Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: vonKrimm on February 24, 2010, 06:19:50 AM
-
change our current version to a XIVe with the cut-down rear fuselage and "bubble" canopy. also it would be nice if it got the ability to carry the 2*250lb bomb option of the "e" wing (clipped or un-clipped; don't matter). Or if the afore cannot happen, how about increasing the rounds per 20mm to 175 each; late in the war an increase from 120rpg to 175rpg was made in "e" wing spits, iirc. No, I am not going to ask for a 4*20mm version or a +25 boost version as this would just encourage spitards to HO or imitate runstangs.
lol...i just noticed i went from wanting to ask about spit XIVe models to making a wish! guess Skuzzy will move this to where it should go.
-
runstangs!.......why you...you .....SPITDWEEB! :furious...................... . :lol
-
runstangs!.......why you...you .....SPITDWEEB! :furious...................... . :lol
normally i am not a spitdweeb, but this tour i am running 6-1 in LW spit vs. pony as my rides. gotta fix this NOW! :o
Mid War is okay with a ratio of 1-2 for spit vice pony flights. :rock
-
Just so you know the in game Spit XIV is the XIVe. The bubble canopy version showed up at the very end of the war. The version we have is the more prominant WW2 version. The e designation is for the wing that has the 2 20mm and 2 50 cal mgs in it. So you already have what you are asking for.
-
Just so you know the in game Spit XIV is the XIVe. The bubble canopy version showed up at the very end of the war. The version we have is the more prominant WW2 version. The e designation is for the wing that has the 2 20mm and 2 50 cal mgs in it. So you already have what you are asking for.
perhaps my grammar skills are lacking. what i was emphasising was: "...with the cut-down rear fuselage and "bubble" canopy." and: "carry the 2*250lb bomb option of the "e" wing." If i did not make clear that I already know that we have an "e" wing xiv, then i am sorry. Mainly I'm just saying "give us a reason to believe the XIV should be perked."
You are correct that what we currently have is the most common XIVe; I am given to understand that the "e" wing also had the ability to house 4*20mm from such sources as http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_wings.html
But i defer to your vastly superior encyclopedic knowledge of WWII aircraft. so if you say there were no XIVe with the bubble canopy that carried 250lb bombs into combat in squadron strength, then i believe you.
-
Spitfire XII :devil
-
Who's the girl?
-
Who's the girl?
well, it could be Mrs. vonKrimm; can't nobody prove it ain't. :P
-
perhaps my grammar skills are lacking. what i was emphasising was: "...with the cut-down rear fuselage and "bubble" canopy." and: "carry the 2*250lb bomb option of the "e" wing." If i did not make clear that I already know that we have an "e" wing xiv, then i am sorry. Mainly I'm just saying "give us a reason to believe the XIV should be perked."
You are correct that what we currently have is the most common XIVe; I am given to understand that the "e" wing also had the ability to house 4*20mm from such sources as http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_spitfire_wings.html
But i defer to your vastly superior encyclopedic knowledge of WWII aircraft. so if you say there were no XIVe with the bubble canopy that carried 250lb bombs into combat in squadron strength, then i believe you.
The XIV's were used as interceptors along with the Tempests to attempt to chase down the 262s etc. They didn't get into the fighter bomber role until after the war and the jets took over. . There were bubble canopy XIVs very late in the game.
A Spit XII pilot I got to know a while back ended up in Spit 16s towards the end of the war. He was shot down and made a POW while dive bombing sub pens in them. He was still mad about it. His comment was that the lack of air targets was coupled with the need to keep the pilots busy which meant some pointless flights.
the 4 cannon Spit discussion has been had many times. The only example of squadron strength use of 4 cannon birds was in Italy and they were Spitfire Vcs used for ground attack. They still had the huge Vokes filter under the nose and were not used for air to air as the performance would have been poor in that role. Again the lack of air to air targets left lots of fighter pilots doing ground attack. The Malta Spit Vcs were delivered with 4 cannon but had two removed right away to improve performance.
Those 4 cannon Vc's in Italy
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/4CannonSpits.jpg)
91 Squadron got the 4 cannon Spitfire 21 in March of 45 and flew some operational sorties from England but never encountered anything in the air, while losing two Spit 21s to flak and getting credit for a midget sub off the Hook of Holland.
Seems like lots of AH folks have visions of good Spitfire performace coupled with 4 cannons dancing in their heads often :)
As for the XIV being perked. I'd rather see it get used more so I'm not big on perking it, but then again I'd unperk them all and let folks fly what they want. I'd trust they'd get bored of Jets, Tempests and C Hogs eventually.
-
Who's the girl?
I think it's Jessica
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxPEk_UcKUo
-
A good pilot is already nearly unbeatable in a XVI, allowing the XIV to become unperked would be detrimental imo. As it is its tough to take a XVI and the second the pilot makes even a slightly good move - I know I have to get luckey to pull off a win. For spit hunting I have to pick the plane, the fight, and control the fight from start to finish - and I'm not really good enough to do that. One blunder and I'm toast - no chance to disengadge, no chance to get the angles to get away, no chance to outclimb. . . The XIV is really a monster - even more then the tempest imo. Of course lesser pilots will crash the thing because its torque is so massive and it has a tendancey to want to flat spin, but thats not me actually shooting it down.
I am not saying the XVI should be perked, but perking the XIV would be a big big mistake. . .
-
A good pilot is already nearly unbeatable in a XVI, allowing the XIV to become unperked would be detrimental imo. As it is its tough to take a XVI and the second the pilot makes even a slightly good move - I know I have to get luckey to pull off a win. For spit hunting I have to pick the plane, the fight, and control the fight from start to finish - and I'm not really good enough to do that. One blunder and I'm toast - no chance to disengadge, no chance to get the angles to get away, no chance to outclimb. . . The XIV is really a monster - even more then the tempest imo. Of course lesser pilots will crash the thing because its torque is so massive and it has a tendancey to want to flat spin, but thats not me actually shooting it down.
I am not saying the XVI should be perked, but un-perking the XIV would be a big big mistake. . .
on the girl - to quote fightclub - 'she is too freaken. . .. BLOND'
-
The XIV is really a monster - even more then the tempest imo.
Absolutely not.
Why do you think the Tempest has always the best K/D of all MA planes, and the Spit 14 a merely average one?
Because the Temp is the much "better" and far more dangerous MA fighter.
The 14 has just too many weaknesses compared to the Tempest: It's a pretty unstable gunplatform, it hates diving (roll rate quickly drops to nil in a dive), it has a short range and is very fragile (like all wings). At the usual fighting altitude in the MA the 14 not eve better than the 16: It's faster (but still slower than the usual speed demons), but less maneuverable, and the 16 matches the climbrate of the 14.
The Tempest can and will engage & disengage almost at will, can fly for longer distances, strike with it's superior guns and buzz away.
The 14 is the cheapest perked fighter in AH, yet the rarest one by a huge margin (putting the limited available 163 aside).
In the long run, unperking the 14 would affect MA gameplay not more than unperking the Ta152 did... or a unperked 109K has
The Tempest plays in a totally different league than the 14. They are worlds apart.
-
In my opinion, the Spit 14 benefits from its association with other Spits, while the Tempest is hurt by its association with the Typhoon. We naturally think of the 14 as being good in traditional 'Spit' areas, such as turning and stability of gun platform, even when empirically we are proven otherwise time and again while actually flying the 14. We naturally think the Tempest can't roll or turn because the Typhie can't, and yet the Tempest isn't nearly as bad in those areas.
From my own experience, when I'm flying and want EZ mode, I'll go with a Tempest. When I want a bit of a fun perk plane challenge, I'll fly the 14. This "shouldn't" be the case - the tempest looks like a boat and the other looks like all those ezmode Spits. That in itself proves to me that there must be value in what Lusche is saying.
-
In my opinion, the Spit 14 benefits from its association with other Spits, while the Tempest is hurt by its association with the Typhoon. We naturally think of the 14 as being good in traditional 'Spit' areas, such as turning and stability of gun platform, even when empirically we are proven otherwise time and again while actually flying the 14. We naturally think the Tempest can't roll or turn because the Typhie can't, and yet the Tempest isn't nearly as bad in those areas.
From my own experience, when I'm flying and want EZ mode, I'll go with a Tempest. When I want a bit of a fun perk plane challenge, I'll fly the 14. This "shouldn't" be the case - the tempest looks like a boat and the other looks like all those ezmode Spits. That in itself proves to me that there must be value in what Lusche is saying.
Agree, the Tempest should be called the 'Tempfire' or alternately, 'SpitPest' and the Spit XIV re-named the 'Spitphoon'.
-
In my opinion, the Spit 14 benefits from its association with other Spits, while the Tempest is hurt by its association with the Typhoon. We naturally think of the 14 as being good in traditional 'Spit' areas, such as turning and stability of gun platform, even when empirically we are proven otherwise time and again while actually flying the 14. We naturally think the Tempest can't roll or turn because the Typhie can't, and yet the Tempest isn't nearly as bad in those areas.
From my own experience, when I'm flying and want EZ mode, I'll go with a Tempest. When I want a bit of a fun perk plane challenge, I'll fly the 14. This "shouldn't" be the case - the tempest looks like a boat and the other looks like all those ezmode Spits. That in itself proves to me that there must be value in what Lusche is saying.
When it was first added, sure, that might have been possible for some people. Some of us weren't fooled for a second though.
Now, after all these years, no. It isn't used because people think it isn't worth the perk points and they know it isn't to be used like a Spitfire Mk IX.
-
change our current version to a XIVe with the cut-down rear fuselage and "bubble" canopy. also it would be nice if it got the ability to carry the 2*250lb bomb option of the "e" wing (clipped or un-clipped; don't matter). Or if the afore cannot happen, how about increasing the rounds per 20mm to 175 each; late in the war an increase from 120rpg to 175rpg was made in "e" wing spits, iirc. No, I am not going to ask for a 4*20mm version or a +25 boost version as this would just encourage spitards to HO or imitate runstangs.
+25lbs on a Griffon - Nope only on Merlins.
Cut down rear and bubble canopy - Made no difference to the performance.
4*20mm - Not an option on a XIV, EVER.
Clipped - FR XIV did use clipped wings.
'e' wings were never used with a 4*20mm option, on any Spit. They were strictly 2*20mm + 2*.5 only.
-
Spit XIV could/should be unperked. The plane is a diva with lots of issues. On a good day she can sing though. :D
-
sorry my post became a bit offtopic
-
I realize the spit has a very popular history, but after flying them a few times in this arena, and more often shooting many of them out of the HTC sky. I don't believe the spits have ever had a real advantage over the enemy at any time. I put them more in the class of P-39's and Zero's do to their light weight design. The spit could turn, but turn fighting is only good if your opponent is a newbie and drains off his energy. As for the elliptical wing being superior, I don't think so. The elliptical wing was designed (according to a History Channel episode) to house 4-30 cal mg's internally and possibly wing tanks. However, I may be wrong about the wing tank reason/4-30 cals.
Then again, the spit pilots did get the British chicks.
-
As for the elliptical wing being superior, I don't think so. The elliptical wing was designed (according to a History Channel episode) to house 4-30 cal mg's internally and possibly wing tanks. However, I may be wrong about the wing tank reason/4-30 cals.
Mitchell wanted a wing that had -
a) Low drag
b) High lift
c) Could house landing gear, guns etc
Elliptical wing was the best solution, although also the hardest to mass produce.
The Spits wing had most probably the highest critical mach number of any aircraft in WW2 (0.89)
-
I realize the spit has a very popular history, but after flying them a few times in this arena, and more often shooting many of them out of the HTC sky. I don't believe the spits have ever had a real advantage over the enemy at any time. I put them more in the class of P-39's and Zero's do to their light weight design. The spit could turn, but turn fighting is only good if your opponent is a newbie and drains off his energy. As for the elliptical wing being superior, I don't think so. The elliptical wing was designed (according to a History Channel episode) to house 4-30 cal mg's internally and possibly wing tanks. However, I may be wrong about the wing tank reason/4-30 cals.
Then again, the spit pilots did get the British chicks.
That's quite possibly the silliest post I've ever read.
-
I realize the spit has a very popular history, but after flying them a few times in this arena, and more often shooting many of them out of the HTC sky. I don't believe the spits have ever had a real advantage over the enemy at any time. I put them more in the class of P-39's and Zero's do to their light weight design. The spit could turn, but turn fighting is only good if your opponent is a newbie and drains off his energy. As for the elliptical wing being superior, I don't think so. The elliptical wing was designed (according to a History Channel episode) to house 4-30 cal mg's internally and possibly wing tanks. However, I may be wrong about the wing tank reason/4-30 cals.
Then again, the spit pilots did get the British chicks.
I dunno, but I think the fact that the first American squadron to reach the UK was extremely happy that the Brits gave them a bunch of Spitfire Mk Vs so that they didn't have to face the Luftwaffe in their P-39s is kind of revealing.
-
That's quite possibly the silliest post I've ever read.
I think I'd have to agree with you. Unbelievable. :huh
Of course putting P39s and Zeros in the same 'class' should be a strong indicator of where that post was going. But if the history channel said it....
-
Agree.
-
+25lbs on a Griffon - Nope only on Merlins.
Cut down rear and bubble canopy - Made no difference to the performance.
4*20mm - Not an option on a XIV, EVER.
Clipped - FR XIV did use clipped wings.
'e' wings were never used with a 4*20mm option, on any Spit. They were strictly 2*20mm + 2*.5 only.
Yes, I erred in saying "+25lbs boost"; I should have said "+21lbs boost" (Dan, how did you let this go by unnoticed?), but again I do not know in a bubble-topped, clipped-wing, 'S' gear (+21lbs boost) XIV squadron saw service. I do know that one source says that one squadron 2nd TAS XIV was given ground attack duties that entailed lugging 500lbs of bombs on interdiction missions (don't know if it was one 500lb or two 250lb bombs) near the end of the war.
So far as performance, no the bubble-topped version did not earn a performance improvement, it did make make it more unstable; I was just advocating for better visibility from the cockpit.
-
Yes, I erred in saying "+25lbs boost"; I should have said "+21lbs boost" (Dan, how did you let this go by unnoticed?), but again I do not know in a bubble-topped, clipped-wing, 'S' gear (+21lbs boost) XIV squadron saw service. I do know that one source says that one squadron 2nd TAS XIV was given ground attack duties that entailed lugging 500lbs of bombs on interdiction missions (don't know if it was one 500lb or two 250lb bombs) near the end of the war.
So far as performance, no the bubble-topped version did not earn a performance improvement, it did make make it more unstable; I was just advocating for better visibility from the cockpit.
I've never seen a wartime photo of a Spit XIV with bombs. That doesn't mean it didn't happen of course, but I'd be curious as to what the source was? They certainly did some strafing, as many went down to flak. Terry Spencer, who was a F/L with 41 Squadron on XIIs ended up as CO of 350 Squadron and he was shot down twice by flak, escaping the first time from a POW camp and being rescued the second time. He's still in the Guiness Book for the lowest survived bailout from the last one.
I guess I'm a bit of the same mind as "Ginger" Lacy who was commanding 17 Squadron in the Far East. He turned down the bubble top XIVs for the high back version as he didn't think the bubble top version looked like a Spitfire should :)
-
What other variants saw action after the XIV? The Mk 21 did see some, just not score any air to air. Didn't that one carry a 4x20mm?
-
What other variants saw action after the XIV? The Mk 21 did see some, just not score any air to air. Didn't that one carry a 4x20mm?
91 Squadron got Spitfire 21s in March of 45. They never encountered an enemy aircraft. They flew out of Ludham and did some patrols over the Hook of Holland. Lost 2 to flak and claimed a midget sub.
91 is an interesting bunch as they flew Spit II, V, XII, XIV, IX and 21 during the war, in that order. No other squadron can claim to have flown 3 Griffon Spits on Ops. 41 would be able to claim 2 with the XII and XIV but any other squadron that had a Griffon Spit in WW2 would have only flown the XIV.
-
What we DO need is the Spit LF XII :O
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/526/spit12.jpg)
Outruns a typhy on the deck. :aok
-
What we DO need is the Spit LF XII :O
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/526/spit12.jpg)
Outruns a typhy on the deck. :aok
now we are talking :aok
-
What we DO need is the Spit LF XII :O
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/526/spit12.jpg)
Outruns a typhy on the deck. :aok
Look dan another Mk XII dweeb. :aok
-
Look dan another Mk XII dweeb. :aok
Guess we'll convert em one at a time. We need to get him better quality Spit XII pictures though :)
prototype DP845 with F/L Clive Gosling at the controls, banks right.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/DP845-1.jpg)
Last production Spit XII MB882 EB-B with F/L Don Smith RAAF at the controls banks left.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/MB882-1.jpg)
-
OK, so if the Spit was so superior why did the RAF in the Battle of Britian have such a low kill ratio? If late war planes like 51's & Typhoons were present during 1940 I bet they would have achieved upwords of 20, 30, or 40 to 1 kill ratios.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm) :
In a continuation of the propaganda war, the British government claimed that the RAF had shot down 2,698 German planes. The actual figure was 1,100. The RAF lost 650 planes - not the 3,058 planes that the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down - more than the entire RAF!
Plus, the Spits had almost every tactical advantage (including British ground radar):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain) :
In general, though, as Alfred Price noted in The Spitfire Story:
...the differences between the Spitfire and the Me 109 in performance and handling were only marginal, and in a combat they were almost always surmounted by tactical considerations: which side had seen the other first, had the advantage of sun, altitude, numbers, pilot ability, tactical situation, tactical co-ordination, amount of fuel remaining, etc
-
OK, so if the Spit was so superior why did the RAF in the Battle of Britian have such a low kill ratio? If late war planes like 51's & Typhoons were present during 1940 I bet they would have achieved upwords of 20, 30, or 40 to 1 kill ratios.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm) :
Plus, the Spits had almost every tactical advantage (including British ground radar):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain) :
planes can be replaced, captured pilots cannot!
ooohhhh aaaahhhhhh * drools at the sexy spitfire pics! this month will be a long one...
-
OK, so if the Spit was so superior why did the RAF in the Battle of Britian have such a low kill ratio? If late war planes like 51's & Typhoons were present during 1940 I bet they would have achieved upwords of 20, 30, or 40 to 1 kill ratios.
:huh
Yea and if frogs had wing they wouldn't bump their arse when they hop. Tell me genius... how do you use a bird that isn't developed yet? Might as well have said "Hey if they used F-22s, WWII would have ended after the BoB.".
The hyperbole is strong in you smoe.
-
What other variants saw action after the XIV? The Mk 21 did see some, just not score any air to air. Didn't that one carry a 4x20mm?
Only the F.21.
Yup it did carry 4x20mm as standard, on a newly redesigned wing.
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/images/spit_f21.jpg)
-
OK, so if the Spit was so superior why did the RAF in the Battle of Britian have such a low kill ratio? If late war planes like 51's & Typhoons were present during 1940 I bet they would have achieved upwords of 20, 30, or 40 to 1 kill ratios.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm) :
Plus, the Spits had almost every tactical advantage (including British ground radar):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain) :
It's enough to make almost make ya weep sometimes. :rolleyes:
-
OK, so if the Spit was so superior why did the RAF in the Battle of Britian have such a low kill ratio? If late war planes like 51's & Typhoons were present during 1940 I bet they would have achieved upwords of 20, 30, or 40 to 1 kill ratios.
:headscratch:
That kind of goes without saying, doesn't it?
I mean, if the Luftwaffe had Fw 190D-9's and HE 177's they'd do a whole lot better than they did with Bf 109E-4's...
If the IJNAF had F-35's...
-
OK, so if the Spit was so superior why did the RAF in the Battle of Britian have such a low kill ratio? If late war planes like 51's & Typhoons were present during 1940 I bet they would have achieved upwords of 20, 30, or 40 to 1 kill ratios.
What do you think would have happened if the RAF had been equipped with Spitfire Mk XIVs, or even Spitfire Mk Vs, in 1940? I'll bet you Spitfire Vs would do better than Mustang Is.
-
What do you think would have happened if the RAF had been equipped with Spitfire Mk XIVs, or even Spitfire Mk Vs, in 1940? I'll bet you Spitfire Vs would do better than Mustang Is.
That reminds me of a statement by Col. Reade Tilley, an American Eagle Squadron pilot and defender of Malta in early '42. He was later (post-war) what would have happened if they had got P-47's instead of Spitfires Malta, and he said they would have been slaughtered.
-
As an addendum to my prior answer, I would add that I would take Spitfire Mk XIVs over any American fighter or most other British fighters from 1944/45 for use as a Spitfire Mk I replacement in the Battle of Britain. Climb rate, speed and firepower. The Spitfire XIV brings it all.
I do think the Mosquito Mk VI/XIII, XIX or 30 would have been even better though. Just think of the poor, helpless German bombers against a fighter with four cannon in the belly and too fast for a Bf109E-4 or E-7 to hope to catch. Not to forget a fighter than seriously hurts the German's ability to gain protection by switching to night raids.
-
As an addendum to my prior answer, I would add that I would take Spitfire Mk XIVs over any American fighter or most other British fighters from 1944/45 for use as a Spitfire Mk I replacement in the Battle of Britain. Climb rate, speed and firepower. The Spitfire XIV brings it all.
LOL, heck yea, I would also choose to fly a spit in Europe over American fighters. The American fighters had to go deep into enemy territory when the spit pilots stayed close to home, lol.
-
Suggest you do some serious reading smoe.
The 2nd Tactical Air Force pilots flew within 10 minutes of the front lines in the NW Europe campaign. They flew 2-4 sorties per day, not just one. They destroyed 1454 e/a between June 1944 and May 1945, the Spitfire being their primary air superiority fighter...I guess spending all that time "close to home"?
Enough to make you weep, ditto to that. "WW2 history brought to you by the movie Memphis Belle". :rolleyes:
-
LOL, heck yea, I would also choose to fly a spit in Europe over American fighters. The American fighters had to go deep into enemy territory when the spit pilots stayed close to home, lol.
Try a book... preferably with small words.
-
LOL, heck yea, I would also choose to fly a spit in Europe over American fighters. The American fighters had to go deep into enemy territory when the spit pilots stayed close to home, lol.
Oddly enough, in the Battle of Britain, the Allied fighters (RAF) were defensive. Since the Battle of Britain was the fight referenced by you as a place in which the Typhoon or P-51 would be preferable to a Spitfire, I was correcting you. The P-51 would be a horrible choice compared to a contemporary Spitfire. The Typhoon would be ok, but had poor performance at altitude.
Seeing as you don't know what you are talking about, I suggest you follow Lincoln's advice and keep silent. Might want to actually open some history books too.
-
Suggest you do some serious reading smoe.
The 2nd Tactical Air Force pilots flew within 10 minutes of the front lines in the NW Europe campaign. They flew 2-4 sorties per day, not just one. They destroyed 1454 e/a between June 1944 and May 1945, the Spitfire being their primary air superiority fighter...I guess spending all that time "close to home"?
Enough to make you weep, ditto to that. "WW2 history brought to you by the movie Memphis Belle". :rolleyes:
While Smoe's observations have some serious flaws, he has a point here. British fighter pilot accounts often mention how frustrated they were that the Americans were able to penetrate to the heart of Germany while the range of British fighters precluded them from joining. 2 TAF wasn't on the Continent until June, 1944, so its combat time was necessarily limited to a period of less than a year. US escort missions were running in force from early summer, 1943. You can compare 8th and 9th AF kills during that period with those you cited for the 2 TAF.
- oldman
-
While Smoe's observations have some serious flaws, he has a point here. British fighter pilot accounts often mention how frustrated they were that the Americans were able to penetrate to the heart of Germany while the range of British fighters precluded them from joining. 2 TAF wasn't on the Continent until June, 1944, so its combat time was necessarily limited to a period of less than a year. US escort missions were running in force from early summer, 1943. You can compare 8th and 9th AF kills during that period with those you cited for the 2 TAF.
- oldman
Yeah, but he was responding to a post about the best fighter for a Battle of Britain scenario, not a generic best fighter. The ability to fly to Berlin in the summer of 1940 would be of very limited use for an Allied fighter.
-
LOL, heck yea, I would also choose to fly a spit in Europe over American fighters. The American fighters had to go deep into enemy territory when the spit pilots stayed close to home, lol.
Keep in mind the Spit drivers were in combat from 1939 on and were taking it across the Channel long before American fighters got there. Also keep in mind the US fighters weren't going deep until 1944 and then in limited numbers to start. Also keep in mind that those US fighter drivers who lead that effort included many who had gotten their start with the RAF in Spitfires.
I would strongly suggest you do some actual research on this stuff before you go throwing out nonsense. Start with Don Blakeslee's career since he lead the first Mustangs going deep. Check his Spitfire time. Gabby Gabreski would be another. The list goes on and on.
-
Ok, ok, I did some more research. I finally found some convincing evidence. They achieved a kill ratio of 11:1 in tea and crumpets. :neener:
-
Keep in mind the Spit drivers were in combat from 1939 on and were taking it across the Channel long before American fighters got there. Also keep in mind the US fighters weren't going deep until 1944 and then in limited numbers to start. Also keep in mind that those US fighter drivers who lead that effort included many who had gotten their start with the RAF in Spitfires.
I would strongly suggest you do some actual research on this stuff before you go throwing out nonsense. Start with Don Blakeslee's career since he lead the first Mustangs going deep. Check his Spitfire time. Gabby Gabreski would be another. The list goes on and on.
Nice try Dan ... it appears as tho he is actually more interested in trolling and being an arse than trying to learn something ... don't waste any more of your time.
-
Ok, ok, I did some more research. I finally found some convincing evidence. They achieved a kill ratio of 11:1 in tea and crumpets. :neener:
It is nice of you to admit to being a moron. That is the first step towards healing. I wish you well on your long road to recovery.