Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on December 26, 2005, 11:25:48 PM
-
If yes were all spit 5's wings clipped, full span, or both?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
If yes were all spit 5's wings clipped, full span, or both?
Go search Spitfire first 1K3 cause yer gonna get all kinds of threads where this has been discussed, in particular the numbers of Spit Vs in service at the time. Kurfie will go to great lengths to tell you the V was the main Spit into 44. I'm not going to get into a Spit debate with him again. It's a waste of time. Suffice to say Spit Vs were certainly still in service in numbers well into 1943 with the last ETO Spit Vs being replaced in June-July 44, but they were not the primary air superiority Spit. This would have been the Spitfire LFIX.
Of course it depends on what mid-war is to you. In 1942 the Spit V would have been the dominant Spit with the Spit IX only coming into service towards the late part of the summer in July-August 42
Wing types depends on theater of operations etc. Spit Vs still soldiering on in 1943 ETO from England often had clipped wings to go with the low alt Merlins. But there is no hard fast rule on who had the clipped wings. I can post photos of the 501 Squadron Spit Vbs that flew on D-Day and they had full span wings and 6 exhaust stacks.
Aussie Spit Vc in the Pac and the RAF Vcs in Burma had full span wings. MTO birds were a combo of clipped or full span depending on the job they were doing.
-
LF Vs, not Vs.
...and we will never see a L.F. V Spit in AH because it boosts at +18 lbs and has clipped wings (many), and a low alt Merlin 50M, with a FTH at 5900 ft.
You would hear the screaming as far away as Tokyo. :)
To answer your Q, some had clipped wings and some did not. Both Vs and LF Vs had both normal span and clipped span wings. Many folks think that "LF V" meant it had clipped wings, thats not true, its just that many of them did.
Im gone, too, this has all been covered a dozen times. Ltr.
-
Is there a particular date, or engagement you are interested in? That makes it a lot easier to nail down what the RAF was actually flying. People often refer to everything from 1941 to 1943 as "mid-war" and it was a period of great change for fighter command.
-
See Rule #4
-
I see you're no longer claiming there were only 10 squadrons of Mk IXs by mid 1944.
Now I wonder if you can figure out duty assignments or if you think Fighter Command was entirely blind to the type a squadron was equipped with when assigning tasks?
-
Kurfurst,
Something wrong here. You have the squadron numbers 32,43,64,66,72,74,92,111,131,132,152,249,306,310,312,315,317,340,453 and 457 squadrons listed as both IX and V squadrons.
-
See Rule #4
-
lolz.
-
Kurfy is still clueless about the RAF. All squadrons in the ETO and MTO were under RAF command.
Number of Mk IX Squadrons in September 1943 : 29
Number of Mk V Squadrons in September 1943 : 68
MkV Sept 43
32, 43, 64, 66, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 87, 92, 93, 94, 111, 118, 123, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 145, 152, 154, 165, 185, 225, 229, 232, 238, 242, 243, 249, 253, 288, 302, 306, 308, 310, 312, 315, 316, 317, 322, 340, 349, 350, 401, 402, 411, 412, 416, 417, 451, 453, 501, 504, 602, 610, 611, 897 = 43(18)
Did not include the non-Europe squadrons (5).
MkIX Sept 43
19, 32, 43, 64, 65, 66, 72, 74, 92, 111, 131, 132, 152, 222, 241, 249, 306, 310, 312, 315, 317, 340, 341, 421, 453, 457, 485, 501, 682, = 29
Those MkV squadrons in bold are in the MKIX list he posted.
Kurfy once chasitised me for using a modelling book as a reference, yet he uses a modelling book here. :eek:
Also notice he is changing his story and not claiming the MkV was the predominate Spitfire model into early-mid 1944 as he did in a thread last week.
Kurfy, what is wrong with the Merlin 61? The only difference worthy of note was it had a higher rated altitude than the Merlin 66.
There's a very good discussion of this at butch board with more consturctive people involved than guppy.
Yup, one is Neil Stirling who you slander every chance you get. :huh
-
You would hear the screaming as far away as Tokyo.
If it was modeled realistically, I hardly think people would be screaming about it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Spit V with just +16 lbs boost.
Where have you been?
Later.
-
The war started in '39 and ended in 45'.
So I'd say;
'39~'41 = early war
'42~'43 = mid war
'44~'45 = late war
So planes that started full squadron service and put into regular combat duties between '42~'43 would qualify as 'mid war'... I think...
-
Spit V with just +16 lbs boost.
Problem was they kept putting it with the wrong time period. It was a 1943 variant not a 1941 plane.
Against it's contemprary opponents historically it was not a "superplane" by any means.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well, I don't see a 109F-2 or a Fw190A-1 in AH2 either. Im ok with that, I am all for the Spit Vb as it is now, I don't want to see it get any special breaks. Same with the 150 octane stuff, I don't want it, because it just gives the Spit haters ammo to use.
As far as a clipped +18 lbs Spit LF V goes, I can't imagine this place not freaking out over its inclusion, considering the past reaction to Spits in general, especially the dogfight under 5k MA.
-
I think it needs to be put in context why squadrons had certain spits at certain times, some of kurfurt's info is wrong too. To illustrate here is the first line Spit V squadrons that were listed.
64 squadron: Had spitfire IXs July '42 until september '43 when they transferred back to spit Vs. This one stuck out a bit as 64 squadron as the first squadron to recieve spit IXs. From march-august '43 the squadron was based on scotland. No idea why the squadron was transferred to spit LF V's when they were sent backdown south though.
66: Didn't get their spit IX's til nov '43. They did however swap their Spit Vs for Spit VIs in may of that year so they definately did not have spit V's.
118: In sept '43 they had spitfire V's but were based in scotland. In jan '44 the squadron recieved spitfire IX's when joining the second TAF but transferred back to spitfire Vs in march when the squadron moved to the orkneys.
130: this squadron is a bit complicated as it was disbanded and reformed during the war with 186 being renamed 130. The squad formed in june '41 and spent all of it's time in Scotland, northern ireland and the north of england seeing little action until it was disbanded in feb '44. When reformed in April the squadron spent sometime over northern france in Spit Vs before switching to spit XIVs in Aug '44
131: Recieved spit IXs sept '43. Recieved spit VIIs in March '44 for bomber escort duties.
132: Recieved Spit IXs sept '43. The squadron flew fighter sweeps from sept '42 to Jan '44. Recieved Spit VIIIs in Jan '45 when the squadron was sent to Ceylon.
165: Reformed April '42 performing fighter sweeps until march '43 when the squadron moved to scotland. 165 recieved Spit IXs sept '43. In August 165 squadron joined the Kenley wing as bomber escorts
288: This is a bit interesting because it was formed in Nov '41 by anti-aircraft command. It provided practice for anti-aircraft units in the north of england for the rest of the war. Not quite sure why it was included though.
-
Well, I don't see a 109F-2 or a Fw190A-1 in AH2 either.
If Aces High was anything close to reality, the Me-110 would have replaced all the single engine fighter types in Luftwaffe service instead of being removed from dayfighter duties.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I also forgot to mention that 897 is a FAA squadron as were all the 800 series.
-
I agree with you Crumpp that the 110 is not quite well modelled.
However, I think the Spitfires we have, are pretty close.
And we're not yet up to the ultimate Merlin ones.
BTW, did the Mk XIV performance change? It was an underdog before.
-
However, I think the Spitfires we have, are pretty close.
I am sure everyone who plays the game, flying Spitfires and benefiting from their rather generous modeling would agree.
I don't think either an Engineer or Historian would however.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Nice bait for a flame. Please explain in which way they are overmodelled.
Speed? Well documented.
Climb? Well documented, and it seems to me they are rather under the line.
Turn? Quite well backed up I'd say.
Availability? Ask Izzy, but I'd take Guppy/Milo's survey more seriously.
Oh,,,ROLLRATE, must be, right? Well, only one rolls well, the Mk XVI.
I belive that is rather well documented also.....
-
Not a flame bait, Angus nor do I care to enter a comparision thread. While the Spitfire was good fighter, it was hardly the "superperformer" it is made out to be in these games.
Just like the Me-110 is nowhere near the competative aircraft it is in AH in the real world.
Aces High is a game. The Spitfires are an easy, popular, and familiar aircraft to have new players learn the ropes. People get hooked and move on to other shapes.
A good design analysis from an Engineers point of view is "WWII Fighter Aerodynamics".
Email me and I will send you a copy.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Done!
BTW, even from the same production, hardly 2 spits were even the same. This was more marked in the early ones though. (Mk I to V).
But what do their pilots say?
"AWESOME" !!!
But for the engineer, - not so.
-
See Rule #5, #2
-
LOL,
The Spitfire pilots have exactly the same feelings about their aircraft that the Focke Wulf pilots had!
The Luftwaffe pilots always debate among themselves which German fighter was better, the Bf-109 or the FW-190.
If a plane is competative, and a pilot can fight / survive in it, then he gains affection for the design. Competative means in a classic dogfight.
If it is not a competative design and he feels helpless against enemy aircraft, then it is not remembered with affection.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
See Rule #4
-
Kuffie, I have learned to take your long numerical posts as something to look at from a distance.
If Spit V is a dominant Spitfire late war, you are basically suggesting that their loss rate is not so much. Or are the IX's post war?
There are others that know these numbers vastly better than both you and me, and I have no doubts that your post will be dealt with properly.
This Mk V theory of yours actually has been tortured into other numbers than you started with, - but this is history, not a god-damned haggling contest. So bite the bullet, - there were more of the IX series produced than the V, and their loss rates, I belive, and therefor operational life, came out better, as they should have.
BTW, many RAF squadrons already had a batch of IX's within them with the bulk being V's, - replacements were not always complete. I think some "swap" dates refer to the date when the squadron was fully equipped with IX's. I feel sure that Guppy or Milo know this, and stay in your boots please, for when Guppy gets annoyed, it means you are pissing against the wind.
-
Oh, ghi, when you hear about Spits, remember this guy, who was dubbed a Spitfire Killer, but smacked into one and fell.....
(http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/muncheberg.jpg)
-
And since we are at it....the top LW ace of the BoB.
(http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/wick.jpg)
-
See Rule #2
-
Why YES he did.......
:O
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
Here's the difference Kurfurst. Your zeal for the 109 and bashing Spits is fanaticism. My interest in the history is not. Your initial claim was 10 Spit IX squadrons in Mid-1944.
You've backed of that one now finally.
No one has said the RAF wasn't still operating Spitfire Vs. They did until the end of the war.
But these also were not the 1941 Vb that struggled against the 190s. The 1943 Spitfire LFV was a different bird then the 1941 Spit FV.
Note the whines forever in AH about the previous Spitfire LFVc we had. Not a 1941 bird by far. Performance of the 1943 LFVs was on par with Spit IXs up to certain alts. The two stage Merlins were geared to give better performance up high. Kind of like the single stage Griffon III/IV in the XIIs. Down low it worked. It wasn't a high alt bird.
And in the end, what is your point? It's like you are trying to prove that the RAF wasn't on the winning side and that the Spit didn't accomplish anything. You can't change the history. Anyone paying attention knows the role the Spit played for the RAF and any number of other air forces. Despite your bashing, it clearly did it's job and did it well. End of story no matter how you spin the numbers.
The Spit IX was the dominant air to air Spit from 43 on. The Spit V had it's role, as did the XII, VI,VII, VIII etc, but the Spit IX was the hunter and the one that equipped the front line squadrons of 11 Group along with the XIIs and the Tiffies.
Be clear on one thing in all this, and this is the last I'm going to respond to your stuff. There is NOTHING in this discussion, or in AH that is that important to me. None of it makes me angry or causes me to act the part of a fanatic zealot, to use your terms. Real world events for me are all that are important, and dealing with the aftermath is the only thing that gets to me emotionally for obvious reasons.
This stuff is for the most part an escape from that real world stuff. I wish you'd get a clue on that. I wish it was possible to have a rationale discussion instead of the never ending 109s are best, Spit suck threads.
Using Crumpp as an example. The difference between you and he, is that I understand Crumpp's passion for the 190. He's worked his tail off to learn about it and has strong opinions about it and how it should be modeled in AH, and it's place in WW2 aviation history. I can respect that, because in the end he's just chasing the history and it isn't about rewriting some sort of propoganda story. So even when we disagree, I know his intentions are good ones and it isn't about his favorite plane is the best ever and the rest were dogs.
There are lots of folks like that, and we don't always agree, but they're in it for the sharing of the history and the knowledge.
You should pay attention to that instead of taking shots at everyone who doesn't agree with you.
-
BTW, that LW website is immensly good and full of information. Really worth a look.
Doesn't say much about how often the LW aces were shot down though, - just the last time.
Rudorffer was shot down 17 times for example.
-
Angus,
Name some aces from any side that did not get shot down. Most of them on multiple occasions.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
Kurfurst, until now I couldn't have imagined that one of the posters in these fora could be so completely ignorant and rude. You have proven me wrong. Would you please go crawl back into your wretched little hole, wherever it may be, gnaw at your heart, and leave the rest of us alone?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Angus,
Name some aces from any side that did not get shot down. Most of them on multiple occasions.
All the best,
Crumpp
Saburo Sakai wasn't shot down. Close though.
Hiroshi Nishizawa wasn't shot down. I don't count him being a passenger ina bomber that was shot down as him being shot down as he wasn't at the controls.
I can't recall Eino Juutilainen ever being shot down, in fact I've heard his fighter was never hit.
How about Hans-Joachim Marseille?
I don't recall George Beurling being shot down, but I could be mistaken. Same goes for 'Sailor' Malan.
-
Well, my friend Tony Jonsson didn't get shot down, with 1200 hours on the clock in WW2.
Johnny Jonsson didn't get shot down.
Even Douglas Bader is debatable, - was probably a collision.
Top NZ guy "Rosie" didn't get shot down. I think Malan was not shot down.
Top scoring RAF nightfighter Benson (Mossie) did not get shot down.
Did Bong get shot down? or Walsh? Or McCampbell?
This is just from memory, as my "Aces High" book is about as thick as the phonebook, hehe...
-
Oh, there may be mistakes there, I didn't check. But it should be about right.
-
Now Karnak,
How many aces did get shot down multiple times....
A small percentage or the majority?
Adi Glunz saw more combat than most and managed to get out without even a scratch.
Typical?? Of course not.
-
Oh, there may be mistakes there, I didn't check. But it should be about right.
Yes there are mistakes made, Angus. You would make fewer if you looked things up instead of posting feelings.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
With rare exception - one, in fact - the people who enjoy these boards all share a basic level of civility. There is no reason for us to put ourselves to any trouble at all in order to avoid the kind of pathetic, hateful garbage you posted. You might have had the good grace to offer an apology. Instead you post the equivalent of "stop me before I do it again." I am beginning to better understand why so many of your posts have seemed so sympathetic to the Axis cause.
- oldman
-
Crumpp: If you spotted a mistake on my post, PLEASE POINT IT OUT instead of making snide remarks. I did not post feelings, I posted straight from memory, and it has the nasty habbit of being 90%+ correct. However, your reply seems to have been rather from....feeling.
I rather suspect you didn't look up.
From the back of my head I do remember "Rosie" making a bellylanding, just not sure if it was due to enemy fire.
The other should hold water.
Erich Hartmann was forced down, and more than once, apart for trashing an aircraft on takeoff (well that can always happen).
He ditched in enemy territory and escaped after being captured by being a good actor! He also bailed after being gangbanged by P51's. No escape, there, if he hadn't done it, he'd have been toast.
Again from memory, but I have the book in German and I read it a year ago.
So, - there, - Ces't la vie.
The 7 times shot down RAF pilot in the BoB might be less, I would think it was Al Deere, and then counting from the Battle of France through the BoB, including when he got bombed on takeoff. If it isn't Deere (his autobiography is named "nine lives"), I'll be all ears!
Then, this famos guy had a scruffle with another famous guy.
The LW pilot, using superb tactics got on the Spitfire Pilots tail after the Spitfire pilot shot his wingman. It developed into a turnfight where the Spitfire Pilot absolutely reversed the situation, filled the 109 with lead, and due to his somewhat strange moral habit, left the wounded LW pilot to leave for home with a ruined aircraft......
I'll reveil, that this is none the less THAN:
My favourite character of all WW2 fighter pilots:
(http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/molders.jpg)
-
Sidenote. His brother was also a fighter pilot, but was shot down and captured by the British. After that, he spent some 6 years in Canada. Must be worth his weight in gold for the tales he could tell. I have an interview with him in the Jaegerblatt. He may be alive still.
-
Oh, Adi Glunz got out without a scratch.
So did Tony Jonsson, with 2 exceptions.
1. Getting cut on a tincan in a ditch while evading enemy strafing.
2. Getting scabies from some dirty stuff in N-Africa, as well as flees.
His main worries were not the LW aircraft, but the ack and flak, for he was doing a lot of ground attack. V-1 & V-2 sites, bridges, rails and that stuff.
Just for cakes :D
-
By mid-August, he had doubled his score to 10, when VMF-124 moved over to the newly captured airbase at Munda. On the 12th, Walsh's wingman, Lt. Johnston, saved his life by getting a Zero off Walsh's tail. Walsh had been badly shot up, his plane was on fire, and the Zero was about to finish him off when Johnston flicked him off.
http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_aces2.html
Bong got shot up pretty good by an Oscar at one point IIRC.
This is rather typical:
It would be something of an exaggeration to say that Col. Charles H. MacDonald has been slighted by history. He is, after all, the highest-scoring P-38 pilot to survive World War II.
MacDonald was the first to attack the enemy armada. In a wild melee, he shot down two fighters and was lining up on a third when he was hit hard from the rear, damaging the hydraulics and knocking out one engine, his electrical systems, and most of his coolant. Everything held together for a wave-top return to land over 40 miles of uninviting water, ending in a belly landing.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/0393valor.asp
Did he get shot down?
Guess it just depends on your perspective.
Tony Jonsson
Do you think his number of times entering combat compares with Adolf Glunz?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hehe, knew you'd ask:
"Do you think his number of times entering combat compares with Adolf Glunz?"
Not far from it in the context of facing enemy fire. Lots of flak.
-
I wasn't aware the allies kept pilots in combat from the day the war started until the end.
That will certainly shake some historians up!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I think its a bit of a myth about 'allied pilots' not serving long terms. The US certainly rotated it's pilots in tours, but it's seems to be a special case. The other 'allied', the RAF certainly kept the pilots serving until from day 1 till the end. J J Johnson certainly still served in 1945, then there's Closterman, and I am sure dozens of others. They served in the frontlines, with more or less time spent to rest, but that isn't any different from their LW collagues. Ditto for the Soviets. It seems the US habit of rotating/retiring pilots (they could afford it) is misatkenly applied for all Allied countries.
-
Rather on the spot Kurfurst.
As for Tony Jonsson, his service was from 1941 to 1945, and included in a rough order, Rhubarbs, Circuses (ETO), Scrambles and allsorts (MTO), then on to instructing (the closest he got to bail out when a student chopped his rudder off), further training and testing, transfer, then D-Day, Sweeps, jabo, crossbow and deep escort, as well as some doodlebug hunting and some other stuff.
Ended up on multi engined aircraft, and as a trainer and tug-tower!
His combat hours were some 500-600 I belive (he generously filled his quota of a ToD 200 hrs twice).
The allied cleverly did NOT keep their pilot in combat untill they either fell or became legends, - they methodically used veterans in their training programme, which proved to be quite a benefit. Still, some flew and fought for quite long, like Johhny who started in the same period as Tony, and was still at it as a wingco ober Berlin in 1941. But no pilots flew longer periods than the LW pilots, make no mistake.
Another nice & snide remark anyway.
Oh, and by pointing out the lead thrown at some of those pilots, it is interesting to know how many allied aces were downed by flak vs how many LW aces ended their career by that cause.
I can't remember a LW ace in an instance although I am sure that there were some. But many an allied ace ended his career as a WW2 combat pilot due to the German flak. First in mind comes Robert Stanford-Tuck, but they were indeed many.
How did Gabreski go down? Or Yeager?
-
The allied cleverly did NOT keep their pilot in combat untill they either fell or became legends, - they methodically used veterans in their training programme, which proved to be quite a benefit.
Therein lies the BIG difference. A training billet is NOT combat.
200 hours is a drop in the bucket compared to those Luftwaffe pilots who fought the whole war.
While allied pilots had the "option" to "volunteer" for continued combat duty this is nothing on the scale the German pilots experienced. Huge difference pyschologically between having an option and not having an option.
There is no comparision whatsoever.
Oh, and by pointing out the lead thrown at some of those pilots, it is interesting to know how many allied aces were downed by flak vs how many LW aces ended their career by that cause.
That is one of the silliest comparisions I have ever seen written. Look up "Bodenplatte".
These are nothing but more "gaming" logic and a silly attempt to imply some performance conclusions based on junk history.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I don't have to look up operation Bodenplatte, 1/1 45.
As for training, are you implying that the allies failed at their programme.
Full training+ 250 combat hours should be enough for an updated instructor.
Many LW pilots from the bucket didn't even last that long, and nevermind anyway, Even Hartmann was not an instructor.
Rall was though, for he had a wounded hand.....
-
As for training, are you implying that the allies failed at their programme.
Where in the world do you see that???
Many LW pilots from the bucket didn't even last that long,
Very true. Scores of allied pilots died as well before their tour was up. Combat is like that.
What is your point?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Lol, I was hunting your point.
Anyway, Happy new year!!
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
Comp has been down the last couple days and I return to see this.
Ah well. Let me try spell it out more clearly for you Kurfurst. I thought you'd get the inference when referencing real world issues without my naming it since you had replied back September when someone posted about what happened.
One of the results of the death of my two kids last August, is to reinforce how unimportant this stuff is. I wish I could get worked up about it, but I can't and don't. It just doesn't matter in the overall.
Am I broken? Yeah that's a fair assessment. A part of me is broken. Am I dealing with it? Yep. Don't have much choice. It's a part of what I deal with day to day. I'd dearly love not to have to.
When I refer to escaping, it's to forget about that for a minute or two and try and hide in something that can give me some joy.
Fantasy world? Nope. My fantasies involve my kids walking back in the door some day. Sadly that fantasy can't happen. I have to deal with the real world.
The only thing I am fanatical about is being a good husband and father. I have one daughter left, and my wife and I put our energies into helping her get back into college and on with her life.
So yeah, it's tough to see myself as a zealot about anything in AH. I like talking history. I like to learn about it and have learned tons from folks here.
I'm not looking for your sympathy. Trust me on that. Just understand clearly, that nothing here is worth me getting worked up about.
And I will 'spare you the BS' from here on out. It's isn't worth the time
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Comp has been down the last couple days and I return to see this.
He's an ignorant moron, Dan, ignore the SOB.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
He's an ignorant moron, Dan, ignore the SOB.
- oldman
Indeed.
Do what I did, cut and paste his vile comments into an e-mail along with a link to HTC and include a brief discription of Dan's recent tragedy. No one should get away with that level of evil....
My regards,
Widewing
-
One of the results of the death of my two kids last August.
This is the first I have heard about this, Dan.
As a parent, I can't imagine ANYTHING more earthshattering. Words are such a feeble vehicle of expression for such things.
My family will keep yours in our prayers.
Sincerely,
Crumpp
-
OMG Dan, what Crumpp said.
And Izzy, you deserve a pitchfork in your rear end. Typical of you when somebody replies perfectly to your rubbish and fanatical posts.
I have a selection of pitchforks BTW :D
-
See Rule #4
-
OMG, another of Barbi's rants. Get some proffessional help Barbi for you are mentally and emotionally disturbed.
-
See Rule #2, #5
-
Take yer pills mate,...
-
You left out some names Barbi.
LRPP, SkyChimp, Hop, Jeffro, cbo, LWD, GrzeM, gmann, several Poles and several more over at Ubi.
What is common is Barbarossa Isegrim, aka V0101 Isegrim, aka Kurfurst.
By a Mod on another board:
Kurfurst, if you are indeed Mr Barbarossa Isegrim, then your fame and reputation precede you[/u]. While I appreciate your point about entertaining new points of view, I take a very dim view of insulting members' intelligence[/u].
-
And yet...
A new year without Izzy would be....boring :D
-
The absance of people like some in this thread makes the difference between a board where intelligent members seeking knowladge exchange their ideas and learn from each other, from another board where never-grown ups distract/destruct discussions with their childish flaming.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Indeed.
Do what I did, cut and paste his vile comments into an e-mail along with a link to HTC and include a brief discription of Dan's recent tragedy. No one should get away with that level of evil....
Done. Can't let something like this go unanswered.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Angus
OMG Dan, what Crumpp said.
And Izzy, you deserve a pitchfork in your rear end. Typical of you when somebody replies perfectly to your rubbish and fanatical posts.
I have a selection of pitchforks BTW :D
That reminds me of a story attributed to Abaham Lincoln and written into the 1939 film, Young Mister Lincoln.
There was a farmer who broke the handle of his pitchfork and walked to town to purchase a new one. On his way back he passed a neighbor's house. The neighbor owned a visious old dog and spotting the passing farmer, the dog charged out to attack the man. Using his new pitchfork, the farmer kept to dog at bay until he accidentally stuck the dog in the neck, killing it. Seeing this, the dog's owner was furious, demanding to know why the farmer had killed his dog.
"I was just defending myself, I didn't mean to kill him, it was an accident" said the farmer.
"Why didn't you come at him with the other end?" demanded the dog owner.
"Why didn't your dog come at me with his other end?" replied the farmer.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
I have never seen a post by Dan that was mean-spirited or insulting. Dan is a consistant gentleman. He will call a spade a spade, and if the truth hurts, just say ouch.
You, on other hand repeatedly cross the line between debate and downright mean, unacceptable behavior.
Adding to this, I don't believe that you even play AH2.
I hope HTC locks this thread, deletes your vile posts (and the quoted portions in other people's posts) and deals with you in a manner suitable to your level of misbehavior.
Widewing
-
See Rule #5, #2, #4
-
geeez this is not a good way to start new year... if it continues to be like this pls let this thread die...
-
I certainly do not plan to post more to these guys, it's just a waste of time. They already wrecked the thread, those innocent souls that were actually interested in the original question... what was it, oh yes "Is Spitfire Mk V still the dominat spit mark in mid war?" can look up some of the numbers i posted so far.
-
Kurfurst,
The sad thing is that you have a lot of really good information on the Bf109.
These problems only show up when you set off on another attempted to rewrite the Spitfire's participation in WWII along the lines of an abject failure. If you would simply cease even talking about the Spitfire you'd do much better on all of these WWII forums I think.
Stick to what you know and like, the Bf109. It was a great fighter and you are a valuable source of data on it.
And yes, your attacks on Dan in this thread have been beyond the pale and you owe him an apology.
-
BAN KUFFIE NAMING SPITFIRE !!!!!!
Anyway, Izzy/Kuffy, - bad start of the year for you I am afraid. You are waging a war against a bulk of a forum. You should apologize, - there is no shame in that.
Your post, pointing out Dan's "insult" is nothing but a cheap bluff.
-
As an add-on on that, do it quickly.
Speaking for myself, I rather appreciate your input on the 109 and your quest to pile up data about it.
But when it boils down to your "religion", be it the LW, the 109, or the nice German warfare with their heroes vs "Winnie Poo", I always think of my pitchfork. :D
And I darned well know how to hold one, hehe
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
RUBBISH
-
As the Mod said, your fame and reputation precede you. What is this 'fame' and 'reputation' mentioned? For you that WW2 Nazi Germany is uber and all else is crap, especially the Brits. We all see the reason why, here at AH, and on other BBs, when someone disagrees with your fanatical Germany is uber stance.
Kurfy, step back and give yourself a real good self-evaluation. People don't say the things they do about you for no reason. So before you go on another of your infamous rants, kindly do so.
None of us created a website, for the whole world to read, to slander and defile a person such as you did in the case of Mike Williams and continually do so every chance you get, on every BB that you can.
For someone that claims to be a lawyer, your presentation sucks.
There is an old saying that 'the guilty yell the loudest'. You do a lot of 'yelling'. Does the truth hurt that much?
-
As one of the "innocent souls" interested in the original question, I'm afraid it was Kurfürst and nobody else who sent this thread straight down the toilet. Even if your numbers are valid, which seems in doubt, you come across to others as slightly less civil than a prison riot.
Work on people skills first, then worry about the numbers.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
You sicken me.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4
I am going to make it my job to make sure you can't post here anymore. If it means I get banned from these boards to do it, then that's how its going to be. You dont belong here, you have no place in this game, or even deserve to have a place for that mater. Trust me son, I will not rest until your slimy hungarian ass, is banned from these boards.
All your lies, missquotes, bullchit fact cherry picking... Sell your bullchit somewhere else. You're nothing but scum.
You're a liar of the worst kind. And the sad part is you lie to not only those who are around you, but to yourself most of all. And you do it so you can feel better about being a scum bag.
-
I told you Kuffie....
Something for you to understand. If the whole forum is pounding you, it's time to consider. You have promoted hand-picked data, wrong statements, and personal attacks, only to be spending other people's time on correcting. And your last lines towards Dan are upright outrageous.
If you have any gut and a human in you, you should step down and make amendment NOW.
As a sidenote, of the whole affair. It....
Reminds me of the neo Nazis actually, just make a stupid statement, hammer it in, and leave it up to those who are willing to beat it back to square one. Exactly the same case of thought. As much as I appreciate the 109 data you have brought to the forum, I will have to look at it through a filter from now on I guess.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I am going to make it my job to make sure you can't post here anymore. If it means I get banned from these boards to do it, then that's how its going to be. You dont belong here, you have no place in this game, or even deserve to have a place for that mater. Trust me son, I will not rest until your slimy hungarian ass, is banned from these boards.
All your lies, missquotes, bullchit fact cherry picking... Sell your bullchit somewhere else. You're nothing but scum.
You're a liar of the worst kind. And the sad part is you lie to not only those who are around you, but to yourself most of all. And you do it so you can feel better about being a scum bag.
Very rarely am I in 100% agreement with morph, but in this case yup.
BTW Morph he isn't in the game he just trawls the forum spewing his BS.
He's a perfect example why maybe only paying players should have access to certain areas of the BBs.
-
He's a perfect example why maybe only paying players should have access to certain areas of the BBs.
Couldn't agree more!
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
This is so wrong on so many levels !!! ... this guy needs to be perma-banned.
-
See Rule #4
-
I have requested a few months ago (in a private mail to HTC) this forum (Aircraft and Vehicles) to be more strongly moderated. It has been most informative, but as of now, it is ruined by some trolls. So far, nothing has happened. And this is a real pity.
-
Would you guys use that kind of language if you talked to someone face to face? It is sad, but some of the respect I had for some of you is simply vanishing :( ... threats and name calling... very sad and childish.
It would be so nice if people could just talk about the planes, present evidence, etc, and not start talking about the other posters. Do you think anyone really cares what you think of someone else? Do that in some other forum if you have to. This forum is about planes!!!
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Would you guys use that kind of language if you talked to someone face to face? It is sad, but some of the respect I had for some of you is simply vanishing :( ... threats and name calling... very sad and childish.
It would be so nice if people could just talk about the planes, present evidence, etc, and not start talking about the other posters. Do you think anyone really cares what you think of someone else? Do that in some other forum if you have to. This forum is about planes!!!
I agree with you, but it is hard to stay on that subject when you get likened to Goebbels for simply disagreeing with another person's take on the data and Kurfurst bluntly likened me to Goebbels on at least one occasion.
If we were to take Kurfurst's view of the Bf109 and Spitfire as being correct the Bf109 should, at every stage of the war, be faster, roll faster, turn tighter, respond more readily, have better visibility, climb faster, have longer range, have better firepower and always be a version ahead of the Spitfire. He has made all of those claims at one time or another. If you disagree with him and make your position firm he responds by slandering you.
As long as he sticks to just talking about the Bf109 he is generally ok, but as soon as any other aircraft comes into it, I've seen him go after Crump about the Bf109 vs Fw190, then he cannot be reasoned with. I am sorry to say that because it is likely he has gone too far this time and will be banned, meaning a loss of a data source for the Bf109. Essentially it seems to me that he takes it too personally and then it spills out from there. This is looking like the biggest mess yet.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Would you guys use that kind of language if you talked to someone face to face? It is sad, but some of the respect I had for some of you is simply vanishing :( ... threats and name calling... very sad and childish.
It would be so nice if people could just talk about the planes, present evidence, etc, and not start talking about the other posters. Do you think anyone really cares what you think of someone else? Do that in some other forum if you have to. This forum is about planes!!!
I can and will say this much. If I were to see Kurfurst, I will not only say what I said, but he'd likely end up with a broken nose.
His inexcusable actions require that type of response, you just do not speak the way he did to another person.
-
It is one thing talking about objects such as aircraft.
But to twist these views and make such comments to someone that is clearly trying to come to terms with such a horrific loss is completely unacceptable.
My views are the same as the others already mentioned in this thread. There is no need for me to repeat them.
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #4, #5, #2
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
See Rule #4, #5, #2
Easy solution - Go somewhere else, then you won't have to put up with us "big bunch of children".
For an alleged intelligent person you sure do things the hard way.
Your research is without doubt extensive, it's your interpretation that sometimes goes awry.
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
Different opinions of established facts?
Kuffie, you've thrown enough bluff and dirt. Just peel off will you.
(only to reappear under another name no doubt)
-
Did I just see Kurfurst pull out the victim card?
Holy ****, dude. Holy ****.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Why is he still here?
-
Originally posted by Grits
Why is he still here?
I think HTC is just getting back into the office after the long weekend, and Skuzzy's vacation. Hate to have this mess waiting for them.
Watching this maggot squirm is getting depressing, though. I didn't think anyone in this crowd could get so low.
- oldman
-
See Rule #6