Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 1K3 on February 04, 2007, 08:24:32 PM
-
The Germans were so close to have Spitfire-like planes in their service but the 109 was picked, for political reasons...
The Axis users such as the Spaniard Garcia Pardo had put it, " [He 112] is the Rolls-Royce among aircraft with the wrong engine".
The air war would have been VERY different if they had this plane...
(http://www.ffmc.de/modelle/joerg2/joerg2_he112/joerg2_he112_01.jpg)
(http://www.ffmc.de/modelle/joerg2/joerg2_he112/joerg2_he112_02.jpg)
(http://www.restmodels.com/pages/models/RM4809/112a.jpg)
(http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW3/he112-004.jpg)
(http://www.modellbau-universe.de/uploadfiles/original/rs_9209.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 1K3
The air war would have been VERY different if they had this plane...
I doubt that. Different, maybe. But VERY different? No. BOB would still have been lost, Britain would still not have been invaded and the allied bombing campaign 43-45 would have been the same.
-
How was it's range compared to the 109? Top speed?
If it had longer endurance to stay over the fight then BoB might have very well turned out different.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
I doubt that. Different, maybe. But VERY different? No. BOB would still have been lost, Britain would still not have been invaded and the allied bombing campaign 43-45 would have been the same.
The result is still going to be an allied victory. But an He 112 with Benz engine would have been a bit more competitive against the spitfire.
-
I agree with 1K3, the air war would have been VERY different if they had this plane. The LW would have lost even more spectacularly. The Messerschmitt won because it was significantly faster than the 303 mph Heinkel 112.
-
in the world at its introduction. The problem isnt (wasn't) one plane being "picked"....but the fact that it was picked to the exclusion of all other development. The He-112 had certain significant advantages over the 109....canopy design and landing gear design to start with. The He-112 was actually the pre competion "favorite" but was handily out performed by the 109.
The real question is why the He-100 (which was clearly superior to the 109) was never put into production. It was the fastest prewar fighter in the world (413 mph). The plane was considered "similiar" to the 109 and the 190 was chosen for production. In the end this is particular decision is widely regarded as the single seed from which the destruction of the luftwaffe began. In the end leaving the germans with no primary fighter aircraft of current (meaning post 1939) design. Had the Germans simply moved beyond the 109 they would have been fielding significantly better planes in 1943 and beyond. So the real focus in on the lack of evolution, not the decision to chose the 109 at one particular moment. The fact that the 109 was clearly inferior to all 3 "late war" Italian fighters" shows how stagnant german development was (outside of the 262/163).
-
The He-112 was more manuverable in tight turns, however it had other failings, including a complex wing shape and a more difficulties in production, as well as (if I recall) some problems pilots didn't like in the handling it showed during the Spanish Civil War. Despite the politics at hand, I'm of the opinion that the 109 was the better aircraft, and the right choice was made for the wrong reasons.
-
Originally posted by humble
The real question is why the He-100 (which was clearly superior to the 109) was never put into production. It was the fastest prewar fighter in the world (413 mph).
You forget, though, that they designed the He100 for speed. The record breaker was unarmed, using an experimental engine, and using surface cooling (no drag from a radiator). Even with production changes including retractable radiators under the fuselage, the wing loading was extremely high for the time (higher than the 109), the handling wasn't very good, as it was designed for speed above all (that elusive but coveted world speed record, my how the German aircraft companies fought and bickered for it!).
I don't even think the production models were armed, as there were only 13 made.[edit: 3 D-0s for japan, and 10 for propoganda] None saw combat, as they were only used as a propoganda display.
"In the end this is particular decision is widely regarded as the single seed from which the destruction of the luftwaffe began."
Hrm.. interesting... as I've never heard that before. Ever. From any source.
Most cite the 109 as being the true power behind the LW, and how the BOB was the start of the end.
-
Originally posted by humble
[B . In the end this is particular decision is widely regarded as the single seed from which the destruction of the luftwaffe began.[/B]
Never heard such thing before.
-
that hunk of junk looks more like the bastard child of a C205 and an F4U.
to liken its image to the most beautifully crafted and attractive aircraft of all time is little less than an insult.
-
You spitdweeb, you... :t :t
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
that hunk of junk looks more like the bastard child of a C205 and an F4U.
to liken its image to the most beautifully crafted and attractive aircraft of all time is little less than an insult.
Just admit, it's as attractive as the Spitfire (TM):)
-
I will never relent!!1!!1
!!
1
:furious
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
that hunk of junk looks more like the bastard child of a C205 and an F4U.
I have to agree, when I saw the pictures, first thing I said to myself was.
that a 205 variant?
to liken its image to the most beautifully crafted and attractive aircraft of all time is little less than an insult.
P-51 was better looking, so was the F-4U for that matter. :p
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH
WE MUST PURGE THIS FORUM OF THE FILTHY HEATHEN SCUM!!!!!!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/303_plane_picture.jpg)
"there there, its ok precious, the nasty man doent know what he is saying, he will repent as we burn him at the stake, there there sweetheart...........whats that you say?......you love me?......i love you too precious, i love you too.."
-
God, no! You sick puppy Batfink! Why would you sour the palatte with that???
20cc's of Daimler-Benz, STAT!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1169318343_109f4_ii.jg54-1.jpg)
Aaahhhh... much better.
-
I'll see your 109 and raise with a Spit XII, Griffon IV, clipped wings and 400 on the deck.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1103870266_41spitxiis.jpg)
-
Bat and Guppy are totally right.
Insult!!!!
Bruv
~S~
-
It looks like a Ki61 mated with a stuka. How could you compare it to a Spitfire?
-
Now HERE's the REAL German SPITFIRE:t
This is what H. Goering wished and he got what he wanted.
(http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/images/Hdbspit_1.jpeg)
(http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/images/Hdbspit_2.jpeg)
-
woah! looks horrific with a big german motor in the nose.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
woah! looks horrific with a big german motor in the nose.
The motor is DB-605 that came from 109G-6
A Spitfire with a Mercedes Benz engine is the RAF pilot's wet dream:t
A Mercedes Benz engine mated to a (captured) Spitfire airframe is the Luftwaffe pilot's wet dream:t
-
the spitfire is a pretty, dainty thing, the product of a fertile mind but not really a weapon. in reality both of the primary german fighters were more than a match for the spitfire. the only reason why the people of the british isles are not speaking in their historical saxon tongue is because of the Americans who stepped in to save your bacon yet again. prance all you want, the facts remain.
the fact that axis fighters are handicapped in this game is indicative of how truly deadly they were in reality.
if you argue about pilot training, especially towards the latter days of the war then I once again point you to the generous assistance provided by the United States.
carry on with your batfink delusions.
-
Where did you get your facts from storch?
According to your big book of WW2 with pictures??
-
Im probarbly wrong here, but I heard somewhere that the only reasons the Americains agreed to send us planesand pilots during the BoB is if Britain gave America her navy WHEN we were defeated. Am I wrong? Plus, also may be wrong, but if the German planes were superiour to the british during BoB, and they had better pilots, How come we won?
-
Originally posted by macleod01
if the German planes were superiour to the british during BoB, and they had better pilots, How come we won?
It is called "home field advantage" and decisions by high level commanders. Both Spitfires and Bf109s were short range fighters. The Bf109s were hampered by being used as long range escorts and being ordered to fly in formation with the bombers. If the British were so superior, why were they forced to retreat across the channel and wait for the US to enter the war and Russia to sap Nazi power? Even with all the tactical limitations imposed, it was an extremely bad strategic decision on the part of the Nazi high command that cost them the BoB. Had the Luftwaffe not been ordered to divert its bombing efforts away from factories, runways, and radar stations for terror bombing of London, it is entirely possible that the air defenses of Britain would have collapsed completely. At one point, the number of operational Hurricanes and Spitfires with trained pilots dipped dangerously low... then the bombing strategy changed and the Allies got a big break when Britain recovered and won the BoB.
-
If this plane is slow and maneuverable, would it be more accurate to call it the German Hurricane? Tossing aside the inverted gull wing, it seems closer in appearance and performance to a Hurricane than a Spitfire.
Originally posted by 1K3
The Germans were so close to have Spitfire-like planes in their service but the 109 was picked, for political reasons...
The Axis users such as the Spaniard Garcia Pardo had put it, " [He 112] is the Rolls-Royce among aircraft with the wrong engine".
The air war would have been VERY different if they had this plane...
(http://www.ffmc.de/modelle/joerg2/joerg2_he112/joerg2_he112_01.jpg)
(http://www.ffmc.de/modelle/joerg2/joerg2_he112/joerg2_he112_02.jpg)
(http://www.restmodels.com/pages/models/RM4809/112a.jpg)
(http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW3/he112-004.jpg)
(http://www.modellbau-universe.de/uploadfiles/original/rs_9209.jpg)
-
Um, interesting plane but it could still be the same as putting a Lamborgini body on a VW bug.
The Spitfire was a combination of elements. The unique shaped wings were developed from racing which is of coarse where the Spitfire came from. Reginald Mitchell (1895-1937) of the Supermarine Aviation Works in Southampton developed the plane. Their expertise was in racing aircraft and permanently held the Schneider trophy making aircraft which held the speed record for 14 consecutive years forming the basis of the Spitfire embodiment. I believe it was 1931 when Supermarine S6B sustained 407.5 mph to win the international race.
In racing, shape and weight are critical and Mitchell experiemented with emerging new materials and even production techniques. The early Spitfire had an alloy frame of stress skin construction which allowed it to carry 8 machine guns instead of 4.
The SpitFire was an integrated group of components developed from racing and racing successfully. With the RR engine it become the embodiment of strapping on wings. It's one thing to go fast but its another thing to stay fast as in racing. Allied planes could have gone much faster but they would have been unreliable. I don't think many of the German planes could sustain their high output for long but correct me if I'm wrong.
As an example of German engineering of its day, the ME 262 jet engine was a central combustion chamber which produced more thrust than Whittles circumferential combustion but, the engine was good for only one flight while the less powerful Vampire jet engines are still flying to this day. Todays jet engines are central combustion chambers because the materials available today allow them to function reliably. In the late 1930's the machinery and materials just were not up to it.
The canopy of the 109 has always annoyed me. Perhaps in real life the pilots liked the clunky squared off canopy of the 109 but in simulation the metal separators are a real nuisance but its the way German's designed their stuff.
RASTER
-
Originally posted by storch
the spitfire is a pretty, dainty thing, the product of a fertile mind but not really a weapon. in reality both of the primary german fighters were more than a match for the spitfire. the only reason why the people of the british isles are not speaking in their historical saxon tongue is because of the Americans who stepped in to save your bacon yet again. prance all you want, the facts remain.
the fact that axis fighters are handicapped in this game is indicative of how truly deadly they were in reality.
if you argue about pilot training, especially towards the latter days of the war then I once again point you to the generous assistance provided by the United States.
carry on with your batfink delusions.
Not the old AH LW conspiracy theory again.
Look on the bright side, if -
We had the XVI at 25lbs boost.
The XIV at 21lbs boost.
A proper Seafire IIc with the Merlin 32
An L III with the Merlin 55M
The return of the old Vc
None of which are rare, unlike some of your LW variants, then you might have something to complain about.
Until then the RAF planeset -
The only perked prop buff in the game
Out of the major 3 planesets the least 1944 versions, and no 1945 versions.
A still perked Spit XIV (with a hosed FM)
One of the most perked planesets throughout the arenas.
And you think your hard done by, lol.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You forget, though, that they designed the He100 for speed. The record breaker was unarmed, using an experimental engine, and using surface cooling (no drag from a radiator). Even with production changes including retractable radiators under the fuselage, the wing loading was extremely high for the time (higher than the 109), the handling wasn't very good, as it was designed for speed above all (that elusive but coveted world speed record, my how the German aircraft companies fought and bickered for it!).
I don't even think the production models were armed, as there were only 13 made.[edit: 3 D-0s for japan, and 10 for propoganda] None saw combat, as they were only used as a propoganda display.
"In the end this is particular decision is widely regarded as the single seed from which the destruction of the luftwaffe began."
Hrm.. interesting... as I've never heard that before. Ever. From any source.
Most cite the 109 as being the true power behind the LW, and how the BOB was the start of the end.
The model that set the speed record went 416 mph...and yes the preproduction runs were not armed...wing loading was roughly 35lbs/sqf which was on par with the D.520 and roughly 2lbs/sqf heavier then the 109E.
Overall handling for the He100 was just fine, however the plane was plagued by similiar "landing gear" issues as the 109 (track was much wider so issue was more a production one). The Japanese were heavily influenced by the He-100 in the design of the Ki-61. No question the fully armed production model would be slower then the prototype. 628/kmh seems to be the most commonly used number for the fully armed "pre production" models. Still 35mph+ faster then the 109E.
If you look thru the various histories by recognized military aviation historians one of the most common threads for the demise of the luftwaffe is the 109. The germans entered the war with the most experienced pilots, best tactics and arguably the best fighter plane in the world. Yet by 1942 they had lost any true dominance with the introduction of the spitfire IX in the west and the P-39 in the east. By 1943 the luftwaffe was suffering. In Feb 1943 the luftwaffe ran trials at Guidona. They restricted the italian planes to 2600 rpm and 1.3 ATA while letting the german planes run at max settings. All three italian planes equaled or exceeded 109G4 even at reduced settings at alts below 23,000 ft. The Luftwaffe concluded that the G.55 was the best fighter available and immediately undertook steps to explore production using the new DB603. 3 such prototypes were made but the project never went farther, mostly due to production difficulties and possibily politics. This all came from earlier "lobbying" by german pilots who felt the C205 clearly superior the 109 below 23,000 ft.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Never heard such thing before.
Start your search with aviation histories and released "think tank" reports available thru maxwell airforce base (on line). Tremendous amounts of "what if" are always done in preperation for the next "big one". If we view the production pipeline the germans had no true "next generation" of fighters during the midwar period. By 1942 the luftwaffe itself was struggling with this. From a historical perspective the germans were badly overmatched well before the generally perceived "War of attrition" in the latter part of 1944. The fact that they even undertook flight testing of the italian planes indicates just how serious the issue was. If you look at it from a historical perspective the germans are the only major combatant that didnt introduce a new plane design during the critical "mid war" years.
-
Most cite the 109 as being the true power behind the LW, and how the BOB was the start of the end
The true strength of the german luftwaffe lay in the quality of its pilots and tactics. Going back to WW1 the germans had already evolved the concept of the energy fighter vs the "dog fighter"...the 109 was designed with this in mind and was very well suited to this roll. The problem with the 109 (and single biggest reason the germans "lost" the BoB) was its limited range. The plane simply didnt have enough endurance to undertake the task at hand. The single most telling quote from WW2 aviation history is the one on the mustang. Goes something like this....." It's not what the mustang could do, its the fact that it could do it over Berlin that made it special"....
Had the germans had the A6M2 they would have won the BoB (IMO)...
-
Yes the air war would have been very different had the Germans had this plane. I don't know how well they could have produced it though, since plastic technology was not very advanced and 1:72 size pilots are hard to find.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Yes the air war would have been very different had the Germans had this plane. I don't know how well they could have produced it though, since plastic technology was not very advanced and 1:72 size pilots are hard to find.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Think how hard it would have been to shoot down.
Very small target.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by macleod01
Im probarbly wrong here, but I heard somewhere that the only reasons the Americains agreed to send us planesand pilots during the BoB is if Britain gave America her navy WHEN we were defeated. Am I wrong? Plus, also may be wrong, but if the German planes were superiour to the british during BoB, and they had better pilots, How come we won?
:huh :confused:
-
Cant remember where I hearrd it, I think it was a program on the History Channel, but correct me if Im wrong
-
not far off mac!
basically the American government assumed that if the Brits were beaten they would inherit the royal navy.
Churchill got pissed off about this and basically hinted that should the USA let the Brits be overrun he may just hand over the royal navy to the Nazis.
this helped with the American eventual descision to enter the war.
cunning move, Winnie. :aok
-
Woot, for once I was almost right about somthing!
-
Originally posted by macleod01
Im probarbly wrong here, but I heard somewhere that the only reasons the Americains agreed to send us planesand pilots during the BoB is if Britain gave America her navy WHEN we were defeated. Am I wrong? Plus, also may be wrong, but if the German planes were superiour to the british during BoB, and they had better pilots, How come we won?
act of god and karma. the germans were far superior, but hitler was a dumbarse, churchill was an inspirational and popular leader, and the british morale never cracked, just soldiered on, got throught the blitz day by day (funnily enough my house was damaged in the blitz, there's a noticable change in brick colour along one wall ;))
the germans made some bad decisons, the brits made some good ones, and even while heavily outnumbered and outclassed we pulled thorugh, story of the BoB.
-
Originally posted by macleod01
Im probarbly wrong here, but I heard somewhere that the only reasons the Americains agreed to send us planesand pilots during the BoB is if Britain gave America her navy WHEN we were defeated. Am I wrong? Plus, also may be wrong, but if the German planes were superiour to the british during BoB, and they had better pilots, How come we won?
You justed ask the question that plays out after every conflict. The primary reasons the germans lost the BoB are as follows....
1) poor primary target selection. The british bombed Berlin (maybe on purpose for this reason??) so Hitler focused on London...instead of eliminating british military infrastructure.
2) Radar, the germans underestimated its impact (so did we at pearl harbor).
3) The limited range of the 109 prevented the germans from maintaining any true air supremacy....this was somewhat counterbalanced by similiar limitations in the spitfire.
The spit/hurricane and 109E were well matched with a slight edge to the 109 overall (IMO). Neither side had planes suitable for the task at hand. The biggest difference given the actual planes in service would have been the P-39C (which would have been in full production had the US been on a war footing.. ). The P-39C totally dominated the 109E in everything but rate of climb. It had the range to form up and take the fight to the french coast and would have decimated bomber formations. The germans wouldnt have been able to contest the P-39's and still perform escort duties to england to to the limited range. Had the Germans had a similiar plane (he-100?) they would have been able to maintain a combat cap significantly longer and then the limited endurance of the spitfire (which was hard pressed already) would have been exposed.
-
one of the most obvious advantages the germans had to me, was pilot quality. many of the german BoB pilots had served in the spanish civil war, were battle hardened, and had plenty of good quality training. british pilots in the height of the BoB had 7-9 hours flying time total before being chucked into combat, many of those hours were spent just learning how to fly, you had to pick up how to fight as you went along...
as for the blitz, what happened was that a german bombing raid accidentally dropped on civilian districts because they couldn't find their target. in response to this, the brits bombed berlin, with a small force, more a morale booster/breaker than an effective bomber raid, but it enraged hitler, and he moved away from attacking radar and airfield (which were nearly destroyed, another week and england would have been ready to invade), and ordered mass raid on london. the blitz was a cruel dishonourable tactic of a madman, but funnily enough, it saved britain, and gave us enough time to geather the airforce and mount a more coordinated and effective resistance.
-
Originally posted by macleod01
Im probarbly wrong here, but I heard somewhere that the only reasons the Americains agreed to send us planesand pilots during the BoB is if Britain gave America her navy WHEN we were defeated. Am I wrong? Plus, also may be wrong, but if the German planes were superiour to the british during BoB, and they had better pilots, How come we won?
Actually I believe we only sent you supplies and materials through the lend-lease program (the lend-lease program was "technically" unconstitutional but no one really cared at that time). I also remember that most pilots came to Britain during the BoB from Canada. Yanks could not come directly from the U.S.
Could be wrong, didn't look it up, just out of memory.
-
Americans where told they could loose their US citizenship if they joined the RAF, so the Americans would go to Canada and get a citizenship there and hope they where not caught by the US government. Those few Americans who joined the Eagle Squadron gave up allot to be there.
-
Xargos, that was only when the U.S. was clinging to its veil of neutrality. After Dec 7th 1941 we no longer cared to pretend.
-
Guess I should have noted during BoB.
-
Remember the US did not declare war on Germany, They declared war on us the day after Pearl Harbor. Many in America thought the Nazi where doing a good job up tell that point.
-
[edited, don't want to disrupt the thread but Humble's got a hard-on for P-39s.]
-
Originally posted by Krusty
SNIP
Krusty not again please.
For the love of cod stop.
Bronk
-
Fine, but the man harps on the glories of the P-39 every chance he can!
I'll stop so as not to ruin this thread.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Actually I believe we only sent you supplies and materials through the lend-lease program (the lend-lease program was "technically" unconstitutional but no one really cared at that time). I also remember that most pilots came to Britain during the BoB from Canada. Yanks could not come directly from the U.S.
Could be wrong, didn't look it up, just out of memory.
US pilots were recruited in the US, by the Brits with private American help, Charles Sweeney, and Clayton Knight being the bigger names involved.. There was a lot of 'looking the other way" while it went on with the knowledge of the US State Department.
To avoid conflict with US neutrality laws the 'recruits' were routed through Canada, where they enlisted, and then sent to England.
-
S.A.P.P. this thread :aok
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
the blitz was a cruel dishonourable tactic of a madman
And one that Bomber Command perfected under the guidance of Harris.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
[edited, don't want to disrupt the thread but Humble's got a hard-on for P-39s.]
I have no particular fondness for the P-39. I simply have been impressed with the little bit I have learned about the plane. This was sparked by Bob Hoovers very positive comments about the plane. If you look at the BoB objectively two very specific elements come into play.
1) this was the 1st true infrastructure attack on a mass level.
2) it was the 1st real attempt by any nation to truely project air power at the strategic level.
This clearly showed the limitations on both sides with regard to fighter endurance. It also showed the british the difficulty in using rifle caliber munitions for bomber interception. It so happens that the only production ready fighter in the world that could have handled this combination happens to be the P-39 (or possibly D520).
Leave everything else alone but give the brits 4 squadrons of 39's (48 planes) available to interdict the germans over the french coast and see how far they would have gotten.
-
Originally posted by wooley
And one that Bomber Command perfected under the guidance of Harris.
truesay, but by then it was revenge, which i totally understand
-
Originally posted by 1K3
The Germans were so close to have Spitfire-like planes in their service but the 109 was picked, for political reasons...
I don't know where that claim comes from, perhaps from the usual conspiracy crowd.
Facts are, though, quite different.
In the fighter competition the Heinkel 112 was the favourite.
But Bf 109 outperformed it completely. 109 was also much cheaper and easier to build. It had growth capacity.
While the next Heinkel fighter, He 100, was a better fighter than the 112, it still wasn't a match for the 109. Also, He 100 had features that were quite simply unsuitable for a front line fighter.
The 112V1 started off the head-to-head contest when it arrived at Travemünde on the 8 February, 1936. The other three comeptitors had all arrived by the beginning of March. Right away the Fw 159 and Ar 80 proved to be lacking in performance, and plagued with problems. It was clear that the contest was really between the He 112 and the Bf 109.
At this point the 112 was still the favorite over the "unknown" 109, but opinions changed when the 109V2 arrived on the 21 March. All the competitor aircraft had been equipped with the RR Kestrel but this second 109 had the Jumo. From that point on it started to outperform the 112 in almost every way, and even the arrival of the Jumo engined 112V2 on the 15 April did little to address this imbalance.
As would be expected the 112 had better turn performance due to its larger wing, but the 109 was faster at all altitudes and had considerably better agility and aerobatic abilities. During spin tests on the 2 March, the 109V2 showed no problems while the 112V2 crashed. Repairs were made to the plane and it was returned in April, but it crashed again and was written off. The V1 was then returned to Heinkel on April 17 and fitted with the clipped wings.
Meanwhile news came in that Supermarine had recently received a contract for full scale production of the Spitfire, and this caused a wave of concern in the higher command of the Luftwaffe. Time now took on as much importance as any quality of the plane itself, and the RLM was ready to put any reasonable design into production.
That reasonable design was the Bf 109. On the 12 March the Commission wrote up the outcome of their meetings in a document called Bf 109 Priority Procurement. The plane that was considered a long shot for most of the program suddenly found itself leading the race. But there were some who still favored the Heinkel design, and as a result the RLM then sent out contracts for 15 "zero series" planes from both companies.
Testing continued until October, at which point some of the additional zero series planes had arrived. At the end of September there were four He 112s being tested, yet none was a clear match for the 109. This was likely the final nail in the 112's coffin, from October on the Bf 109 appears to have been selected as the winner of the contest.
-
Originally posted by storch
the spitfire is a pretty, dainty thing, the product of a fertile mind but not really a weapon. in reality both of the primary german fighters were more than a match for the spitfire. the only reason why the people of the british isles are not speaking in their historical saxon tongue is because of the Americans who stepped in to save your bacon yet again. prance all you want, the facts remain.
the fact that axis fighters are handicapped in this game is indicative of how truly deadly they were in reality.
if you argue about pilot training, especially towards the latter days of the war then I once again point you to the generous assistance provided by the United States.
carry on with your batfink delusions.
BOB had been won BEFORE the americans even entered the war..... so where do you get your ideas from?
-
Originally posted by storch
the spitfire is a pretty, dainty thing, the product of a fertile mind but not really a weapon. in reality both of the primary german fighters were more than a match for the spitfire. the only reason why the people of the british isles are not speaking in their historical saxon tongue is because of the Americans who stepped in to save your bacon yet again. prance all you want, the facts remain.
the fact that axis fighters are handicapped in this game is indicative of how truly deadly they were in reality.
if you argue about pilot training, especially towards the latter days of the war then I once again point you to the generous assistance provided by the United States.
carry on with your batfink delusions.
quiet you!, i can't believe you think anyone would bite that thing, the bait is WAY too stinky :p
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
quiet you!, i can't believe you think anyone would bite that thing, the bait is WAY too stinky :p
Originally posted by Anyone
BOB had been won BEFORE the americans even entered the war..... so where do you get your ideas from?
You live and learn...:D
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
truesay, but by then it was revenge, which i totally understand
I'm not sure I agree. Hitler ordering the LW to switch to bombing London when a week away from destroying the RAF was revenge. The British bombing campaign was a carefully considered strategy - albeit one that might have been justified in the participants' consciences by the fact the Germans 'started it'.
For what its worth, I would have fully supported such a strategy in that situation.
-
Originally posted by wooley
I'm not sure I agree. Hitler ordering the LW to switch to bombing London when a week away from destroying the RAF was revenge. The British bombing campaign was a carefully considered strategy - albeit one that might have been justified in the participants' consciences by the fact the Germans 'started it'.
For what its worth, I would have fully supported such a strategy in that situation.
ahh, the wonders of war, the wonder being that it never ends... :rolleyes:
-
yet see for yourself :D
-
Originally posted by storch
yet see for yourself :D
you're such a tard :p
-
was clearly superior to the 109E across the board. It was simply not superior enough to dictate the switch (no clue what twisted logic was at work).
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
truesay, but by then it was revenge, which i totally understand
Not revenge. Strat bombing doctrine used by all participants in the War was firmly grounded in the writings of Douhet from the '20's. Those disciples of the doctrine believed that mass destruction wreaked by strategic bombers would obviate the need for troops on the ground, and that countries would simply capitulate from the destruction. The potential of Douhet's beliefs weren't realized until August of '45. But, the Japanese, Germans, British, and U.S. all tried to achieve it with conventional bombing. The Blitz, and Harris's orders, were designed around a litteral use of Douhet's theory.
Check out a quick synopsis here (http://www.apc.maxwell.af.mil/text/theory/douhet.htm)
-
Clearly superior? In what way? It had a higher wing loading than the already-high wing loaded 109C/D. The problem only got worse as the 109s improved, meaning that the wing loading would have gotten worse.
The He100D, I've since figured out, had 2x 7mm MGs in the wing roots, and provisions for a hub-mounted MG/FF. Like the 109, however, I don't think the MG/FF was ever installed due to jamming and vibrations/overheat. Even the 3 sent to Japan left the MG/FF out and just shipped with 2x 7mm guns.
Would you say a plane that is faster, but not more manuverable, with less armament (and no cannons) is "clearly superior" to an aircraft that had decent speed, good manuverability, and good firepower?
It only had speed, nothing else. Even the LW pilots disliked the high wingloading.
Hardly a wonder weapon.
EDIT: Oh, the process started in '37 and the first prototypes were flying in '38. Yet it was still inferior to the 109Bs that were out at this time. Again, it was a racer, not a fighter.
-
In the Battle of Britain the Canadian pilots did proportionally very badly with I think half of them killed. In the statistics I saw, not sure if that included the US pilots.
The Polish pilots did proportionally very well as did some others nationalities. Not sure why, but the Canadians were either fool hardy or brave to a fault, maybe not well trained or in inferior equipement. Sadly this seems to be our military history. We've gone in and died in proportionally large numbers such as in Monte Cassino and Dieppe.
It was agreed at the time of the Monte Cassino battle that the press would give the Yanks all the credit for their folks back home and that's how the history books read it. Lot of Canadians are still bitter about the total hog wash. About time some of this US propaganda was brought out in the open don't you think. The war was almost over by the time the US picked up a rifle.
This dont buy Canadian crap because we wouldn't march with the "you're with us or against us" nationalists into Iraq. Pfft. Where were you in 42. Building trucks and shipping them to Germany thats what we remember.
RASTER
-
Originally posted by RASTER
The war was almost over by the time the US picked up a rifle.
You know, I hate to sound arrogant, but the U.S. was the one SENDING the rifles that were "picked up" by allied soldiers before U.S. troops showed up.
And, as for the war being almost over... Tell that to the million+ U.S. troops that fought bitterly on the continent (and without whose help the continent would never have been retaken).
Imagine if the U.S. hadn't committed troops. Britain would have barely survived the Battle of Britain, but they'd never have had the troops or supplies to even DREAM of liberating France. Hitler's follies in the East would have let Stalinist Soviet Russia push in to Germany, but without U.S. forces pushing him on the Western front, he probably would have held Stalin off. For a few more years. Then when Hitler fell the entire continent of Europe would have been under Soviet rule.
You thought the cold war was bad? Imagine if the "Eastern Bloc" included all of France, Holland, Spain, Italy, and points north and south!
Face it, the war was far from "almost over" when we got involved.
EDIT: I don't condone the propoganda, though
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Clearly superior? In what way? It had a higher wing loading than the already-high wing loaded 109C/D. The problem only got worse as the 109s improved, meaning that the wing loading would have gotten worse.
The He100D, I've since figured out, had 2x 7mm MGs in the wing roots, and provisions for a hub-mounted MG/FF. Like the 109, however, I don't think the MG/FF was ever installed due to jamming and vibrations/overheat. Even the 3 sent to Japan left the MG/FF out and just shipped with 2x 7mm guns.
Would you say a plane that is faster, but not more manuverable, with less armament (and no cannons) is "clearly superior" to an aircraft that had decent speed, good manuverability, and good firepower?
It only had speed, nothing else. Even the LW pilots disliked the high wingloading.
Hardly a wonder weapon.
EDIT: Oh, the process started in '37 and the first prototypes were flying in '38. Yet it was still inferior to the 109Bs that were out at this time. Again, it was a racer, not a fighter.
It's easy to find multiple sources on the He-100, just like everything else I post. The He-100 was more or less identical to the 109 in wingloading and faster with a higher rate of climb. German documents clearly show both the he-100 and Fw-190 superior to the 109. The He-100 was considered better but "similiar" and the decision was made to move ahead with the 190 (which certainly was a tremendous design). From what I see Krusty your long on opinion and short on fact.
Show me any documentation comparing the 109B and He-100 that supports your position that the 109B was equal let alone superior to the He-100.
This is probably the best general write up for the He-100. you'll note that the production model reached 416 mph @ 21000 ft {identical to production model minus armorment}....
He-100 (http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Heinkel%20HE%20100.htm)
-
I read somewhere that the demand for Daimler Benz engines are so great to the point when RLM FORBADE anyone but Messerschmitt to recieve DB 601s and 605s.
-
Yep, it was fast. But that's all it was. They kept having stability issues and resized the v-stab twice to solve it. Further, nobody has ever described it as an agile or manuverable plane.
On the other hand, both RAF and LW pilots say the 109E was as nimble as the spitfire, and for the most part they were a very close match.
Basically the surface cooling schtick was a total and complete failure. Maybe if it had worked brilliantly the plane would have been adopted as "modern", but it didn't handle in a manner that LW pilots liked (I've got one book that says LW pilots disliked the way it flew, and have read quotes online that LW pilots disliked the wing loading on it).
Add to that the fact that 3 of the 6 prototypes took damage from landing gear failures (one while sitting stationary on the tarmac), and again it doesn't seem like a wonderful weapon.
Granted a lot of planes had teething troubles, but let me put it this way.
Would you want to fly the Gee Bee in a dogfight? What about the Me209? Both were designed for excellent top speed, as much power and as much speed in the smallest frame possible. Only neither would make a good dogfighter. Even the Me209 was acknowledged as a flop (designed to win speed records, with the idea that the fastest plane would be adopted for fighter use).
It would be like flying a typhoon against a Ki-84 in the game as it is now, only your typhoon only had 2x 7mm guns and 1x MG/FF that would probably jam as soon as you fired. Which plane would you rather be in, that typhoon, or a 109F-4? Slower, sure, but far far more capable as a fighter.
EDIT: The page you linked says "In 1939 the He 100 was clearly the most advanced fighter in the world."
It's not "clear" that this is the case. In fact it seems to paint a picture of a very fast but extremely troubled development. That doesn't make it "the most advanced" fighter in the world. It tried something new (the evaporation) and it failed. However, novel and extreme ideas were nothing new for the German designers (look at the 163, the 262, hell all the Luft '46 designs!!).
The entire bottom half of that webpage seems a bit biased. The predominant reason the He100 wasn't pursued was the engine. All DB engines were alotted for 109s [and 110s] (hell the 109s had to wait years for the DBs, they were designed for the 109s in the first place, or vice versa). Even the paragraph near the end stats Heinkel made it too complex, and couldn't put a Jumo engine in it, despite intereste from RLM in a non-DB-engined fighter (hell they ordered Fws by the thousands, anything using a non-DB-engine was gold, because DBs were hard to make and scarce).
-
No question the plane had issues (all planes in development do). Wingloading was marginally high for the time but lower then the 190 or the Mig 3. I dont agree with the wingloading number on the site linked. I always use maximum takeoff weight which puts it at 35.3 sq ft. I've come across 3 or 4 sites with translated notes on various aspects of the flight testing. The handling was better then the 190 overall (remember the 190 stalled clean at 127 mph and its stall speed at 6G's was 312 mph at sea level).
This was a huge leap in balancing the various tradeoff's in design. Achieving tremendous gains in speed coupled with improved range and a much better canopy (similiar to the malcolm hood). To achieve the speed some tradeoffs in pure turn performance had to exist. I haven't ever found any indication that the plane had any significant vices beyond what would be natural given the wingloading. So the plane was inferior to the 109 in sustained turns. What I have no clear numbers on is rate of climb and roll...but the few things I've read said both were excellent.
All in all this guys write ups are pretty even handed and thoughtful. I dont see any reason to fault his research or his conclusions in general. If we look at the planes that had similiar performance the 190A3 had wing loading of 39lb/sqft and the Me109G6 had wingloading of roughly 40lbs/sqft to achieve similiar speeds (with the much more powerful DB605). From what I can tell the He-100 simply was the 1st true 400 mph fighter and the tradeoffs to achieve that were considered a bit extreme at the time. Given the overall superiority the 109 enjoyed in 38/39 I can see the hesitation to "start over" so early into the 109's development (especially given the engine shortage). I am suprised that no production run at all was approved.
I dont see any reason to disagree with his assessment that the He-100 was the dominant plane of the era. It certainly was far superior to the 190, it simply utilized the same engine as the 109 & 110. There is no indication anywhere that its handling was in anyway abnormal or that it had significant issues. It simply was more of an interceptor, if I had to speculate it was probably similiar to the yak 3 which had similiar wingloading....it just got there in 1939 instead of 1943.
I think the info your referring to was simply an attempt to show parallel development. Had the germans given the plane any production then it to would have had the potential to evolve. So the germans would have had a potential option vs the evolution of the 109 later in the war.
-
The Fw187 vs the Bf110 is where the RLM messed up, not the He100 vs Bf109.
-
Agreed Karnak the 187 outperformed every fighter in the world (AND had firepower and range, to boot!) but was side-lined by a RLM "requirement" that it have a back seat gunner (despite no need for this) and the associated weight gain with this.
Then they didn't want to pick it up for fear of disrupting the inferior 110's production lines, and the main issue was the DB engines (always the DB engines... *sigh*)
-
The RAF wanted the Mosquito to have a gunner in a rear seat, but de Haviland successfully fought it off by doing a mock up and demonstrating how much it negatively impacted perfromance.
-
I wonder if it would have made it into production using twin BMW engines? More drag, but it was the fastest plane around when introduced, it could stand to lose a few mph.
It's a good thing for the Western forces that they were more flexible than the RLM. They didn't coin the term "Nazi" for nothing, you know :)
("Accuracy nazi," "parking nazi," "spelling nazi," etc)
-
Kinda looks like the Corsair and the Spitty had a romantic encounter with red wine, Marvin Gaye, and some sweet lovin...
:D