Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DamnedRen on March 08, 2005, 01:35:31 PM
-
Did the German's really build 35000 109's in the different variants? And still lose the air war?
Guess they were really bad! Opps, not the German's, the planes. :)
Ren
________
DAG
-
I am pretty sure they lost most of the air war, on the grownd.
-
one simple answer.
Spitfires and hurricanes.
oh, and i suppose America helped out in a major way towards the end also.;)
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I am pretty sure they lost most of the air war, on the grownd.
I'm not so sure. I think many ground losses came later. It would be interesting to see exactly how many 109's were lost to aerial combat.
Of the 35000. Sheesh!
:)
Didn't the German Pilots actually dislike them at first but said, "oh well, use whacha got and wuit whinin?"
It's nice to know we have a choice of birds to fly in AH2. Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.
Ren
_______
DAG
-
Well alot of 109's were build in license too, some of those didn't even see the war I recall
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
I'm not so sure. I think many ground losses came later. It would be interesting to see exactly how many 109's were lost to aerial combat.
Of the 35000. Sheesh!
:)
Didn't the German Pilots actually dislike them at first but said, "oh well, use whacha got and wuit whinin?"
It's nice to know we have a choice of birds to fly in AH2. Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.
Ren
_______
DAG
Nah, Its one thing flying in the MA trying to turn with spits and an other to fly in packs with a mission objective and BnZ the spits all day long. I don't think pilots went out flyin at 7K by them selfs looking for a fight with a spit, nor did the spit pull the moves we see in the MA when engaged by 109s.
In my opinion, the air war was won by bombing airfields and factories, rather than shooting down planes in dog fights.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
In my opinion, the air war was won by bombing airfields and factories, rather than shooting down planes in dog fights.
Actually, it's a known fact that Allied high level bombing was notoriously inaccurate. But. it's all they had. That's why they had to fly so many missions with so many planes. And even then they didn't do a whole lot of damage.
Contrary to popular belief bombing did not do much to shorten the war. Air superiority and the force of Aliied might on the ground made short work of the German Army. When the Allies hit mainlad Europe and established a foothold the war ended quite quickly and had not some of the leaders messed up it would have been over much sooner.
When First and Third started moving toward Germany they didn't stop until they had captured approximately 350,000 German troops in the Rhur Valley and they met the Russkies. It took all of 6 months. The Germans also had the Russians knocking on the door from the East.
One of today's fighter bombers can do more damage in one mission (without nukes) that a whole mission of B-17's.
-
not true
for one ..
it forced the germans to commit to fighters, build more fighters and use those fighters in defense against the bombers instead of having the luxury of building offensive planeset exclusively and using them as they did in the early days of the war - on offensive and not defensively
-
Many 109 in WWII were lost because they ran out of fuel. 109's only have 106 gallons in their main tank which only gave them about 10min over England. I've heard upto %70 of the 109's lost in WWII ditched in the English Channel without any damage. It was poor planing and the arrogance of the German High Command that caused the very high lose of 109's, not the plane itself.
P.S. I must correct myself. It was during the Battle of Britain, not the entire war itself, that the Germans lost so many because of running out of fuel.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
not true
for one ..
it forced the germans to commit to fighters, build more fighters and use those fighters in defense against the bombers instead of having the luxury of building offensive planeset exclusively and using them as they did in the early days of the war - on offensive and not defensively
Actually it did nothing to stop the advancement of German technology. They were still building/experimenting with improved planes until the end of the war. The German's committing fighters did nothing to lessen the inability of bombers to accurately hitting anything. In fact the Germans made more fighters near the end of the war than in the early years. What stopped the fighters was a lack of fighters and fuel. The factories were all spread out and never really damaged. The Germans went so far as to make synthetic fuel.
If they were able to hit a right city block they were lucky. Why do you think they flew some many bombers and missions? They couldn't hit anything with high level bombing. Technology was not advanced at the point. The Nordon was considered the cats meow because it could compute the wind from the plane to the ground. However, turbulence and being shot at means they actually missed targets 95% of the time. There were just too many outside variables that caused them to miss targets. They did do a test and found the B-17 using a Nordon, under ideal conditions, could get pretty close to a target.
A stragegic bombing survey was conducted after the war and was considered a miserable failure. And was locked up as classified until after the war,
inthe '70s I think.
The most accurate bomber was the Stuka. No other plane was as accurate.
The Brits released a survey 30 years after the war stating if their bombers (night bombing) hit within 5 miles of the target it was considered a hit.
What won the war in the ETO was ground forces taking away land and capturing troops. The Atlantic wall fell immediately on D-Day. What stopped the troops from an end run was the hedgerows. No one ever had planned for them until some Sgt. figured out they needed to put plow blades on the tanks and off they went to the races.:)
-
How long did the P-47 or P-51 serve the war? A year or two?
The 109s emerged in the mid-'30s and served as combat planes even before WW2 started. It was the backbone of the Luftwaffe for more than 6~7 years, serving in two different fronts in large numbers.
Only the Spitfire is really comparable to the 109 in terms of longetivity, since it also emegred in the '30s and became a mainstay of the RAF. About 23,000 Spitfires were produced - not as much as the 109, but that's still a very high number for a single aircraft and its variants.
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
A stragegic bombing survey was conducted after the war and was considered a miserable failure. And was locked up as classified until after the war,
inthe '70s I think.
Very wrong.
You can read the summaries here:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm (ETO)
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm (PTO)
It would behoove people (not just you, Ren!) to check out these primary sources before they drew conclusions on the effectiveness of strategic bombing in WWII.
- oldman
-
Naah... P-51 was an best airplane. That is why America won World War II. That is well known facts in lots books.
-
Originally posted by JB82
Many 109 in WWII were lost because they ran out of fuel. 109's only have 106 gallons in their main tank which only gave them about 10min over England. I've heard upto %70 of the 109's lost in WWII ditched in the English Channel without any damage. It was poor planing and the arrogance of the German High Command that caused the very high lose of 109's, not the plane itself.
Exactly, on all fronts the Axis powers were led by blithering itiots. The intellegent military leaders like Rhommel and Yamamoto were ignored for the most part. Even these two blew it in N. Africa & at Midway.
The war was won by leadership and the industrial power if the USA. How can anyone hope to win a war when yo cannot inflict damage on thier War Production facilities. Even better leadership might have prolonged the war but the only hope for an Axis victory would have been to beat the US to the A-bomb.
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
What stopped the fighters was a lack of fighters and fuel.
What do you think caused the shortage?
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Very wrong.
You can read the summaries here:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm (ETO)
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm (PTO)
It would behoove people (not just you, Ren!) to check out these primary sources before they drew conclusions on the effectiveness of strategic bombing in WWII.
- oldman
Please reread my post. The summary came out in the '70's not 1945. That was propaganda. Would you want to tell all the folks back home that all those missions did little?
I also mentioned the Brits came out with theirs ahead of the US's. And as I said, anything they hit on their night missions that landed within 5 miles of the target was considered a good hit.
And yes the Germans had a maximum of 20 minutes over England. They also have amphibian planes with big red/white X's on them parked in the English Channel. They also had bouys floating around with survival gear it them along with E-Boats ready to pick up downed flyers. I think the number of planes per mission that ditched was around 20 or so.
It's also common knowledge the English High Command said shoot any amphib you see on the water in the Channel. The standard rule of thumb for chutes was if they were ovver English territory,leave em be. If they were over the English Channel or Europe, shoot em down. Some did, some didn't. It had to do with did you want that guy coming back at you in the sky again?
-
Originally posted by Mitchell
What do you think caused the shortage?
Certainly not the bombers over northern Europe.
:D
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Naah... P-51 was an best airplane. That is why America won World War II. That is well known facts in lots books.
Well, it's were sure a whole lot better than in here. LOL
But hey, its a game. Neuter the thing. There's other planes out there to fly. I'm getting to like the LA7.
:rofl :lol :rofl :lol :rofl :lol :rofl
Ren
__________
DAG
-
I remember seeing something on the military channel recently about an allied bombing of a ball-bearing factory that nearly crippled the lufftwaffe. I can't recall the date that this occured but I do remember them stating that if there had been a follow-up raid, it would have been catostrophic.
Of course, this was a television program and prone to error, I'm sure. I'm at work now or I'd do some more research on it.
-
Try the search button sometime, there's plenty of threads on the 109 in the 'Aircraft and vehicles' -forum... Both yay's and nay's are well represented there.
And now, a 109-link (http://www.aeroscientists.org/aircraft.html)
-
Goering lost the war in the air, not the 109. Not to mention the fact that 109 production didn't reach its peak until the war was irretrievably lost.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Goering lost the war in the air, not the 109.
True but the 109 didn't rule the skys over England or Europe by D-Day either.
Actually they didn't have very many decent pilots left by then. The Noob's were cannon fodder.
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
True but the 109 didn't rule the skys over England or Europe by D-Day either.
Actually they didn't have very many decent pilots left by then. The Noob's were cannon fodder.
Air supremacy was lost by the Germans long before D-day. Late in the war there was a shortage of qualified pilots, not aircraft.
-
You're all wrong!
Spitfires, Hurricanes, huge unquestioned courage, and of course the huge help of our trusted allies in America.
oh, the P-51 was a total POS untill they put a spitfire engine in it, just remember that. ;)
If ever a truly awesome plane came from America, it was either the P38, P47 or the Corsair.
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
It's nice to know we have a choice of birds to fly in AH2. Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.
Ren
_______
DAG
some of us would respectfully beg to differ.
:cool:
-
approximate monthly 109 production figures, quoted from "The First and The Last" -A. Galland:
early 1940: ~125
late 1940-1941: +375
early 1942: ~250
1943: ~1000
autumn 1944: ~2500/mo
The Germans had long lost air supremacy (and as a result, many outstanding pilots) by the time production reached its peak. According to Erich Hartmann, the vast majority of new pilots assigned to JG52 in the latter years of the war had, on average, 80 hours total flying time. What good is a greenhorn in a shiny new 109 when air supremacy is already lost?
-
Originally posted by mechanic
If ever a truly awesome plane came from America, it was either the P38, P47 or the Corsair.
Funny, that... every account of the LW aces I've read have mentioned the Mustang as something to be feared, not 47's or the flying monstrosity (p38).
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Actually it did nothing to stop the advancement of German technology. They were still building/experimenting with improved planes until the end of the war. The German's committing fighters did nothing to lessen the inability of bombers to accurately hitting anything. In fact the Germans made more fighters near the end of the war than in the early years. What stopped the fighters was a lack of fighters and fuel. The factories were all spread out and never really damaged. The Germans went so far as to make synthetic fuel.
....snip.....
What won the war in the ETO was ground forces taking away land and capturing troops. The Atlantic wall fell immediately on D-Day. What stopped the troops from an end run was the hedgerows. No one ever had planned for them until some Sgt. figured out they needed to put plow blades on the tanks and off they went to the races.:)
German research may have been individually impressive, but what killed it was the utter lack of prioritizing and integration. Dictatorial control caused resources to be squandered on epochal technologies like the V2, when streamlined production of conventional weapons would have had a better impact. Would the invasion ports have been safe if thousands of cheap, simple V1s with 1000kg payloads had been thrown at them day and night?
The western strategic bombing campaign has been thrashed over ad nauseum, but naysayers miss 2 important facts:
1) Just as the Ardennes offensive ("Battle of the Bulge") pulled German armor out of strong defensive positions and ultimately made it EASIER to win the ground war, the strategic bombing campaign REQUIRED the dictator to aggressively respond with his scarce resources, allowing the defending fighters to decimate both the Axis hardware and especially the pilot supply. Read the book JG 26, based on primary German sources and interviews, and then try to say that the bombing campaign failed to destroy the fighter arm.....
2) The fact that German industrial output was higher near the end of the war than at the beginning does NOT mean that the campaign was a failure; comparison should properly be made at the unmeasurable (but certainly far higher) output that would have been present had the bombing not occurred.
Lastly, the breakout from Normandy depended on tactical interdiction by Allied Jabos and even strategic bombers. This was possible ONLY because the luftwaffe had been chewed up by years of strategic interceptions.
-
Originally posted by wetrat
Funny, that... every account of the LW aces I've read have mentioned the Mustang as something to be feared, not 47's or the flying monstrosity (p38).
I told you, the mustang wasnt even good at its intended ground attack role untill we lent you muppets some engines ;)
-
Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.
I fly only axis in the CT, I'd be more than happy to show you what a 109 is capable of Ren...
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.
Ren
_______
DAG
I fly LW either 190D9's, or 109G2/G10 90% of the time and for what it's worth in fighter rankings I'm about 25th this tour.
-
so what, im 30 something and i dont even try for rank.
post films if you really want to prove the 109.
-
Originally posted by plank
I remember seeing something on the military channel recently about an allied bombing of a ball-bearing factory that nearly crippled the lufftwaffe. I can't recall the date that this occured but I do remember them stating that if there had been a follow-up raid, it would have been catostrophic.
The Schweinfurt raids on 17 August and 14 October 1943.
Schweinfurt contained five ball bearing factories essential to German fighter production and it was believed that their destruction would cause a bottleneck in the process.
Out of the 376 bombers (8th USAAF) sent on the first raid (230 to Schweinfurt, 146 to nearby Regensburg), the largest number yet dispatched by the USAAF, 147 were lost. On the second raid 60 were destroyed out of 291, and 142 were damaged, a loss rate of 19%.
The raids prompted the Germans to move some of their ball-bearing production elsewhere. Damaged factories were quickly rebuilt, double shifts were introduced, and production returned to normal.
The Big Week campaign (Feb 1944) of bombing the ball-bearing factories didn't succeed much better, little long-term damage was done with a high loss rate.
-
What happened 60 years ago happened. Be thankfull the German leadership didn't make those other better decisions that they could have.
I'm not sure why we argue these same dead horses over and over again about our favorite rides. Sounds like a sports bar in here. Our current AH good sticks in LW planes win all the time because they have chosen to be good in those planes. Just as our players who favor american rides, british, and so forth win all the time. We become good sticks in our rides because we have imortal life spans in the game. If shane flew nothing but a C47 on the deck for 6 months, he would probably learn how to make anyone in the game consistantly auger trying to shoot him down.
How would our american squaderons have faired in ETO if most of the veteren german pilots had been alive to meet them enmass on every mission over europe along with better LW strategic air controling and planning?
-
Originally posted by bustr
.
How would our american squaderons have faired in ETO if most of the veteren german pilots had been alive to meet them enmass on every mission over europe along with better LW strategic air controling and planning?
they would have had to have flown spitfires or hurricanes :D
maybe the odd jug.
-
(http://beatdownposse.com/images/Aces_High/lv.jpg)
-
as much as macho aviators laugh at supply guys, supply availibility is usually what determines who wins or loses. Once the US was in the war the allies could replace losses, both equipment and personnel, with relatively modern machines and reasonably trained men. The axis could not keep up the pace, especially in the air in late 43 and into the middle of 44. The grinder was running and the allies could afford to keep pouring men and machines into the fight whereas the axis couldnt.
-
Originally posted by mechanic
so what, im 30 something and i dont even try for rank.
post films if you really want to prove the 109.
You can't compare our gamey flying to what went on in WWII. You don't break a sweat dogfighting in AH.
-
Originally posted by Panzzer
The Schweinfurt raids on 17 August and 14 October 1943.
Schweinfurt contained five ball bearing factories essential to German fighter production and it was believed that their destruction would cause a bottleneck in the process.
Out of the 376 bombers (8th USAAF) sent on the first raid (230 to Schweinfurt, 146 to nearby Regensburg), the largest number yet dispatched by the USAAF, 147 were lost. On the second raid 60 were destroyed out of 291, and 142 were damaged, a loss rate of 19%.
The raids prompted the Germans to move some of their ball-bearing production elsewhere. Damaged factories were quickly rebuilt, double shifts were introduced, and production returned to normal.
The Big Week campaign (Feb 1944) of bombing the ball-bearing factories didn't succeed much better, little long-term damage was done with a high loss rate.
Thanks for the info Panzzer, that's the very raid I was thinking of. Obviously the military channel blew it a little out of proportion.
-
You guys are all nuts. The P40 won the airwar :)
All the Allies flew it in every theater of the war.
Where's Honch when we need em. He'd tell ya! :)
Dan
-
Contrary to popular belief bombing did not do much to shorten the war. Air superiority and the force of Aliied might on the ground made short work of the German Army. When the Allies hit mainlad Europe and established a foothold the war ended quite quickly and had not some of the leaders messed up it would have been over much sooner.
moin im chris3
bombing did not do much to shorter the war????????????
if the aliied didnt bomb all ouer big and medium citys and factorys. the war had be much longer. you say the air superiority and the force of aliied finish up us. thats tru, because if a aliied soldir see something havy in front of him he called for air suport and he get it som minet later.
did you ever think about how the allied get to owen the sky over europ? it was the dayly masiv bomber atacks over germany wich hiting ouer suply factoris ok thats not the point because 44 we get the highst produktion of everything (without fuel), but the point is that the luftwaffe loses many mans and airplans to these masive raids. without these masive raids, it had been very hard for the allies to get the sky over europ and last over germany. and the D-Day had been unposible.
what killed all the tigers in france? i didnt think that shermans did it often i sugest thay were manynly hit by allied airsuport. and if the Luftwaffe had been more offensive these days (for example Tigers with air suport and cap) the allied were disable to do much against the german army. but because of the daily big bomber raids the allied was in that lucky position to owen the sky. and we lose the war much earlyer because of that fact.
cu chris3
-
America won war 'couse of pony?America won war?How old are you?
When p51 entered service LW was already running like hell from Russians.
ATA, that was Blau's joke.
It's a jab intended at the P-51 fanboys.
-
Sorry,it's little late but mesage deleted:rolleyes:
-
ATA, I am sorry for pulling your leg. I just could not help regressing to the level of the first post in this thread ;)
-
Originally posted by syncrII
Contrary to popular belief bombing did not do much to shorten the war. Air superiority and the force of Aliied might on the ground made short work of the German Army. When the Allies hit mainlad Europe and established a foothold the war ended quite quickly and had not some of the leaders messed up it would have been over much sooner.
moin im chris3
bombing did not do much to shorter the war????????????
if the aliied didnt bomb all ouer big and medium citys and factorys. the war had be much longer. you say the air superiority and the force of aliied finish up us. thats tru, because if a aliied soldir see something havy in front of him he called for air suport and he get it som minet later.
did you ever think about how the allied get to owen the sky over europ? it was the dayly masiv bomber atacks over germany wich hiting ouer suply factoris ok thats not the point because 44 we get the highst produktion of everything (without fuel), but the point is that the luftwaffe loses many mans and airplans to these masive raids. without these masive raids, it had been very hard for the allies to get the sky over europ and last over germany. and the D-Day had been unposible.
what killed all the tigers in france? i didnt think that shermans did it often i sugest thay were manynly hit by allied airsuport. and if the Luftwaffe had been more offensive these days (for example Tigers with air suport and cap) the allied were disable to do much against the german army. but because of the daily big bomber raids the allied was in that lucky position to owen the sky. and we lose the war much earlyer because of that fact.
cu chris3
other way of saying what I said :)
-
Originally posted by DamnedRen
Please reread my post. The summary came out in the '70's not 1945. That was propaganda. Would you want to tell all the folks back home that all those missions did little?
The ETO summary came out on September 30, 1945.
You ought to read these reports.
Really.
- oldman
-
It's amazing to see so many with what their idea of how WW2 to turn out the way it did. So, here's mine.
1). Rommel lost in North Africa because he ran outta supplies.
2). The Normandy landing could have easily failed if the Panzer Divisions would have been released. Since the Generals in charge there didn't have control of the panzers the landing was a success.
3). The allies advanced only as fast as the german armor let them. Konigtigers and other heavy armor was used as road blocks and effectively stopped the allies at bridges and bottle necks.
4). Allied air ground support in europe was devoted to destroying supply convoys and trains. Only 2% of german tanks destroyed were by air firepower.
5). The attack in the Ardennes was dumb those units could have easily kept the allies from crossing the Rhine. What do expect when a politician decides he's a general.
6). As for german airpower they were foolishly squandered away in the Battle of Britian. Then were converted to defensive measures of buff busting.
7) In the Eastern front it's easy. Germans used the pincer movement to get to Stalingrad. Once there they got bogged down with taking the city that the Russians used the same pincer movement to capture 1.6 million german soldiers. Of which less than 100,000 returned to germany after the war.
Conclusion, A small country took on most of the world but in the end it was plain logistics that privailed. Resources like in all other wars determined the victors here. The sad part is that the victors also write the history books. So, a one sided opinion is usaully what the general population gets. Not until 60 years later when the dieing vets tell the truths about what really happened. We must sit and decide what to believe and then pass on our own opinions to the next generation.
-
4). Allied air ground support in europe was devoted to destroying supply convoys and trains. Only 2% of german tanks destroyed were by air firepower.
only 2%? were did you get these nummber? i think it was alot higher than that.
cu chris3
-
nyhow, back to the original thread.
the 109 is an awesome plane, anyone who cannot fly it will think it is unmanouveable and weak in many areas.
those who CAN fly it will land many kills with minimal effort.
the 109 is one of the most beautifull looking, and best performing a/c in AH2.
here is my evidence:
http://www.freeroleentertainment.com/files/109E.ahf
that is all.
-
numbers of the 109 built include italy and others IIRC
many many young inexperianced pilots crashed them on landing and takeoff
didn't someone post the actual A to A stats on the 109, wasn't it a positive 1.5 k/d or something, one of the better stats?
-
Originally posted by BlauK
ATA, I am sorry for pulling your leg. I just could not help regressing to the level of the first post in this thread ;)
No need to be sorry bro,i should've known it was a joke :aok
-
In AH the 109G-10 has the ability to completely dominate all other non-perked fighters. If the 109 pilot flies to the 109's strengths and not to those of his enemies he is nearly untouchable.
... of course that might become boring in the long run.
-
Originally posted by mechanic
one simple answer.
Spitfires and hurricanes.
oh, and i suppose America helped out in a major way towards the end also.;)
everyone who fly british crap know, that Spits and Hurris are useless POS ... the only one supperior british airplane were TYPHOOONNNNN :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
In AH the 109G-10 has the ability to completely dominate all other non-perked fighters. If the 109 pilot flies to the 109's strengths and not to those of his enemies he is nearly untouchable.
... of course that might become boring in the long run.
I've never found flying a G10 to its strengths and weaknesses (which is knife fighting, aggressive angles and use of vertical in close angles fights) boring. Maybe your conception of what flying a G10 to its strengths is faulty?
-
Wings AKA Military Channel did a which is better comparison between the Spit and 109 , circa BOB. Long story short they came out evenly matched.
The spit was able to turn inside of the 109, but the 109 had better guns.
The 109 was fuel injected and the spit I was aspirated. No neg Gs for the spit.
There was one other category that I can't remember. Bottom line was the were pretty even.
If you read any of the BOB books you will notice a common theme. The germans come over in hordes, fighters high over bombers. The RAF would send up small numbers to intercept. As soon as the two merged each pilot was engaged in a duel to the death.
Many times they said it was uncanney how one second there would not be anyone around you then a second later you could be surrouned by Germans, then suddenly you would be all alone again.
Nice troll though. lol
-
bockko has a point there.
It may well be production capacity that won the war ultimately.
Sherman, T34 anyone? Both realy technicaly inferior to german equipment but produced in overwhelming numbers.
Production capacity in aircraft too. Or shipping or heck you name it.
And finaly reserves of manpower. Russia had huge reserves and didn't care too much about Its individual soldiers. likewise US tactics at times were profligate in their use of Human life, though not to the same extent as the soviets. Doubt me? Bloody Omaha,Hurtgen forest. etc
If none of this was true. Britain could of won the war alone could she not.
-
Originally posted by Nath_____
I've never found flying a G10 to its strengths and weaknesses (which is knife fighting, aggressive angles and use of vertical in close angles fights) boring. Maybe your conception of what flying a G10 to its strengths is faulty?
Perhaps your conception of what is required to be "untouchable" in the MA faulty?
-
Flying a G10 to its strengths doesn't mean flying to be "untouchable" and getting no kills.
-
they hosed the spitV vs 109f with the latest patch
dunno if more historical accurate but the spitV eats the 109f now when it used to be close
-
Originally posted by Nath_____
Flying a G10 to its strengths doesn't mean flying to be "untouchable" and getting no kills.
I'm sorry, but I do not allow other people to dictate what I mean. By “the 109’s strengths” I mean its speed, acceleration and climb rate. Between 5k and 25k the 109G-10 is superior to all other non-perked planes in those performance aspects.
As for getting no kills, that’s up to the skill of the pilot.
-
The 109 was an extremely successfull and capable aircraft. Some of the benefits of the aircraft are in its ease of maintenance and assembly, things that do not factor into its flying ability, but dramaticlly effects how many you can keep flying at any particular time, which is very important. What hurt the 109 later in the war on both fronts was that it was massivly outnumbered.
The 109 was the easiest plane to manufacture, and put in the air, and you could make more of them with the same given strategic materials as you could any other aircraft. The P-51 was the easiest late war aircraft the US built, and it should have been easily 4-5 times better than a Me 109 for its cost. The P-47 and P-38's were even more expensive. It is unfair to compare these aircraft to the 109, but even if you do, it is still extremely well matched against all of the US fighters except for at extreme altitudes. The US planes owned the upper altitudes over Germany, and that is where they beat the Germans, and the 109's.
I have done many reinactments in AH of the airwars over Germany, and none of them have been accruate because it would be too lopsided to do one that was completely accurate. It is suicide to do what the Germans did in the 109's in 1943 & 44. It is a testament to their skill and abilities of the aircraft to have put up such a determined defensive effort. Do not dismiss the 109 because of the results of late 1943 & 44. The US bombing planners were smart, and knew what they had to do to beat the 109's and 190's. Don't equate the effective use of their aircraft with the ineptude of Germany's aircraft. It was the only way to beat the Germans.
-
Mechanic, those "Spitfire" engines were still built in the good ol US of A.
-
If you haven't read Galland's "The First And The Last", you should read it.. Tells something about the inefficiency of the German Fighter Arm. Of course it's a bit biased (the 262 wouldn't have made a big difference since they wouldn't have had enough fuel), but it gives a good idea what the "General of Fighters" could do during the war.
edited for spelling.
-
The biggest mistake the Germans did was to not let Kurt Tank build Focke Wulfs with Db engines!
Kurt Tank Kurt Tank Kurt Tank yeah!
Actually the 262 was all that was flying towards the end of the war and was the only aircraft making "victories" for the Luftwaffe.
Since A) Jet Fuel was easier to manufacture
B) they were hella fast
C) aces were flying them
See; The Last Year of the Luftwaffe
-
I don't think there were any aces left at the end:confused:
-
People shouldnt discount the Strategic Bombing Campaign. It totally knocked out German fuel supplies. At the end of the war, Germany didnt even have enough fuel to train new pilots. Also, it tied up 3 million troops in the Luftwaffe.
Though the Sherman was a horrible tank, American tank destroyers had a very high kill-to-death ratio, especially the M-18 and M-36.
-
Originally posted by ATA
I don't think there were any aces left at the end:confused:
Yes there were plenty of German aces that survived the war.
-
It was logistical and numerical superiority that was the biggest factor in winning the war on the Western Front.
Thank the guys in the Deuce-and-a-halfs driving the Red Ball Express, who kept the men better supplied, armed, reinforced, and fed than their enemies at all times.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes there were plenty of German aces that survived the war.
Ok
-
Messerschmitt Bf 109
Bf 109B, C, D, E, F, G, H and K series, S-99 and 199, Ha-1109 and -1112
Orgin: Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, later (1938) renamed Messerschmitt AG: very widely subcontracted throughout German-controlled territory and built under licence by Dornier-Werke, Switzerland, and Hispano-Aviacio'n, Spain (post-war, Avia, Czechoslovakia).
Type: Single-seat fighter (many, fighter bomber).
Engine: (B, C) one 635hp Junkers Jumo 210D inverted-vee-12 liquid cooled: (D) 1,000hp Daimler-Benz DB 600Aa, same layout: (E) 1,100hp DB 601A, 1,200hp DB 601N or 1,300hp DB 601E: (F) DB 601E: (G) 1,475hp DB 605A-1, or other sub-type up to DB 605D rated 1,800hp with MW50 boost: (H1) DB 601E: (K) usually 1,550hp DB 605ASCM/DCM rated 2,000hp with MW50 boost: (S-199) 1,350hp Jumo 211F: (HA-1109) 1,300hp Hispano-Suiza 12Z-89 upright vee-12 or (M1L) 1,400hp R-R Merlin 500-45.
Dimensions: Span (A to E) 32ft 4 1/2in (9-87m): (others) 32ft 6 1/2in (9-92m): length (B, C) 27ft 11in: (D, E, typical) 28ft 4in (8-64m): (F) 29ft 0 1/2in: (G) 29ft 8in (9-04m): (K) 29ft 4in: (HA-1109-M1L) 29ft 11in: height (E) 7ft 5 1/2in (2-28m): (others) 8ft 6in (2-59m).
Weights: Empty (B-1) 3,483lb; (E) 4,189lb (1900kg) to 4,421lb; (F) around 4,330lb; (G) 5,880lb (2666kg) to 6,180lb (2800kg; (K, typical) 6,000lb; maximum loaded (B-1) 4,850lb; (E) 5,523lb (2505kg) to 5,875lb (2666kg); (F-3) 6,054lb; (G) usually 7,496lb (3400kg); (K) usually 7,439lb (3375kg).
Performance: Maximum speed (B-1) 292mph; (D) 323mph; (E) 348-354mph (560-570km/h; (F-3) 390mph; (G) 353 to 428mph (569-690km/h), (K-4) 452mph (729km/h); initial climb (B-1) 2,200ft/min; (E) 3,100 to 3,280ft (1000m)/min; (G) 2,700 to 4,000ft/min; (K-4) 4,823ft (1470m)/min; service ceiling (B-1) 26,575ft; (E) 34,450ft (10,500m) to 35,090ft (11,000m); (F, G) around 38,000ft (11,600m); (K-4) 41,000ft (12,500m); range on internal fuel (all) 365-460 miles (typically, 700km).
Armament: (B) three 7-92mm Rheinmetall-Borsig MG 17 machine guns above engine and firing through propeller hub; (C) four MG 17, two above engine and two in wings, with fifth through propeller hub in C-2; (early E-1) four MG 17, plus four 50kg or one 250kg (551lb) bomb; (later E-1 and most other E) two MG 17 above engine with 1,000 rounds (or two MG 17 with 500 rounds, plus 20mm MG FF firing though propeller hub) and two MG FF in wings, each with 60-round drum; (F-1) two MG 17 and one MG FF; (F-2) two 15mm MG 151 and one MG FF; (F-4) two MG 151, one MG FF and one 20mm MG 151 in fairing under each wing; (G-1) two MG 17 or 13mm MG 131 over engine and one MG 151; (G-6) one 30mm MK 108, two MG 131 above eingine and two MG 151 under wings; (K-4) two MG 151 above engine and one MK 108 or 103; (K-6) two MG 131 above engine, one MK 103 or 108 and two MK 108 under wings; (HA-1109 series) two wing machine guns or 20mm Hispano 404. Many German G and K carried two 210mm rocket tubes under wings or various bomb loads.
History: First flight (Bf 109 V-1) early September 1935; (production B-1) February 1937; (Bf 109E) January 1939; (Bf 109F prototype) July 1940; replacement in production by Bf 109G, May 1942.
Users: Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany (Luftwaffe), Hungary, Italy (ARSI), Japan, Jugoslavia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovak (CB Insurgent), Soviet Union (1940), Spain, Switzerland; (post-war) Czechoslovakia, Israel.
Development: During World War II the general public in the Allied nations at first regarded the Messerschmitt as an inferior weapon compared with the Spitfire and other Allied fighters. Only in the fullness of time was it possible to appreciate that the Bf 109 was one of the greatest combat aircraft in history. First flown in 1935, it was a major participant in the Spanish Civil War and a thoroughly proven combat aircraft by the time of Munich (September 1938). Early versions were the Bf 109B, C and D, all of lower power than the definitive 109E. The E was in service in great quantity by the end of August 1939 when the invasioon of Poland began. From then until 1941 it was by far the most important fighter in the Luftwaffe. and it was also supplied in quantity to numerous other countries (which are listed above). During the first year of World War II the "Emil", as the various E sub-types were called, made mincemeat of the many and varied types of fighters against which it was opposed, with the single exception of the Spitfire (which it greatly outnumbered). Its good points were small size, fast and cheap production, high acceleration, fast climb and dive, and good power of manoeuve. Nearly all 109Es were also fitted with two ot three 20mm cannon, with range and striking power greater than a battery of eight rifle-calibre guns. Drawbacks were the narrow landing gear, severe swing on take-off or landing, extremely poor lateral control at high speeds. , and the fact that in combat the slats on the wings often opened in tight turns; while this prevented a stall, it snatched at the ailerons and threw the pilot off his aim. After 1942 the dominant version was the 109G ("Gustav") which made up over 70 per cent of the total received by the Luftwaffe. Though formidably armed and equipped, the vast swarms of "Gustavs" were nothing like such good machines as the lighter E and F, demanding constant pilot attention, constant high power settings, and having landing characteristics described as "malicious". only a few of the extended-span high-altitude H-series were built, but from October 1944 the standard production series was the K with clear-view "Galland hood", revised wooden tail and minor structural changes. After World War II the Czech Avia firm found their Bf 109 plant intact and began building the S-99; running out of DB 605 engines they installed the slow-revving Jumo, producing the S-199 with even worse torgue and swing than the German versions (pilots called it "Mezek" meaning mule), but in 1948 managed to sell some to Israel. The Spanish Hispano Aviacion flew its first licence-built 1109 in March 1945 and in 1953 switched to the Merlin engine to produce the built in Spain, some being tandem-seat trainers. When the last HA-1112 flew out of Seville in late 1956 it closed out 21 years of manufacture ot this classic fighter, during which total output approached 35,000.
-
Drawbacks were the narrow landing gear, severe swing on take-off or landing, extremely poor lateral control at high speeds. , and the fact that in combat the slats on the wings often opened in tight turns; while this prevented a stall, it snatched at the ailerons and threw the pilot off his aim. ... G ... demanding constant pilot attention, constant high power settings, and having landing characteristics described as "malicious".
Whole bunch of 109 related urban myths packed into one. One can easily see the myths from some British tests / test pilots there, with nifty amount of myths exagattarated into "well known facts".