 1 situation, that Hartmann would defeat a Johnny Johnson, Richard Bong, etc. without question. There's no way to know that, just because the number of combat encounters was so much greater for Hartmann. ACM is ACM.
Again, the pilots writing about it, regardless of country, talk about a peak time where the experience is coupled with the aggressiveness, and how after a time that balance was lost due to fatigue, stress, etc. and they were not at their best despite the experience.
If it's purely the number of kills, that equates to skill, then why did any of the 100 plus guys get killed? Their skill should have been so far beyond any of the no kill guys they were flying against that the issue should not have been in doubt? Why did Bully Lang go down to P47s. With over 170 kills, I doubt the group of Jugs he was flying against that day had that total as a whole?
Is it possible he wasn't at his best after that much combat? Had he tempted fate one too many times?
I remember seeing before/after pictures of different pilots and the strain is evident. Someone used photos of 357th FG Ace Kit Carson to show this once and you could barely tell that the newbie Carson and the vet Carson were the same guy. Look in Knoke's book at the early photo and the one taken just before the war ended. You can't tell me the strain isn't written all over his face. Photo's in Hartmann's biography show the same thing too.
Infantry books tell the same thing. There is a time frame of greatest combat effectiveness, followed by a time of diminishing returns without a break due to the stress of combat.
You seem to be suggesting that Hartmann for example was at his very best after his last kill, because he'd had the experience. I'd suggest his best was long before his last kill, and I'd bet he'd agree with that.
There are too many factors to consider to just make a blanket statement that the LW pilots were better.
What we can agree on is that the highest scoring fighter pilots in WW2 were the LW drivers. I don't think we'll agree on the other stuff :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
You argument would suggest that given a 1 v 1 situation, that Hartmann would defeat a Johnny Johnson, Richard Bong, etc. without question. There's no way to know that, just because the number of combat encounters was so much greater for Hartmann. ACM is ACM.
Again, the pilots writing about it, regardless of country, talk about a peak time where the experience is coupled with the aggressiveness, and how after a time that balance was lost due to fatigue, stress, etc. and they were not at their best despite the experience.
Putting words in my mouth again. "Without question" is a phrase that has no plase in air combat. Nothing is given. However I would put my money on Hartmann, that's for sure.
No at times the fatigue affected them and they were not at their best, however I would expect that even in such a condition they were better than most.
You'd have to be pretty fricken amazing just to survive in the LW at the end of the war, nevermind racking up kills.
-
I put my money on a well trained japanese fighter pilot.
1 on 1 they where the best.
Why does nobody mention them ??
-
Their planes sucked a** ;)
-
Hehe.
Anyway, as for Pilot quality, bear in mind that many of the LW experten were shot down several times, but could always ditch or bale in friendly territory.
Also bear in mind that many of the LW fighter jocks never had to do a ground attack job!
Rudorffer got shot down like 17 times, Rall 8 times, etc etc.
Johnsson didn't ;)
Hartmann crashed in one of his first military plane takeoff, and spent his first combat mission chasing his own wingman ;)
F.O. Jonsson, the only Icelandic fighter pilot was jumped by two 109's in his first combat flight. Although being alone he managed to evade them for long enough for help to arrive. A long fight with the fuel needle falling and falling. He emerged without damage, only to be going for a ground attack job the next day. From there he received bullet holes, - from a barge!
My point is, these things are not that absolute, it's mostly the cirkumstancial setup that rules the statistics.
BTW, the top scoring RAF ace had 15 kills in a Biplane :D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Do you seriously contend, as Barbi did, that even if the UK or USA had been in Germany's situation that some British or American pilots would not have climbed into the hundreds of kills?
If Britain had been under heavy daylight attack for years, with her pilots always able to bail to friendly territory?
Of course they would, just as Germany did. Barbi sees it otherwise though. He sees it as an afirmation of the inferiority of the Allied nations.
Karnak,
May I ask you why you behave as pathetic, putting words into my mouth, then disproving "my" words? Also, may I ask what is the reason of you calling other men with cute, girly names...? I don`t like you, so try this maybe in the proper bar.
And BTW, why do you hate Germans so much? Is this something personal? You seem to spit out hatred on any Axis achievement during WW2, you deny that they were good at anything. In every post. Reading your posts, Karnak, makes everyone believe the german military was an inferior race from stone age, a stupid horde that failed in every field and ww2 was about the valiant anglo-saxon knights besting them in every way, messacring them en masse at their pleasure.
Even this post of yours contain nothing more than
a, making up lies
b, assuring everybody that Germany was never any better in any field than the Allies.
I think the ones who`s vision is not so much distorte by hatred as yours would agree that there were fields,like radar applications, where the Allies proved better and fields where the Germans did. Same goes for the crews, I suppose no German destroyer`s captain ever sank as many subs as the top Allied ones.. normal people can accept that just as well that the achievements of LW aces are unmatched.
But even mentioning this simple fact creates waves of overwhelming inferiority complex in you, Guppy, and Angus. You can`t put up with the facts. You can`t accept it happened like this. You began to argue about who`s pilot`s were better, something nobody even mentioned until the help-my-allied-di*k-is-too-small-so-I compensate guys showed up... It`s YOU who argue that x pilot was NOT better than y pilot. It`s YOU who argue that there was nothing special in the Experten, but WE don`t say they were superman.
As for your assumption, that the RAF could mount the same achievements if pitted in the same conditions... I don`t know if they could. I know they did not.
"If Britain had been under heavy daylight attack for years, with her pilots always able to bail to friendly territory? Of course they would, just as Germany did."
As if we get back on subject, and leave behind your bad-mouthing-having-nothing-to-do-with-the-subject-primitive-personal-attacks, we find that http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bob.html the top 3 RAF pilots could not get a total of 111 victories during BoB... whateve the reason for this, I don`t know, but these are the bare facts you need to put up with instead of coming here and making your lies about me, because it gets f. boring over time.
-
Hehe, Izzy, you also hate the RAF:
"the top 3 RAF pilots could not get a total of 111 victories during BoB"
True. They won the BoB though ;)
Maybbe it was cos they only had .303's? :D
Anyway, the BoB is a different field from the later campaign into Germany, for a quite obvious reason you always choose to forget.
The word is DISTANCE over enemy territory, and TIME on the plotting table.
Many RAF interceptions in the BoB were made under enemy aircover, and many of them were uphill all the way.
If the LW would have had to cruise for 2 hours on the plotting table before launching the attacks the outcome might have been a tad different.
-
Any more excuses for the facts , angie ? :D
-
I have nothing to EXCUSE :D
-
Oh, LW top aces in the BoB?
Mölders, Galland, and whatwashisnameagain....Wick?
BTW, who were the Top RAF aces anyway, Frantisek I remember, but haven't got the other one in my head.
BTW, was that 111 number the combined score of the three top LW guns, right?
-
"Reading your posts, Karnak, makes everyone believe the german military was an inferior race from stone age, a stupid horde that failed in every field and ww2 was about the valiant anglo-saxon knights besting them in every way, messacring them en masse at their pleasure."
We Anglo Saxons are Germanic in origin; Barbi; WWII can almost be seen as the last civil war of the Germanic tribes.
But if you get a thrill out of pretending we value (or even notice) Slavs (or should that be slaves?) such as yourself thinking they made a difference to one side or the other; then that's alright; we'll try not to giggle.
After all; we're polite to Italians; and I'm sure you guys tried just as hard to be significant.
-
Barbi,
Originally posted by Karnak
The Germans had excellent pilots and their top pilots were great. No arguement.
:p
-
This was just posted by a mod on the forum, http://www.1jma.dk/default.asp - WW2 > Sea Lion vs. Overlord thread.
I am editing this thread in the interests of Kurfurst's Health. We don't want you to get a heart attack, kurfurst.
Please email me where anyone here has posted any statement that the Whermacht were a bunch of fools, bumping in to each other, for a start. Everybody except you has been discussing this in quite a reasonable and rational way[/b], and I see no reason for you to go off like a suicide bomb
-
Well, a little work will strengthen the heart, right?
Ok, I'll tell ya something....a confession
My wife is German, and my kid is then, - half German.
German is the main language in the home.
I correspond with LW historians, I fly LW planes very much in AH, I go to Germany every year, I just spoke with my German Sister-in-law and her husbond, I am about to eat a German meal, and then I am off again reading Gunther Rall's "Mein Flugbuch" in German.
Still, choosing the top three preferred dinnermembers from this thread, I'd go for Dan, Milo and Karnak :D
Wonder how that will treat my heart :D
-
Barbi,
Just to add a bit to my quickie above, I'd like to say that there are a lot of things about the WWII German military that I respect or like. I just don't see them as superior soldiers opposed by bumbling Englishmen. I see all sides merely as humans.
An example here are some of my posts in the General Forum thread about the new Fw190 screenshots:
Originally posted by Karnak
That 190 is looking really nice.
Not meaning to be greedy, but I really like the look of the Fw190's cockpit. Would it be possible to get a look at the rudder pedals and throttle setup, e.g. the lower parts of the cockpit?
Thanks.
Followed by GRUNHERZ' comment I immediately posted:
Originally posted by Karnak
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep, a look at the side consoles would be awesome.. Pleez..
Yup. Fw190s have the best cockpit of any WWII fighters. The Me410 and Me262 are nice as well, but the Fw190 takes it by a good margin. Definately my favorite cockpit. [/B]
The Fw190's cockpit is a wonderful example of a design intended for fighting. It minimizes the pilot's flying tasks so he can concentrate on fighting the enemy and not fiddling with his aircraft.
British cockpits, by comparison, seem slapped together with relative little thought given to making the pilot's task easier. The best that can really be said is that they don't make the pilot's task harder either, that gets left to the P-38. Nonetheless, the way I would describe British cockpits would be "Unfinished prototypes that were allowed into production aircraft." Japanese aircraft cockpits are, generally, even worse than British cockpits. I do not know enough about Russian cockpits to say for sure, but given Russian design principals from the time period in question I don't hold high hopes. I do know that the Lavochkin fighters suffered engine fumes in the cockpit, something that none of the other major powers would have accepted to service. American cockpits are second to the Germans. The Americans tried to make the pilot's job easier, though without the success of the Fw190 series. The P-38 is a standout exception in the other direction.
I have never claimed the Germans were inferior or that I hated them, which I manifestly do not. I have only used your own positions against you. You will note that no where in this thread did I ever make a single claim of relative skill between German pilots and the pilots of any other nation and my only comment about the skill of German pilots was that they were excellent and that their top pilots were unarguably great.
My claim in this thread was merely that put in like circumstances some American or British pilots would also have amassed kills counted in the hundreds. This claim does not say that they did, it does not say that any given pilot would have and it does not impinge the German pilots who actually did do it.
-
Second that!
-
Karnak, if you are so free of hatred and hold yourself an honest man, can you answer why you keep putting phrases into my mouth, constantly crying in all forums about my allaged statements? Especially in view that I rejected these statement of YOURS numerous times?
Ie. what is the base for this. Where did I stated such?
Do you seriously contend, as Barbi did, that even if the UK or USA had been in Germany's situation that some British or American pilots would not have climbed into the hundreds of kills?
Or this :
Of course they would, just as Germany did. Barbi sees it otherwise though. He sees it as an afirmation of the inferiority of the Allied nations.
Can you find a post from me that would contain such statement, or you admit you intentionally misrepresented my position? Or will you continue this dishonest behaviour? Perhaps you are in as much in a need of outside help interpreting your posts as I do. I can certainly help if you need. It`s your choice wheter you want to behave honest and dishonest. Well after all, I don`t see if there could be any honest goal with misrepresenting my posts. I also suggest you to get off calling men girly names. Other than it can lead to bad gossips, it can lead to absance from this BBS. Thank you for your attention.
-
For this board's info
origin of Barbi
Kurfy's old nick was Barbarossa Isegrim. Other shortened nicks where Babs and Barb.
So don't get all wet eyed with compassion due to his moaning, for Barbi is a legit nick for him that goes back several years.
.....................
Where did I stated such?
In every single last post that you preach the superiority on German man and machine while putting down British and American man and machine.
The only one that has shown any hatred and bigorty is you Barbi. "Everybody except you has been discussing this in quite a reasonable and rational way."
-
Wheter it is name calling or 'legit' nickname is up to me to decide. I decide that it`s just an offense, name calling and flaming. Name calling and flaming will draw the attention of moderators, same goes with personal attacks like accusing with BS like this 'German superiority' thing. And as I think of it, Karnak and Milo performance in this thread is little else than unprovoked personal attacks. I think both of you have received a fair warning.
-
Quote him or shut up. I get tired of seeing these "You're just an anti-'whatever I am'" arguments. Some people here do have a bad tendency of putting words in other peoples mouths and extrapolating some sort of "greater agenda" out of a number of unrelated posts.
If you accuse someone for saying something, quote them ... or shut the f*** up.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Some people here do have a bad tendency of putting words in other peoples mouths and extrapolating some sort of "greater agenda" out of a number of unrelated posts.
If you accuse someone for saying something, quote them ... or shut the f*** up.
You have a quote verifiying your accusation?
Gotcha :)
-
I didn't mention any names. ;)
-
Kurfürst,
I use your old nickname "Barbi" because that is what you used when I first encountered you. I do so for continuity's sake, just as I continued to call Wotan "Wotan", even when he was going by a different nickname. It keeps things straight about who is who. The nickname "Barbi" is completely removed from any feminine context when I use it for you. Also the "ü" is really annoying to type.
To sum it up I don't much like people changing their online names to get a fresh start. We are the reputations that we build. I am "Karnak" on every board I post on. Like me or not, I don't hide.
As for the quote GScholz, here you go:
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Originally posted by Furball[/i]
Johnnie Johnson shot down 38 single engined fighters, not sure how that breaks up 109/190 though.
Not one of them was a bomber, eh? Hard to believe. [/b]
Originally posted by Furball
Its hard to get victories when the airforce you are supposed to be fighting is nowhere to be seen. Allied pilots could go through entire combat tours and see German aircraft 2 or 3 times.
Yeah-yeah, the old boring excuse. Funny though that somehow the LW had no problem finding the RAF... I mean, how is that Galland found&shot down about 90 planes in just up to 1941... those 90 planes certainly met Galland.. and lost every time. The highest scoring of the RAF, Johnson wasn`t able to score even one half of that during the 6 years. There must be reason for that. Now of course you will say it was extremely hard to find enemy planes for the RAF`s fighters in 1939, in 1940, in 1941... provided they weren`t looking too hard for the opportunity! I still wonder how could the LW meet RAF planes, if the RAF planes didn`t meet LW planes. A mystery to me.[/b]
Not only is he quite comfortable potificating about how unskilled RAF aces are despite not knowing something basic about them such as Johnnie Johnson's kills were all single engined fighters but he also utterly rejects the opportunity argument put forth by Furball. That is what I was refering to in my earlier posts.
Honestly, Kurfürst comes across as somebody who has intensely studdied something he likes (Bf109s, Luftwaffe operations, Luftwaffe pilots) and not studied the other stuff at all and just satisfied himself with a cursory glance (Spitfires, P-51s, Americans, British). What is so irritating about Kurfürst is not that he likes the Bf109 or Luftwaffe so much, but that he seems utterly incapable of admitting any fault in the things he likes or admitting any strength in the things he doesn't care for. It creates a very imbalanced perspective, as is seen in nearly every one of his posts.
-
I call it brown sunglasses :D
-
Honestly, Kurfürst comes across as somebody who has intensely studdied something he likes (Bf109s, Luftwaffe operations, Luftwaffe pilots) and not studied the other stuff at all and just satisfied himself with a cursory glance (Spitfires, P-51s, Americans, British). What is so irritating about Kurfürst is not that he likes the Bf109 or Luftwaffe so much, but that he seems utterly incapable of admitting any fault in the things he likes or admitting any strength in the things he doesn't care for. It creates a very imbalanced perspective, as is seen in nearly every one of his posts.
So true and when people do post, he goes off on a beserker rant calling them trolls and flamers.
Karnak, BarbI should have an upper case 'I' at the end. People just got lazy in doing so.
-
I don't need the quote Karnak, but Kurfurst does. Now he has a chance to refute it if he wants/can. Accusations without evidence is called slander, and you cant defend yourself against slander.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What is so irritating about Kurfürst is not that he likes the Bf109 or Luftwaffe so much, but that he seems utterly incapable of admitting any fault in the things he likes or admitting any strength in the things he doesn't care for.
Ok, I can't resist it. I think you are absolutely right Karnak.
I have been a WWII aviation enthousiast for what is it now, 25 years? I always thought I knew an awful lot about it. Since I started playing AH and reading these boards I found out that I don't know nearly as much as I thought. I also learned that a lot of what I knew was wrong, or at least hotly debated. Quite a lot of gentlemen here bash each other with document A, book B or pilot account C. Who will tell which one is right? You weren't there. We can only speculate and dig up even more documents and add even more controversy :D Never mind, I considered it an amusing and harmless hobby for a few middle aged people ;)
That having said, it stops being amusing when people start calling each other names, twist words out of context and dig up ancient posts to prove who knows what. I have been slammed (or ignored, I don't know what's worse) about ranting about the rudeness that is often encountered here.
Considering Kurfürst, Isegrim, BarBi or what he calls himself, he is plainly obsessed by the fact that the 109 and the LW HAVE to be the best. There seems to be no other reason for him to live than that. He collects the data that is most favourable and ignores or misinterprets other sources, calling them biased, inaccurate or worse. We do have to ask ourselves, who is the one that is biased here? Every time something 109 related comes up I fear him joining the party. Discussion is one thing but trying to outshout and ignore the others is... I don't know what word to use really.
Anecdote: In may 1940 obsolete Dutch Fokker D-21 fighters (slow radial engined monoplanes with a fixed undercarriage) tangled with an equal numer of Bf-109E's. Legend has it that 4 or 5 109's were shot down for the loss of only 1 D-21.
Edit:
It is quite rare that a person admits that he was wrong here. Still admitting that one's wrong is one of life greatest virtues. So if I ever visit Hungary and meet Kurfürst and find out he is amiable and reasonable person after all... I'll gladly take him to an aircraft museum and drink a few beers with him. Only thing I'm worried about is that he'll set fire to every Spitfire present or at least starts a soapbox rant in front of the resident 109, while 'correcting' the information on the plaque beside it with a marker.
-
Hehe, I'll second that one.
Quite frustrating really, for I am trying to collect REAL performance data to-date, that is what were the aircraft that actually met in the air in a certain timeframe performing like.
Getting data for the 109 seems to be the toughest part, for some guys like BarbI always rise up with something twisted. I could put up a long list of things I've seen on these boards that are to prove that the 109 is UBER in almost every aspect. So, I rather go to other sources.
Will post what I find, but the funny part is that my findings always get debated, although they are straight from anecdotes or flight tests.
Anyway, back to Johnny Johnsson.
I think (From memory) that all his kills were single engine fighters, and most or all over enemy territory.
He once duelled with a whole staffel of 109's actually. He managed to outclimb them in high banking turns, and once his second stage of the supercharger jumped in, he easily outran them.
Ooops, was that a bait or a troll? :D
-
I am not a researcher Angus, I just like to read everything that comes my way :) I do however understand that accurate 109 data is hard to come by, but what I am missing the most is German evaluations of captured allied aircraft. There is a book by an ex-test pilot, I believe it is something called 'Test pilot auf beuteflugzeugen' (Test pilot for captured airplanes). There are a lot of anecdotes in it, it's a good read (I have the German version but it has been translated as well). There is sadly only one evaluation report in there, of a captured La-5. I've seen that on these boards too. Would be so nice to have a bit more! I would expect the Finns have evaluated quite of lot of Russian equipment as well.
-
I have some quotes where Germans give their opinion of captured Spitfires, and Rall's quote on the Spitfire, P51 and P38.
Somewhere on my HD I have something about hybrid aircraft and their performance. (Hurris and Spits with DB engine).
Will see if I can find it andpost.
Anyway, just dug into Johnsson's list.
He opened his account in 1941 and closed it in 1944. He damaged a Ju88 on the ground and a Do17 in the air as well as a 110, but the rest are all 109's and 190's. 109's are close to 25.
Note that he flew untill sping 1945, but his last kill is in sept 1944.
The LW aircraft were hard to find in the last months of WW2.
Pat pattle tops him with total kills though, which are about 50, all with a Gladiator and a Hurricane!
Will post some more candy later.
-
Hi Angus,
If you can post the LW comments on allied aircraft that would be great. I knew that they put a DB in a Spit V but not that they did that in a Hurricane too. Curious of what they thought of that one, with it's 'old fashioned' construction and thick wings. Still, the Brits shot down quite a lot of 109's down with it ;)
Kind regards,
Ronald
-
Hello again.
The modded Hurricanes were for Yugoslavia I think. They bought the airframe from the Brits and the DB's from the Germans.
Performance was actually quite a bit better than the original Hurricane!
I'll see if that website is still alive and post a link if it is, - otherwise I'll try to host it later on since I am opening my own file directory online.
-
AHHH, found it!!!!
Here you go ;)
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/hybrid.php
hope it works
-
Originally posted by Angus
Getting data for the 109 seems to be the toughest part, for some guys like BarbI always rise up with something twisted. I could put up a long list of things I've seen on these boards that are to prove that the 109 is UBER in almost every aspect. So, I rather go to other sources.
So, basically your research method is to find data for 109 performance. When you do, there are two options for you :
a, If it shows the 109 in a good light, you call it twisted and ignore it, and seek out for other data until it`s bad enough for your taste
b, Accept the facts as they are, good or bad.
Basically, the problem is that you have build up a preconception in yourself that the 109 was the worst fighter ever, and any fact that refutes this cannot be else but propaganda/twist call it what you like.
Speaking of bias, well.... well, if someone like Angus is convinced a plane was totally useless, and then sees docs/opinion that it was fairly good, what`s your guess what his perception will be? Yup, that the evil guys show the 'crappy plane' as 'uberplane'.
And frankly, why would you expect people like Milo Morai cry about it, his refers to the Bf 109 only as the "Me$$yshlt"... I have to laugh when people like these start to talk about twist and objectiveness, it`s really funny... or just sad.
But hey, here`s is your chance, I got loads of 109 data, and you can get it and see for yourself. I wonder if facing the reality with your own eyes would change your attitude of calling everything that doesn`t match your preconceptions 'twisted', but I very much doubt so.
I give you an open challange, Angie and Karnak. List if there was any good in the 109. That it had any good qualities. For in all your post, you always work up yourself when someone mentions that it was not complete crap as you propagate all the time, and fanatically attack the persons who disprove it. Oh, and Karnak, I don`t hide. I don`t need to. And I could find better ways to hide other than using the my fav fighters (and everybody knows which one is that) nick as a new one. And considering that my old nick was VO101_Isegrim, I wonder how you come up with the Barbie cr*p. Well until you can learn my nickname correctly, I think I will fail to learn yours. After all, Karkass is just as similiar to Isegrim/Kurfurst as Barbie.
-
LOL, Barbarossa Isegrim on another of his patented rants. :(
Oh yes, don't forget you call the Spitfire, the Sh!!tfire. :)
You really should get a sense of humour., Laughing does wunders for the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I'M NOT BIASED, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS THE BIASED! RAAAAWRRGHHHULKRAGE
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You really should get a sense of humour., Laughing does wunders for the constitution.
That`s why all of us read your posts, Milo, you are one very entertaining person to laugh at. :lol
-
BarbI:
you're speaking of yourself.
I am not your mirror image with Spitfire instead of 109.
But when guys like you bring data that collides with actual established facts, then I go suspicious and search the original sources.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
That`s why all of us read your posts, Milo, you are one very entertaining person to laugh at. :lol
Not funny enough since you are still your grumpy self. :)
-
BarbI,
Who here will only accept the worst data for a given aircraft?
I don't think that any one of us, other than you, will accept only the best data for a given aircraft.
Every single time anybody has posted data on any RAF fighter you contest it and post lower numbers. Any time anybody posts Bf109 performance, unless it is the highest possible number, you contest it and post the highest numbers.
Of course when you present the data that way the Bf109 is going to be clearly superior to any other fighter. Your methods ensure that you get the results that you desire.
-
Data is what it is, just numbers.
I am a test engineer by profession and am trained to create and rely on data that has been gathered under exactly specified, reproducible conditions.
Data manipulation is not alien to me either, you can do wonderful things with colourful graphs to confuse higher management :D
Anyway, thanks Angus, that link is great. Pure joy.
-
Originally posted by Angus
BarbI:
you're speaking of yourself.
I am not your mirror image with Spitfire instead of 109.
But when guys like you bring data that collides with actual established facts, then I go suspicious and search the original sources.
"Actual Established facts?"
Like, yours?
Re-read my descripition of you Angus, and Karkass. That`s you. You have your own preconception.
You are usually presented data that doesn`t fit into your/Karkass`s preconception. Then, instead of revising your POV, your only - very primitive - answer is that it`s not agree with the 'actual established facts'. That`s usually nothing more than your own preconception, a loosly formed opinion, a mixed up of fiction and reality. When you are asked to back up your 'actual established facts', you are always unable to. It`s the most typical thing from you that you cry out that you will come back with sources soon, and that the last time we heard about it.
And in time, in your frustration you start call people liar, accuse with manipulation of facts, and as in the above pattern, you can never back your accusations with anything. The pathetic pattern of Angus and Karkass failing to behave intelligently, and change their mind under the weight of objective evidence repeats itself. Frustration grows, more accusations, more crying, more stupid threads of Dunkerque/BoB are opened, humilated again with the facts, more crying, more barking, more lies, more pathethic.
That`s the summary of Angie and Karkass`s working on this board.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Who here will only accept the worst data for a given aircraft?
It`s usually you and Angie, you are notorious on this board for this. The 109 is your hate-pet for some unknonw reason.
I don't think that any one of us, other than you, will accept only the best data for a given aircraft.[/B]
Can you back that up, or it`s just the usual barking, lies, accusation?
Every single time anybody has posted data on any RAF fighter you contest it and post lower numbers. Any time anybody posts Bf109 performance, unless it is the highest possible number, you contest it and post the highest numbers.[/B]
That`s the most laughable BS I ever heard. You are so pathetic Karkass, do you really expect people believing such obviously made up statements?
Back it up or shut up.
Of course when you present the data that way the Bf109 is going to be clearly superior to any other fighter. Your methods ensure that you get the results that you desire. [/B]
You behave like a paranoid, living in your own fantasy world where there`s a world wide conspiracy about making the 109 look uber. I feel pity for you.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
You behave like a paranoid, living in your own fantasy world where there`s a world wide conspiracy about making the 109 look uber. I feel pity for you.
You're a worldwide conspiracy?
:p
It is just you. It isn't some mass of world wide acclamation for the Bf109. It is just you.
Frankly, if you were going by world acclamation you'd think the P-51 and Spitfire were some sort of uber-fighters as they are highly overrated in the the popular media, in so far as they are ever considered.
Incidentally, as your so fond of screaming about unsupported alegations, why don't you show everybody something that I've said to demonstrate my supposed hatred of the Bf109 or Germans. I'd be interested to see it.
-
Hello BARBi
Tihi, Karkass & Angie, - nice nice :)
Anyway, I am absoluteluy honoured to be sharing the same shelf as Karnak, - when it comes to the specifications of Barbi, Izzy or whatever.
As well, the word "preconception" is hence forth discovered, and applies to none better than the one that wielded it, i.e. Barbi itself.
Don't swing the sword you can't handle though.
Established facts are things like the LW gave up the BoB campaign due to high losses, the LW had a hard time during the bombing campaign, LW activity in the last year of the war had nothing like thousands of ready fighters at hand etc.
It may not fit your world, but that's how it was.
And now I'm off to dinner.
Will bash you later.
BTW, if you're in the neighbourhood, you can come to dinner. I will bash you while you are picking yer teeth
:D