Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- on September 19, 2002, 02:31:37 PM
-
ok after a recent arguement online about the durability of certain aircraft it was soon realised that those who think the Us planes were indestructable(ok im exagerating) were not going to back down.
So i thought id type out a small excert from
'The Luftwaffe fighter force.The view from the cockpit' by Adolf Galland et al, edited by david C. Isby ISBN 1-85367-327-7
under chapter 30 'GAF opinions of allied aircraft'
Interigation of Generalleutnant Galland,Generalfeldmarschel Milch,Oberstleutnant Bar,Generalmajor Hitschhold, and Leutnant Neuman at kaufbeuren Germany 2nd september 1945.
'The Lightning (P38) This aircraft was very fast and had a good rate of climb below 20,000 feet. Visibility backwards , downwards and over the engines was very poor.It was considered a good strafer due to its armament ,visibilty,speed and silent motors.Its main drawback were its vulnerability and lack of maneuverability.On the deck, it could out-run the me.109 and fw190.German fighters would always attack the P38s in preference to other allied escort fighters.'
'The thunderbolt (p47) This aircraft was exceptionally fast in a dive, but could be outdistanced at the start of the dive by the Me109.It would absorb many cannon hits and still fly.'
'The mustang (p51) This was the best American fighter because of its long range,climb and dive characteristics, fire power and maneuverability.It was very vulnerbale to cannon fire.It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'
'The warhawk(p40) This aircraft was inferior as a modern fighter.The models with only 4x50 cal MGs were considered to be too lightly armed.It was slow and could not dive or climb.Its best quality was that it could outturn the me109 and fw190 below 12,000 feet.'
as you can see, its a straightforward assesment of these aircraft and as with the rest of the book including their ideas as to why they lost the air war it is an honest appraisal.Theres no boasting of any sort in the book, after all this was interogation and id recommend it to anyone interested in the structure of the LW, and their tactics etc during WW2.
theres also the hurricane and typhoon and p39 but i cant be arsed to type it all out :p
you get the idea here.Look at the points ive put in bold type.then look in AH and see if it seems to match up.
AH's p38 is FAR too durable, the p51 is also a bit too tough imo and the P47 is probably too weak!!(although probably nearest to the real thing) :)
im fed up with hearing that the p38 was a tough durable aircraft and the same for p51 when accounts in this and other books clearly indicate they werent.Great aircraft YES, but not quite like they are in our GAME.
I would like to see some changes personally but i doubt it will ever happen.Perhaps those people like voss who claimed i was wrong to think AH has it wrong could show me some accounts that might swing my view ?
-
No arguement here.
Frankly I would be surprised if anyone would disgree.
Do you think the Mustang is too durable here??
The P-38 I believe is too tough. However I don't think there is as much discrepince between the toughest and weakest in AH. I think we have a 1 to 5 scale in AH instead of a 1 to 10 in durability.
Sounds like a good book. Have to get a copy.
-
don't get your leather panties in a bunch, what you read was an opinion
-
I've always found the tails to come off quite nicely from a P38 :-)
...-Gixer
The Horse Soldiers
-
Maybe I should quote some Cadin.
Charon
-
An Opinion made out of facts John.
P38 is seems far too durable, P51 seem a bit durable, no planes what so ever brake in dives, the P51 wings can brake fairly easy thanks to its high speed handeling.
P47 takes WAY too little dammage, took two hispano rounds from a spit a few hours ago (in P47 D30) and lost the whole wing. Yes the P47 is described as the toughest fighter, together with the F4u, to serve in the war, not only by its own pilots, but by LW pilots aswell.
vulnerability and lack of maneuverability
yeah right, lack of maneuvarbility, it can outturn any other E fighter in the game with eas and sustain turn with many others, only bad thing is the low speed roll rate which can be compensated by engine thrust (and even creating nice flip flop moves at the same time).
-
wil--
you think the P-47 is too manueverable in AH?
-
I was speaking to a WW2 P-38 pilot who knows Gunthar Ral and he told me a little story about how Gunthar is a really nice guy and really diplomatic and won't say anything negative about anyone or anything. He'd asked Gunthar about the Germans' opinion of the P38 and kept getting the same polite answer. He finally cornered him and asked him the truth and what Ral basically said (I'm not quoting, but this is the gist of what was said) was that they'd let their trainee pilots go after the P38s.
I thought that was interesting.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
An Opinion made out of facts John.
Yep, definitely. The paragraph below is from Johannes Steinhoff's memoirs of the MTO:
"Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening."
Why the disparity? A couple of ideas come to mind:
1) The MTO air war had more medium and low-altitude combat than the ETO. ETO pilots seem to have generally thought the P-38 performed better at low altitudes, and its gentle stall would be a significant edge when turning hard at low altitudes.
2) The P-38's manoeuvrability depends greatly on proper flap usage. The MTO pilots seem to have been, on the whole, more comfortable with their aircraft, and may have employed their flaps better.
As for vulnerability, the P-38's big problem seems to have been fire. If an engine was hit and caught fire, the pilot would be forced to abandon ship even though the other engine was fine. (Gixer--IJN Zero pilot Takeo Tanimizu also commented that the tail was a weak point and would break when hit with 20mm. :))
The same problem with fire was experienced in the Pacific, but P-38 pilots there seem convinced of the type's better survivability despite this. Perhaps that reflects a greater preoccupation with mechanical failure than battle damage.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
wil--
you think the P-47 is too manueverable in AH?
He's talking about the P-38. Hence the reference to engine thrust affecting roll rate as the P-38 has two engines to play with.
-
The P38 doesnt seem too terribly tough to me and I only now fly my Gustav with the standard armament of a single MG151/20 and twin MG131. However I don't see the P38 too much and I have seen them survive my 30mm fire so there might be cause to look into it. As for the P51 it does seem a bit tough and I wonder why it doesnt get so many radiator hits from 6OC as the FW190D9. P47 seems just a little bit weak - but it's a big target and have an easy time aiming at it and hitting consistently especially in a top profile shot.
The toughest planes in AH are the F6F and F4F, the F4F is very very hard.
-
Originally posted by Guppy
Why the disparity? A couple of ideas come to mind:
Here are a couple more, Guppy. :)
1) The first operational P-38 squadron got going the day after black thursday, October 14th, 1943. The 38 was an easy mark, because it was the only mark. Only two squadrons were active in late 1943 and they didn't shine well at all--green, out numbered, and with such great range there were no other fighters around! Worse they were tied to close escort and got clobbered in this stupid set up.
2) Engine problems were notorious in the ETO for "der Gabelschwanz Teufel." May 38s were exploding in air, or catching fire, without a single shot being fired by the enemy.
3) Compressability. Most ETO fights were at high alt...and the 38 could never give case, not until the P-38J-25-LO with dive flaps.
4) Visibility. Get the first vis is important in combat...and the 38 was an easy contact in the sky...with its twin booms.
I've talked to aces like Galland, who have all made the same summerary dismissal of the FTD in the ETO...and that is the comparison with the ME-110. That should tell you something..as teh ME-110 was anything but the P-38. Thrust to weight ratio, total horse power (up to 3,400 HP!), wing aspect...numbers close to a glider, stall characteristics for slow flight, turning radius at low alt, and firepower. The ME-110 had no comparison to the 38 in all these aspects, yet every time you hear the LW run down the 38 in the ETO you catch this comparison. Its very tellling...and shallow.
I met a 38 driver here in North Dakota who knocked down 8 FW190s in a day. And have visited with other 38 drivers who swore by their 38s ability to take on any 109 or FW below 20,000 feet. But the problem was it was too big an ac for high alt fights.
Worr, out
P.S. Yea, I'm from Warbirds...just lurking here. But I know all the founders of AH and have great respect for many friends who made the move over here from there. :)
-
Out of curiosity, what was the german view of the tiffie, Hazed?
-
If u cannot kill with 2 rounds of 30 mm ammo it sucks
:mad:
Hazed put it on ur the wabble of the week
-
err the prize the wabble helmet
-
Originally posted by worr
Here are a couple more, Guppy. :)
Thanks, Worr.
Interesting that the "below 20,000 feet" line comes up again and again and again from ex-P-38 pilots. In all the cases I recall coming across, though, they were pilots who'd rotated out before the J-25 and L came along.
Did any of the pilots you spoke with comment on the difference between flying the early F/G/H/Js and the J-25/Ls?
-
Hey worr, just remember, over here your Tito and we are Micheal.
(Jackson)
:D
-
'The mustang (p51)...It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'
'Hub' Zemke's last operational flight before capture is evidence of this...the P-40 could out-dive the 109E
-
Originally posted by Guppy
"Our opinion of this twin-boomed, twin-engined aircraft was divided. Our old Messerschmitts were, perhaps, a little faster. But pilots who had fought them said that the Lightnings were capable of appreciably tighter turns and that they would be on your tail before you knew what was happening."
"They" would be...
Americans never showed up alone. You go after one, the other gets at your tail. I don´t think he was talking about a 1:1 situation....
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas
"They" would be...
Americans never showed up alone. You go after one, the other gets at your tail. I don´t think he was talking about a 1:1 situation....
niklas
So you're suggesting that MTO Luftwaffe pilots couldn't tell the difference between being outturned and having another fighter show up on their tail?
Maybe every now and then such a mistake might be made in the heat of combat. But Steinhoff's memoirs are set in mid-1943, six months and more after the P-38's appearance in the theatre. The Lightning was very much a known quantity by then.
-
(Accidental double post removed.)
-
Baaaa..the 38 was considered an "easy" target in the ETO simply because of lousy training. The high alts, teething problems being first experienced by the first high alt escort fighter in combo w/the lack of training made the 38 a rough ride for those guys. very few pilots had any twin engined flight time or for that matter training in a high perf twin engined plane like the 38. The cockpit controls alone I think were said to be complicated for a guy about to hit combat.
The 38 rocked in the MTO and the PTO... why? Experience. and enviroment. They also had resolved many of the problems encountered in the ETO by then.
Anyway..WIDEWING is a great source of info concerning the inferior POS known as the 38.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Guppy
Did any of the pilots you spoke with comment on the difference between flying the early F/G/H/Js and the J-25/Ls?
Yes!
A pilot who flew in the MTO and then rotated back to the states as a trainer spoke of them. We happened to be speaking to each other in front of a 38L at Osh Kosh, WI.
He said he was envious of the later 38s especially because of the dive flaps. There was genious frustration about the LW fighters ability to dive away from any fight. Some, like Lowell who nearly shot down Galland, learned to use barrel rolls in their dives to compensate, but that took a good pilot.
He flew the G model, he said. He also said most of his 38 students were going to the PTO by that time...as the 51 was given top priority for the 8th AF.
Worr, out
-
Ammo, no I don't think the P47 turns too good. I think it turns very good, and I love the plane, specially with a notch of flaps or two I think it turns well. The D11 especially where I've succeeded in outturning spitfires, took a couple of 360 degree turns though.
The P38 however, I think seem way too maneuverable, and WAY too durable. Last week, I took a P38 down to attack a town, took 10 20mm hits (have it on film) and all that happaned was that one engine radiator got hit.
P47 would have been downed after the first 5 probarly, 190 even a bit sooner. Both the P47 and 190 were very well known for the durability.
Some things seem a bit reversed in AH...
-
Originally posted by niklas
Americans never showed up alone. You go after one, the other gets at your tail. I don´t think he was talking about a 1:1 situation....
In mid to late 1944, yes. But not in the MTO....or even the ETO in late 1943. The forked tailed devil drivers were always out numbered in both theaters.
There just were enough being manufactured...some 9,200 produced (most of these in 44-45) over 6 years compared to 16,00 Jugs in half that time. Therefore you had only three groups in the MTO 1st, 14th and 82nd. In the ETO you had the 55th and then later the 20th in 1943.
Also no other ac type was going the distance with them in 43. The 38 was over Berlin before the P51! The 8th AF had two 38 squadrons.
Worr, out
-
It must be a lot easier to perform flap-dependant maneuvers in AH than in real life, simply because we can screw up and try again (read: Tommy McGuire). I would not be surprised if the P-38L in AH has the same maneuvering potential as the real life version (and vice verce) in regards to flap usage, the key word being potential. It takes a lot more pilot input to increase the turn rate in a 38 than it does in many other airplanes.
It would probably be impossible for the German pilots to have identified which version of P-38 they were facing, but up through '43 there were probably not a lot of L's flying around. The F's and G's and H's had a lot of teething problems that were ironed out with the late J's and L's. Factoring in relative pilot quality/familiarity adds a huge part to the equation.
Durability is just a wierd thing altogether, especially in an online environment, such that it can be hard to judge one way or the other. One day it may go down in one hit, the next day it may take ten.
-
Originally posted by batdog
very few pilots had any twin engined flight time or for that matter training in a high perf twin engined plane like the 38. The cockpit controls alone I think were said to be complicated for a guy about to hit combat.
John Tilley (475th FG) had the following to say about the P-38's negative points:
"What didn't I like about the P-38? High altitude flight and the cockpit layout. Although designed as a high altitude interceptor, it was a pain in the buns above 30,000'. The cockpit heat and windshield deicing were not adequate for cold ambient air. The turbo chargers had a habit of running wild above 30,000'. The cockpit was very cramped (not a real problem for us pint-sized fellows). I would have preferred a stick to the yoke and wheel flight controls in the P-38 and the cockpit layout was God awful compared to the other fighters I've flown. On our 'pitch-out' landing approaches we were reaching for things all over the place and had to change hands on the controls at least twice. In spite of all of the above, I still think it was the greatest aircraft I've ever flown, including five of the AF's earliest jet aircraft."
By the way, Capt. Tilley's account of his second kill might be of interest:
"The 2nd was an Oscar while I was flying in a J model. I was particularly proud of this one 'cause I was able to stay inside this maneuverable little rascal's left turn for 360 degrees while doing about 90MPH, and at less than 1000' above the water. That P-38J was bucking and shuddering all the way around in what was nothing more nor less than a controlled stall. I was so close to the Oscar that his engine oil covered my windshield. For the last half of the turn I was shooting at a dark blur that finally burst into flames."
(I can't imagine how this happened, by the way. Either Capt. Tilley misidentified his opponent, or else the Ki-43 pilot really messed up. There's no way an Oscar should lose a straight-up stallfight with a Lightning, however well-flown the P-38 was.)
The 38 rocked in the MTO and the PTO... why? Experience. and enviroment. They also had resolved many of the problems encountered in the ETO by then.
I wonder why they didn't detach P-38 air and ground crews from other theatres to make up a veteran core for the 20th and 55th FGs? Both the MTO and SWPA groups had up to a year's solid experience by then. If the USAAF was happy, in late 1943, to send P-38 pilots from North Africa to form the nucleus of new Lightning squadrons in the relatively unimportant CBI, why not for the top-priority ETO?
Originally posted by Oedipus
Of the 50 enemy aircraft engaged, 25 were destroyed, one probably destroyed and 17 damaged. The 367th lost two pilots KIA. Four other bailed out over enemy held France.
Postwar archive research found that the 367th's most likely opponent on August 25th was JG 6 (formerly ZG 26), which had converted to Fw 190s from Me 110s in July. German records noted the loss of 16 Fw 190s, while claiming 11 P-38s.
-
The real reasons we do not have anything resembling a real WWII environment is mainly because of the AWACS radar used in the game, the lack of modelling an aircraft 100% (ie. mechanical failures, pilot fatigue/failure, armament/ordinance failures etc etc), the total absence of REAL military discipline/organisation and the ever present icon.
I think another big reason is that we tend to get better when we die in AH :)
Regarding the Oscar, it is possible that he mis-ID'd it, but it is possible that the Ki-43 got played (of course the ability of the pilot comes into question). It may have had to do with the relative state of the Oscar (fuel/engine quality, weight, etc), also the left-hand turn. Anyone know which way the torque pulls on the Ki-43? 90mph is slow even for an Oscar. Whatever the situation, Tilley knew how to handle his airplane (although he was playing with fire), departure at that point meant the drink. It would be very interesting to hear about that encounter in length.
-
Originally posted by Ossie
It would probably be impossible for the German pilots to have identified which version of P-38 they were facing, but up through '43 there were probably not a lot of L's flying around.
There was a noticible difference between the J/L and the earlier versions. The deepening of the chin on each engine and the movement of the intercoolers was significant.
Then again...there were no L's flying around anywhere near 1943. ;)
Worr, out
-
I definitely agree with your point, Oedipus, and it doesn't really matter whether the score was 25-6 or 16-6. I just thought I'd add on that part about the Luftwaffe kill claims and loss records for completeness's sake. :)
Originally posted by worr
There was a noticible difference between the J/L and the earlier versions. The deepening of the chin on each engine and the movement of the intercoolers was significant.
Well, true, but given the average fighter pilot's skill at aircraft recognition in WWII... ;)
-
Originally posted by Guppy
Well, true, but given the average fighter pilot's skill at aircraft recognition in WWII... ;)
I forgot to mention the L's were left natural metal finish. :)
Actually the average fighter pilot had a trained eye for such things. They invested a bit of time and effort into IDing ac types, for obvious reasons.
Worr, out
-
On logical flaw that a lot of people seem to make when discussing airplane durability is that you are generally talking about a pretty erratic and inscrutable phenomenon. There are several different ways to hit a plane just right to make it fall apart (with ample caliber) and also ways to not put a scratch on it really (given same caliber). I'm sure AH randomizes damage somewhat to reflect this. It's not a matter of,"oh I fly in a Typhoon, so I can take 5 hits with 20mms before taking any critcal damage".
-
The real reasons we do not have anything resembling a real WWII environment is mainly because...
Until there is value to your life in AH, this will never resemble a WW2 environment. If you die and cannot play again until the next month's payment of Aces High, I bet we'd see more squadron tactics and something more akin to a real war.
-
Originally posted by worr
I forgot to mention the L's were left natural metal finish. :)
Yeah, that'd do it. :)
Looking at the colour plates in Osprey's P-38 Lightning Aces of the ETO/MTO shows some unusual combinations. There's a J-10 in natural metal in June '44, a J-15 in olive drab in August, and then a different J-15 in natural metal in September, all from the same squadron (434th FS / 479th FG). :confused:
Actually the average fighter pilot had a trained eye for such things. They invested a bit of time and effort into IDing ac types, for obvious reasons.
Sure, but a lot of mistakes were still (understandably) made in the heat of the moment.
"Flight Lieutenant Tony Gaze of 610 Squadron recorded more instances of being fired on by Yanks than Huns during the last week of 1944, including two occasions when his squadron was attacked by Mustangs. On 1 January, Gaze managed to take off and sneak in behind and below a formation of eight FW190s, shooting down the trailer unobserved. The German formation then broke up as two Mustangs dove in at them from above, and as more aircraft entered the tumult Gaze chose to climb above the fracas, avoiding the danger of flak from both sides of the front line, which was firing at anything with wings regardless of how marked. From this position he witnessed the American pilots downing a Typhoon which had bravely joined the fray."
(from http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/FW/FW.htm - a very interesting page, although mainly aimed at wargamers.)
-
Originally posted by Guppy
Sure, but a lot of mistakes were still (understandably) made in the heat of the moment.
Very understandable. ;)
Ever see C.C. Jordan's page on the 38? He has a nice section there on profile views...and how tiny the 38 actually is when it is horizontal.
Worr, out
-
Alright, now....
Why on earth did the LW call the P-38 the "Forked Tail Devil"?
By all accounts should it not have been referred to as the "Porked Tailed Panzie"?
Anyone have a plausible explanation? :confused:
-
LW fighter pilots didnt call the P38 the 'Forked Tail Devil'. It was German transport pilots who named it that in the Med.
-
'Forked Tail Devil' must be an US invention. Never heard of it in German. "Schwanzgabelteufel? LMAO. But it's true, it was very feared among the groundtroups.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
LW fighter pilots didnt call the P38 the 'Forked Tail Devil'.
Negative. I came from the Luftwaffe, not the Wehrmacht. From the MTO.
der Gabelschwanz Teufel. Spoke with a vet from the 1st FG...who returned to the states as a trainer. He heard the term only afterwards...they picked it up from the LW POWs.
Worr, out
-
"...From this position he witnessed the American pilots downing a Typhoon which had bravely joined the fray."
IIRC, the Typhoon was taken out of service for a period during the BoB because its planform was similar enough to the FW-190 that British gunners were shooting at them. I'm not surprised that a group of American pilots might mistake a Typhoon for a Butcherbird in the heat of a dogfight, especially if they were recently-arrived.
-
Originally posted by niklas
"They" would be...
Americans never showed up alone. You go after one, the other gets at your tail. I don´t think he was talking about a 1:1 situation....
niklas
For the first three months or so, the P-38 was outnumbered by the Germans by as little as 4:1 and as much as 20:1 and more. It wasn't the Americans who weren't alone. Try reading some AARs from the time period. The first group of P-38s were most often outnumbered by the enemy at a rate of 10:1. The Germans never attacked much until the P-47s had to turn around and go home.
-
Originally posted by Ossie
It must be a lot easier to perform flap-dependant maneuvers in AH than in real life, simply because we can screw up and try again (read: Tommy McGuire). I would not be surprised if the P-38L in AH has the same maneuvering potential as the real life version (and vice verce) in regards to flap usage, the key word being potential. It takes a lot more pilot input to increase the turn rate in a 38 than it does in many other airplanes.
It would probably be impossible for the German pilots to have identified which version of P-38 they were facing, but up through '43 there were probably not a lot of L's flying around. The F's and G's and H's had a lot of teething problems that were ironed out with the late J's and L's. Factoring in relative pilot quality/familiarity adds a huge part to the equation.
Durability is just a wierd thing altogether, especially in an online environment, such that it can be hard to judge one way or the other. One day it may go down in one hit, the next day it may take ten.
What happened to Tommy McGuire had absolutely nothing to do with flaps. Not at all. Most likely, the engine on the inside of his turn failed to respond when he pushed the throttles forward, and caused it to snap roll inverted.
And exactly what is it that leads you to believe it takes more pilot effort to turn a P-38? In reality, the yoke gave the P-38 pilot an advantage, he could easily apply all of his upper body strength. And no p-38 pilot I've had the honor to speak with said it was a high effort plane as far as moving the controls is concerned. Quite the contrary, they said the control moved easily, and were quite smooth and responsive. The only time they were heavy was when you were in compression. It resisted rolling, because it had broad chord ailerons, but having two hands to make aileron input alleviated that problem, and once there was power assist on the ailerons, the P-38 rolled very fast, especially at high speed. if you knew how to manage the throttles a P-38 could snap roll so hard you'd hit your head on the canopy.
-
Galland always talked the P-38 down in his writings and public speaking. But when he was invited to a gathering of World War II fighter pilots at Maxwell AFB, he confessed to the fact that John Lowell handed him his bellybutton even though Galland had a clear advantage when they merged. Had Lowell not been low on fuel and a long way from home, Galland would likely never have lived to tell his stories.
When the P-38s first arrived, and went operational, Galland himself ordered that single engine fighters be transfered from night operations to day operations, because the P-38s had almost completely stopped bomber losses on their first few missions. Once the Lightning arrived, the Me 110 could no longer attack the bombers unmolested, and neither could the Me 109 or FW 190.
On 3 Nov. 1943 P-38s escorted bombers to Wilhemshaven. While the German
fighters were, as a result of the efforts of the P-38 drivers, only able to
shoot down three bombers, German fighter losses were sufficiently heavy, II/JGS
suffering particularly badly (curiously, the 55FG pilots only claimed three
e/a destroyed), that Gen. Galland held a special meeting with I Jagdkorps'
division commanders the next day. One of the key decisions made at this
meeting was to have the "wild sow" single-engine night fighter force
transferred to day jobs to counter the P-38s.
The Germans thought the P-51 had the best range and the best climb rate? That ought to tell you how valuable the opinion of that person should be. Galland was noted for being full of crap.
The P-38 was actually quite durable, the wing spar was stainless steel. There are reports of P-38s colliding with telephone poles and other planes, with the other planes and the telephone poles coming out on the losing end. Jack Ilfrey collided with a 109, and lost about six feet of wing, while the 109 spun in out of control, due to the loss of an entire wing, Ilfrey returned to base, and landed safely. A P-38 from the same group hit a telephone pole on a strafing run, cutting the pole in half, while the P-38 lost a prop and suffered engine damage, the pilot returned to base and landed safely. While the P-38 was not without its faults, being fragile was not one of them. It was common to have P-38s land even when they were so badly bent from overstress in dives or turns that the controls were nearly jammed, and the planes had to be scrapped. Many P-38s landed with holes in their wings you could stand in, missing wing sections, holes all the way through engines you could stick your arm through, and even a couple with one tail boom shot away.
The 55FG began operations out of England on 15 Oct., 1943, one day after
Black Thursday when some 60 B-17s were lost on the second Schweinfurt
raid. First encounter with Luftwaffe on 3 Nov., shot down 3 Me-109 with
no loss to selves. On 5 Nov., down five Me-109s with no loss. On 13
Nov., in a sprawling, large-scale battle, shot down 3 FW-190, 2 Ju-88, 1
Me-109, 1 Me-210 but lost 5 P-38s shot down. Two more were lost due to
engine problems. On 29 Nov. 7 P-38s were shot down for the loss of no
German planes
20FG entered N. Euro. combat at the end of Dec, '43. Did not appear to
suffer from the morale and leadership problems of the 55FG. First
contacted Luftwaffe on 29 Jan. '44. Downed 3 FW-190, 3 Me-110, 3 Me-210,
1 Me-109. No P-38s lost. 3 FWs downed by Lindol Graham, who used only
his single 20mm cannon, 12 shots per plane. (Lindol later crashed and was
killed while attempting to kill the fleeing crew of an Me-110 he had just
forced down in a low-level fight. The two men were floundering across a
snow-covered field and it appeared that Lindol attempted to hit them with
his props. His plane seemed to hit the ground, then bounce back up,
soaring into a chandelle, then falling off on its nose and diving straight
into the ground.)
On 8 Feb. James Morris of 20FG downed 3 FW-190s in a single combat,
involving tight turns (in which the P-38's maneuvering flap setting [8
degrees extension] was used) and an Me-109 as returning home, the first
quadruple kill for an 8AF fighter. All kills were made with dead astern
shots. Morris missed all his deflection shots. Interestingly, two of the
FWs were first encountered head-on and Morris was able to reverse and
maneuver onto their tails while they tried with all their might to get on
his--and failed. Three days later he downed an Me-109, making him the
first P-38 ace flying out of England. (He would score a total of 8
victories before being shot down on 7 July, the highest score of any
UK-based P-38 pilot.)
364FG arrived in UK in Feb., '44. Led by Col John Lowell, who had helped
develop the P-38 at Wright-Pat, on its first mission over Berlin on 6
March, he downed 2 Me-109s, and two more on 8 March. On 9 March he downed
an FW-190. He was eventually to tally 11 kills in the P-38, but several
were downgraded to probables after the war.
Col Mark Hubbel took over the 20th on 17 March. He believed P-38
excellent fighter against Luftwaffe and proved it by promptly shooting
down 2 Me-109 and sharing a third with his wingman. He may have downed a
fourth Me-109 which he was seen pursuing as it streamed smoke in a dive.
He was last seen chasing yet another Me-109, this time through the door
of a church. Neither planes nor church survived the encounter.
During the late winter of 1944 ocurred the famous dual between a
Griffon-engined Spitfire XV and a P-38H of the 364FG. Col. Lowell few the
P-38, engaging the Spitfire at 5,000 ft. in a head-on pass. Lowell was
able to get on the Spitfire's tail and stay there no matter what the
Spitfire pilot did. Although the Spitfire could execute a tighter turning
circle than the P-38, Lowell was able to use the P-38's excellent stall
characteristics to repeatedly pull inside the Spit's turn radius and ride
the stall, then back off outside the Spit's turn, pick up speed and cut
back in again in what he called a "cloverleaf" maneuver. After 20 minutes
of this, at 1,000 ft. altitude, the Spit tried a Spit-S (at a 30-degree
angle, not vertically down). Lowell stayed with the Spit through the
maneuver, although his P-38 almost hit the ground. After that the
Spitfire pilot broke off the engagement and flew home. This contest was
witnessed by 75 pilots on the ground.
Ultimately 7 P-38 FG were operational in northern Europe. The 474th was
the only one to retain the P-38 till the end of the war. As pilots grew
used to the plane and developed confidence in it, it successes against the
Luftwaffe grew. On 7 July, '44, P-38s of the 20FG downed 25 out of 77 e/a
destroyed that day, the highest of any group.
The last UK-based P-38 ace was Robin Olds of the 479FG. On 14 Aug., '44,
while flying alone, he encountered two FW-190s and engaged them in a
dogfight, shooting both down.
On 25 Aug, P-38s from 367 encountered FW-190s of JG-6, a top Luftwaffe
unit. Wild, low-level battle ensued in which 8 P-38s and 20 FW-190s were
down. Five of the FWs were shot down by Capt. Lawrence Blumer. 367
received a Presidential Unit Citation as a result of this battle.
On the same day, P-38s from 474 shot down 21 FW-190s for the loss of 11
P-38s. The same day Olds' of 479 downed three Me-109s in a running battle
that saw his canopy shot off.
On 26 Sept., P-38s of the 479 downed 19 e/a near Munster. Shortly after
that most P-38s were gradually replaced by P-51s.
The last long-range bomber escort in northern Europe by P-38s was on 19
Nov. '44 when 367FG escorted bombers to Merzig, Germany. FW-190s
attempted to intercept. P-38s downed six with no losses. No bombers were
lost either. It was a good way to end the P-38s air-superiority role in
northern Europe.
A good case could be made for the later
versions being not only the best American fighter of the war, but the best
piston-engine fighter, period. It flew the longest escort missions of the
war (2200 miles round trip to the Borneo oil fields from bases in New
Guinea), successfully battling such very capable fighters as the Ki-44 over
the target. A P-38 fighter group (the 1FG in the MTO) was the only USAAF
fighter unit to win two Presidential Unit Citations within the space of 5
days (one PUC was for a long-range low level attack against Axis airfields
at Foggia, Italy flown from bases in North Africa, the other was for a
bomber escort mission during which some 30 P-38s fought off about 125
German fighters, not letting a single bomber be shot down).
Here's an excerpt of a Luftwaffe experte's (Heinz Knoke, 52 kills, all in
the West) description of a duel with a P-38 (from "I Flew for the Fuhrer"):
"...At once I peel off and dive into the Lightnings below. They spot us
and swing round towards us to meet the attack.... Then we are in a madly
milling dogfight...it is a case of every man for himself. I remain on the
tail of a Lightning for several minutes. It flies like the devil himself,
turning, diving, and climbing almost like a rocket. I am never able to
fire more than a few pot-shots...."
On Nov. 13, 45 P-38 escorted bombers to Bremen. Only two bombers were lost to
fighter interception. Throughout Nov and Dec, although the 8AF was sending
double the no. of bombers against German targets it had in the fall, losses
were never more than about 5 percent of the attacking force, and were often
only a mere handful--on the Dec. 13, 1943 mission against Hamburg, for
example, out of a force of 648 bombers, only 5 were lost. Many German fighter
formations approached the bombers on this day, but when they saw the fighter
escorts, refused to engage.
At the end of Dec. Galland and the staff of Jagdkorp I admitted that their
tactics against escorted bomber formations had failed.
So before the P-51 became a significant factor in the air war over Europe, the
Luftwaffe was stymied.
-
(Lindol later crashed and was
killed while attempting to kill the fleeing crew of an Me-110 he had just
forced down in a low-level fight. The two men were floundering across a
snow-covered field and it appeared that Lindol attempted to hit them with
his props. His plane seemed to hit the ground, then bounce back up,
soaring into a chandelle, then falling off on its nose and diving straight
into the ground.)
What a diddlying amazinhunk. I'm glad he got killed. And to think Americans and British tried after the war to paint the LW as killers of parachuted pilots. Not to meantion P38 sucks.
-
Yeah Virgil even though that 'd be the case most of the Fw190s were strictly ordered to engage the buffs and not the escort fighters, the bulk of them,making them easy target . The 109 was relegated to escort the bomber destroyers mainly(single and twin engined). Not until at least the invasion front they did decide to engage the escorts as they realized,although very late when their force was depleted, that they couldn't destroy the vast majority of the buffs,they were just being overwhelmed daily.
There were plenty of single engine fighter wings in the Western Front but only a little bit under half of those fighters were serviceable at any one time so the assumption that the LW pilots were outnumbering their allied counterparts in the first months when the P38 was being sent to escort the bombers is false.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
(Lindol later crashed and was
killed while attempting to kill the fleeing crew of an Me-110 he had just
forced down in a low-level fight. The two men were floundering across a
snow-covered field and it appeared that Lindol attempted to hit them with
his props. His plane seemed to hit the ground, then bounce back up,
soaring into a chandelle, then falling off on its nose and diving straight
into the ground.)
What a diddlying amazinhunk. I'm glad he got killed. And to think Americans and British tried after the war to paint the LW as killers of parachuted pilots. Not to meantion P38 sucks.
That was likely a false assumption on the part of the witness. You don't REALLY think a pilot would be so stupid as to try to kill people on the ground with his props, do you? If you had 4 .50 BMGs and a 20 MM cannon, which could hit something without endangering you, would you decide to use your props, which if damaged, could cause you to crash, to kill someone on the ground? Hell, it's likely that if you hit anyone with the props you'd wreck the props anyway. I doubt very seriously an accomplished pilot was attempting to kill people on the ground with his props. Too likely to damage your own plane, and too far to walk home.
-
So? I dont care how he tried to kill them, personally I find killing downed/chuted pilots unacceptable .
-
Originally posted by Mino
Alright, now....
Why on earth did the LW call the P-38 the "Forked Tail Devil"?
By all accounts should it not have been referred to as the "Porked Tailed Panzie"?
Anyone have a plausible explanation? :confused:
it was named by the Ju52 pilots who few transport to north africa.P38s were most often the ones that shot them down , hense the name.
Oed you are quite offensive with your suggestion that i look at the info from one book and make my assesment from it.I am basing my opinion of the flaw in AH from flying ALL of the aircraft and shooting down ALL of the aircraft.
MY OPINION here is that the p38 sustains a lot more hits in AH than other planes.Lately ive been flying the p51 and my opinion is that i can take a lot more hits in it than when i fly 190s for instance.
its simple, I read books with accounts from pilots of all sides in the war and i formulate an opinion same as you have.You obviously feel that the aircraft/model represented in AH is correct and i feel it isnt.Theres no need to start claiming im asking for change based on a single account in a single book.
but what i am asking here is for you guys to show me accounts of p38s or p51s taking excessive hits in combat or statements from pilots that would suggest they are tough planes.
If our opinion of how AH planes seem too tough or too weak dont count then id really like to know what does.
Im being honest here, Im not some LW freak who wants an easy time of it like you annoyingly suggest.I want a game where i see behaviour that is consistent with the stuff i read about.what else is there to want from these sims?
I read about average number of hits it takes to down bombers and when that doesnt pan out in the game i tend to question it.
Id really like to know whether you consider the p51 was vulnerable to ground fire and then could you explain to me why ack in AH doesnt down the p51 as easily as it does other planes.but then i guess you dont agree with that either do you? even though many of us have film of our p51s taking loads more hits.
I just get fed up with it.I really dont know why i half hope some of you will just say 'ok they do take more hits than you'd expect'
I fly them and i find it quite laughable that you all claim it doesnt happen.
One thing i have noticed is that when i shoot planes after some 3 years(?) in AH is that theres a certain expectancy when you unload lots of 20mm into an aircraft.You hit with a bunch of shots on a nik or spit or whatever and you tend to break off 'knowing' thats enough to put them down.Well all too often i break off an attack on p38s or p51s and im amazed they are still flying.This is where this questioning comes from.Not some LW pilot love.
I dont get this behaviour with the other aircraft (apart from La7s) so why is it i get it with the p38 or p51 or la7?
Is my view totally wrong? you may claim it is but i think most people know what i mean.Its almost impossible to produce figures to prove one way or the other but i know what i thinkand what i notice often whilst playing AH.
it just gets annoying when i stumble upon even more accounts that point toward a flaw in the AH modeling and post them only to be told they are roadkill by someone who wasnt in the war and so has in my eyes has less credibility than those people whos accounts i read who WERE there.
its what we read vs what we see in AH.
'The P-38 was actually quite durable, the wing spar was stainless steel.(quick point here so was the 190's) There are reports of P-38s colliding with telephone poles and other planes, with the other planes and the telephone poles coming out on the losing end. Jack Ilfrey collided with a 109, and lost about six feet of wing, while the 109 spun in out of control, due to the loss of an entire wing, Ilfrey returned to base, and landed safely. A P-38 from the same group hit a telephone pole on a strafing run, cutting the pole in half, while the P-38 lost a prop and suffered engine damage, the pilot returned to base and landed safely. While the P-38 was not without its faults, being fragile was not one of them. It was common to have P-38s land even when they were so badly bent from overstress in dives or turns that the controls were nearly jammed, and the planes had to be scrapped. Many P-38s landed with holes in their wings you could stand in, missing wing sections, holes all the way through engines you could stick your arm through, and even a couple with one tail boom shot away.'
this sort of thing i find intersting and I would like to see where this all comes from.Maybe if i read these in a book id change my mind about them.However i certainly havent seen anything like it myself.Perhaps you can give us more info than a second hand recalling of this? for all we know it could be made up or like chinese whispers all complete nonsense.
p38 cutting down telephone poles? that is something id like to see in print before i believe :)
having said that, if i did see it Id immediately stop questioning what i often see in AH.Or at least it would cross off the p38.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So? I dont care how he tried to kill them, personally I find killing downed/chuted pilots unacceptable .
The point is that it isn't likely he was trying to kill them at all! If he'd been trying to kill them, he'd have shot at them. And he wasn't shooting, therefore, it is likely he wasn't trying to kill them.
-
I'll see if I can find those accounts and some pics. My old books are long gone, too many moves and too many were loaned to friends. I think I know a couple of people who may be able to locate the stuff for me. In the mean time, do a search on Jack Ilfrey, and I think you'll be able to find his account of the collision with the Me 109, and possibly the pictures of his plane and the one that hit the telephone pole. I'm sure Widewing has probably got that stuff somewhere. I think there's a site featuring the 20th and 55th Fgs, and possibly the 1st FG, there's plenty to read about Ilfrey and others.
-
So he just hit the ground because of pilot error or mechanical fault with the P38? Seems more likely he was so so low because he intended to strafe them.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Yeah Virgil even though that 'd be the case most of the Fw190s were strictly ordered to engage the buffs and not the escort fighters, the bulk of them,making them easy target . The 109 was relegated to escort the bomber destroyers mainly(single and twin engined). Not until at least the invasion front they did decide to engage the escorts as they realized,although very late when their force was depleted, that they couldn't destroy the vast majority of the buffs,they were just being overwhelmed daily.
There were plenty of single engine fighter wings in the Western Front but only a little bit under half of those fighters were serviceable at any one time so the assumption that the LW pilots were outnumbering their allied counterparts in the first months when the P38 was being sent to escort the bombers is false.
How about these guys? Maybe they were there and lied about the numbers, or they can't count. I could quote Heiden, or Ilfrey, or a half dozen others who said they were outnumbered 4:1 or worse, but hey, they're just old fighter pilots, why believe them, except maybe because they were there.
Bob Johnson:
"I was on three of the early Berlin raids. I was the lead airplane on
March 6. I had only eight airplanes to protect 180 bombers."
Later he spotted fighters heading towards the heavies. At first he thought
that they were P-47's from the 56th. They turned out to be Focke Wulfs.
"We were line abreast, all eight of us and we just opened fire and went right
through some 60 or so 190s and 109s. As we turned to get on their tails, we
saw another 60 or so above and another 60 or so to their left. Probably
175 - 180 German aircraft. Eight of us."
After the fight erupted into a free for all, Johnson comments:
"I didn't have to think about the situation, it was there. I thought only of
survival, and hitting the enemy. If there are crosses, shoot at 'em."
An additional citation about the training given pilots reporting to P-38 Groups:
Max Woolley of the 364th FG says:
"I had about four or five hours of training in England before I went 'active'.
A pilot learned combat by being in combat."
On March 15th, Woolley's squadron ran into what he estimates as 120 German
fighters. The rest of the Group was about 5 miles away when his squadron C.O.
led them into the Germans. Only 12 P-38s taking on ten times as many of the
Luftwaffe. This was Woolley's first combat mission. After surviving by
out-turning several 109s who had worked onto his tail and shredding the
rudder of one 109, Woolley noted that the fight had been "a great lesson."
With as few as 40 P-38s on missions at one time (sometimes less than a dozen making the whole trip), and as many as 300 or 400 Luftwaffe planes opposing them, I'd call it outnumbered as bad as 10:1, but maybe I don't know my math. Hmm, even if you had 60 P-38s, and around 175 Luftwaffe, that's still around 3:1. Or did I not figure that right.
By the way, I think I got these stories from Widewing, to give credit where credit is due.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So he just hit the ground because of pilot error or mechanical fault with the P38? Seems more likely he was so so low because he intended to strafe them.
Believe what you will. I doubt he had to be so low as to hit the ground with the plane in order to strafe them, if that was his intention. He might have been intending to shoot their plane. He may have taken damage while forcing them down. Who knows? I just doubt he flew into the ground trying to kill a couple guys he just forced down. Doesn't make sense. But then, I doubt you'd understand that.
-
Not to meantion P38 sucks. [/B]
P-38's killed Luftwaffe fighters, over their own
airspace at a rate of 4 to 1 in air to air combat. The P-38L achieved
a kill ratio of 6 to 1.This excludes losses not related to aerial combat.
If the P-38 was clearly
inferior, why did they kill four Luftwaffe fighters for each of their own lost
to German fighters?
The P-38 was the hot fighter in the MTO, where it did better than the P-47 and
the P-51. I'm sure there are a lot of dead German pilots who had great respect
for the Lightning.
The above borrowed from an old post by Widewing. In another time, and another place, but still relevant.
-
"But then, I doubt you'd understand that."
Right because I dont fly allied planes or fawn over allied romance novel accounts of the war....
Why do you believe it unlikely that he was apparently trying to kill them? If so why do you even trust the source of your whole article if he thought that bit was plausible? And if you added it yourself why do you disbelive it now, or did you think nobody would make fun of the bastige killing himself in such a stupid manner? And why would he need to get that low too shoot the big plane, a much bigger target than two people. I think he was a murderous zealot and stupidly got killed.
And yes I still think the P38 sucks, although I like it a lot more than the P51.
-
GRUN it was self defense !
They were sniping him with their Luger :p
(I seriously need to close that WWIIOL account ...)
-
In 1944 all German pilots opened their chutes no less than 300m off the ground,some even lower, for fear of being shot by American fighters, they warned new pilots to do that when they were engaged by Americans . So by all accounts it was no fable and it indeed happen regularly. Of course that little dirty secret is not told in many of the romantic allied "non-fiction" books.
It is true though the P51 for example can take many hits from 4 MG151s from a distance of 100y and sometimes fly off with only a flap missing, perhaps a fuel leak it takes 2 full bursts to cause any critical damage while a P-47 with one good burst you can down it quickly(ussually tail breaks off),same thing goes for 190s one good burst always rips the wings apart like they were tin foil(of course this is all in AH). P-38s I think are suppossed to be durable but the tail assembly was very weak to 20mm shots,not anymore though, I just aim for the pilot and make it explode.
-
Funny Virgil 175 fighters were around how many fighters both single and twin engine the LW had in the west. There were many accounts of both allied and LW pilots seeing more than there around.
I can put many quotes from JG26 TG of the LW when they said 60 fighters there were actually 20 or 15 fighters deployed from X unit(s) around that area. So it happend by all accounts. I'm sure they can count but in the heat of the moment sometimes you don't have time to count accurately so you guess/estimate(ussually more than there were). Same as kills were mostly over claimed and allowed by the western allies,mainly because they knew the true German losses,and used it as a morale boost.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
What happened to Tommy McGuire had absolutely nothing to do with flaps.
And exactly what is it that leads you to believe it takes more pilot effort to turn a P-38? In reality, the yoke gave the P-38 pilot an advantage, he could easily apply all of his upper body strength.
In Ossie's defense he never said it was flaps. What he was probably referencing is the almost universal acceptance that McGuire is responsible for his own death...aka pride goes before the fall...because he ordered drop tanks left on in the fight.
There have been those historians who have tried to redeem this scenario, but I find it difficult to do even if his memory does not deserve such a tarnishment.
As for the yoke...I'm sure you've read and the pilot's you've talked to have all said it was pointless. They would have prefered a stick. The engineers put the yoke in there to over come the poor roll performance. And most of the time a pilot does not use two hands to fly in real life.
The Report of Joint Fighter Conference confirmed what pilots were saying about the 38 all over...that it was a busy cockpit...and you were switching hands all the time. I dare you to read what is writtin in that report. I'll quote one comment, however, "The yoke hides the instruments! Too complicated....Crowded....thr ottles too long and far apart for good directional control."
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Funny Virgil 175 fighters were around how many fighters both single and twin engine the LW had in the west. There were many accounts of both allied and LW pilots seeing more than there around.
Yes, but not in 1943 when the P38 first went opperational.
The LW could unify their forces into one massive attack. The USAAF could only put so many P38s in the air.
And speaking of servicablity of LW ac in contrast to the P- 38....hehe. :)
"Early in 1944 Lockheed sent their ace test pilot, Tony LeVier, to Europe to get some first hand information and help cheer up the troops. Even he admitted little testing had been done at higher altitudes in cold weather. Lockheed was based in Southern California! His first flight over England in the 38 and an engine blew at 29,000 feet with no warning. LeVier was there four months and during that time the Air Corps made almost 2,000 engine changes on the P-38, which was the total number of 38s in that theater! This was demoralizing."
As for the suggestion that it was JU52 pilots giving the legendary name to the P38 they were in no position to set nomenclature for the LW. They didn't carry that much weight. In the MTO there was wide respect for the new 38 which was exeriencing wide success. The only time it was vulnearable was when it was tied to close escort at low cruise settings. A mistake that would repeat with their first sorties in the ETO.
Worr, out
-
So how does presenting actual wartime FW test data charts and graphs showing that the FW190A5 was some 20mph faster on the deck than in AH, then HTC not even thanking or even acknowledging this contribution for months on end fit into your
little story Oedipus? To the best of my info Pyro hasnt even to this day said anything about that data. :(
-
Originally posted by worr
In Ossie's defense he never said it was flaps. What he was probably referencing is the almost universal acceptance that McGuire is responsible for his own death...aka pride goes before the fall...because he ordered drop tanks left on in the fight.
There have been those historians who have tried to redeem this scenario, but I find it difficult to do even if his memory does not deserve such a tarnishment.
As for the yoke...I'm sure you've read and the pilot's you've talked to have all said it was pointless. They would have prefered a stick. The engineers put the yoke in there to over come the poor roll performance. And most of the time a pilot does not use two hands to fly in real life.
The Report of Joint Fighter Conference confirmed what pilots were saying about the 38 all over...that it was a busy cockpit...and you were switching hands all the time. I dare you to read what is writtin in that report. I'll quote one comment, however, "The yoke hides the instruments! Too complicated....Crowded....thr ottles too long and far apart for good directional control."
Worr, out
I've read parts of that report. I've also talked to a lot of P-38 pilots who liked the yoke. While you don't always fly with both hands on the yoke, it allows you the advantage of using both hands if you need to. It also makes it easier to manipulate controls on both sides of the cockpit. If you start with both hands on the yoke, you can maintain a firm and steady grip with the right hand while operating controls on the left side of the cockpit with your left hand, and the same goes for the other side. Not everything you read in that report is the truth, and it didn't necessarily include all or even a great number of the top notch pilots. I've even heard a lot of the top pilots say the whole thing was a joke.
Of course the P-38 cockpit was busy, it had switches, controls, and instruments for TWO engines! The cockpit was not small, but it was not as large as the P-47 or P-51 cockpits, so it would by necessity be crowded and busy.
I sat in a P-38, I can put one hand on both throttles, or both prop controls, or both mixture controls. Longer levers provide easier and smoother input, with finer control. Of course you had to swap hands at times, there were controls and switches on both sides of the cockpit.
As far as Ossie goes, the way he wrote it made it sound as if he meant that flaps were the whole issue regarding the P-38, and they couldn't be operated in real life the way they can in AH. And he mentioned McGuire basically in the same sentence. Yes, McGuire made the call to hold tanks, and it wasn't necessarily the right call. There is no doubt that McGuire's aggressive style put him in that position, he would toss a P-38 around so hard that he bent a bunch of them.
McGuire's death does not tarnish his image or memory at all, he died trying to get a shot on an enemy plane attacking a member of his flight, there's nothing there to tarnish his image.
However, after talking to several P-38 pilots, including Capt. Art Heiden and Capt. Stan Richardson Jr. (an advanced P-38 instructor with over 3000 hours, and at least 500 hours with one engine shut down intentionally), and reading what both Weaver and Thropp wrote, along with reports on McGuire's flying style, I've reached the conclusion that it was the failure of an engine to respond to throttle input that caused the crash. Too many good pilots have told me that the ONLY way they could EVER get a P-38 to snap roll in a stall was to turn too hard into a dead or slowed engine. In otherwords, a P-38 won't flip without assymetric power, but it will almost always flip with assymetric power in a turn. It is this very phenomenon that caused so many P-38s to crash on take off when losing an engine. It was Stan's job to teach pilots how to fly the P-38 on one engine, and he said that was the only way to get a P-38 to turn turtle.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
its what we read vs what we see in AH.
'The P-38 was actually quite durable, the wing spar was stainless steel.(quick point here so was the 190's) There are reports of P-38s colliding with telephone poles and other planes, with the other planes and the telephone poles coming out on the losing end. Jack Ilfrey collided with a 109, and lost about six feet of wing, while the 109 spun in out of control, due to the loss of an entire wing, Ilfrey returned to base, and landed safely. A P-38 from the same group hit a telephone pole on a strafing run, cutting the pole in half, while the P-38 lost a prop and suffered engine damage, the pilot returned to base and landed safely. While the P-38 was not without its faults, being fragile was not one of them. It was common to have P-38s land even when they were so badly bent from overstress in dives or turns that the controls were nearly jammed, and the planes had to be scrapped. Many P-38s landed with holes in their wings you could stand in, missing wing sections, holes all the way through engines you could stick your arm through, and even a couple with one tail boom shot away.'
this sort of thing i find intersting and I would like to see where this all comes from.Maybe if i read these in a book id change my mind about them.However i certainly havent seen anything like it myself.Perhaps you can give us more info than a second hand recalling of this? for all we know it could be made up or like chinese whispers all complete nonsense.
p38 cutting down telephone poles? that is something id like to see in print before i believe :)
having said that, if i did see it Id immediately stop questioning what i often see in AH.Or at least it would cross off the p38.
Here you go Hazed:
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/6940/collision.html
http://www.dweebsofdeath.com/propaganda/hammel.html
Now, mind you, this isn't all of it, just a couple incidents. with a couple pictures, one of Ilfrey's plane with part of the wing missing, and one of it having returned with near 300 holes in it and an engine shot out.
-
the p38 is pos.
caldwel estimated that the on the west front the lw averaged operational strength averaged 1364 of day fighters.
From mid-1941 to mid-1944, JG 26 and JG 2 were the only Luftwaffe day fighter units defending German-occupied France. For the first two of those years, JG 1 was the only day fighter unit defending the Reich.
Pilot stories while entertaining are just that, stories. Most of them when matched with real facts prove to have been "embelished".
The airwar in the west broke the lw with overwhelming numbers. It was a large "gangbang".
February 1943 was a time of great success for the Experten of II./JG 2. By this time they had adapted to the conditions of desert air combat, and there were plentiful targets as the Allies built up their air power in North Africa. The second day of the month gave a taste of what was to come. While attacking P-40Fs of the 60th FS/33rd FG and P-39s of the 154th Observation Squadron, Oblt Bühligen downed two P-40s and a P-39. The next day saw II./JG 2 achieve its second best victory tally of 12 in a day. Again Bühligen was heavily involved, he claimed two P-39s of the 81st FG and two P-40Fs of the 33rd FG, who were strafing German troops. He also shot down a Spitfire of 243 Sqdn over his Gruppe’s base, Kairouan, giving him five for the day. Other successful pilots were: Ofw Kurt Goltzsch (3), Lt Lothar Werner (1), Uffz Erich Engelbrecht (1), Eichler (1) and Uffz Heinz Schulze (1). III./SKG 10 added to the FW 190 victories on the 3rd by destroying a P-40F of the 33rd FG on the ground at Thelepte airfield during an early afternoon raid.
The Gruppe’s run of success continued the next day as Gruppenkommandeur Rudorffer downed two Spitfire Vs of the 52nd FG in the Sbeitla-Fondouk area, and Bühligen downed another in the same combat. At 1500 Oblt Bühligen claimed two more victories, this time P-38s of the 82nd FG near Matmata. The next few days saw little action, although III./SKG 10 continued to carry out raids on Allied airfields, attacking Souk el Khemis on the 8th.
On 9 February 1943, II./JG 2 achieved its highest tally in the Tunisian campaign, when it downed some 16 aircraft, half of which went to the Gruppenkommandeur himself. In fact, Rudorffer claimed all his eight victories in the space of half an hour during one early afternoon sortie. Just after noon on the 9th, bombers (B-17s of the 301st BG) and fighters (18 P-38s of the 94th FS) were reported approaching II./JG 2’s base, Kairouan, and immediately the unit’s readiness Staffel took off to engage them. Rudorffer was last to take off, and after sighting the enemy formation at 21500 feet, attacked the fighters. He attacked P-40s which were flying in a defensive circle, and by slipping in and out he managed to down six of them. He then sighted P-38s below strafing German ground targets. He shot down two of these south of Maktar at 1521 and 1522 in two passes, giving him a total of eight. The following is Rudorffer's own account of the action:
it was south of Tunis, about 180 kilometres. We got word - we were based at Kairouan - that bombers and fighters were on the way (B-17s of the 301st BG and P-38s of the 1st FG). One Staffel was already sitting in their aircraft and I ordered them off. I was always last to take off and waited to get the latest information on the enemy's course and speed. Then I took off with my Schwarm of four and we assembled with the others in the air and headed for the "dicke Autos und Indianer". They were coming from the west, about 24 B-17s, 18 P-40s, 20 P-38s and a similar number of Spitfires - some of them may have been Hurricanes because when the dogfight began I thought I saw some Hurricanes also. We were at about 7000 metres and the bombers were below us, the P-40s above.
When we started for the bombers the Curtiss fighters came down on us and that's when the dogfight began. After a time the P-40s, which were not as fast as us, went into a 'Luftbery' circle and I began to slip in from low and high and shoot them donw. I managed to shoot down six in about seven minutes. As I recall the combat report, I got one at 1359 and the last at 1406. By that time the fight had broken up and everyone had scattered. Then I saw some P-38s strafing below us, and though I had only about four FW 190s with me at this time, I went down at them and surprised them. I got one coming from above and then went up again and came down on another and shot him down. That gave me eight for the day - I remember it because it was one of the best days I ever had."
[/b]
The Gruppe achieved more success on this day, with 11 claims being made. The Gruppenkommandeur Lt Rudorffer shot down seven Allied aircraft on a late afternoon sortie, including four P-38s north-west of Pichon and three Spitfires north of El Abeid. Oblt Bühligen also experienced some success, claiming three victories, including one B-25. Fw Goltzsch was the other claimant of the unit.
Köhler’s words, "an astonishing performance”, can also be used to sum up the performance of the Focke-Wulf FW 190 in North Africa. Against enemy air superiority the FW 190s of II./JG 2, III./SKG 10 and Sch.G. 2 achieved great success against both enemy aircraft and ground targets, and at times, the Würger seemed to dominate the African skies.
-
Virgil you cant make any claim as to how "tough" a plane is based only on rare examples of a few who made it back heavily damaged.
You have to research the ones that didnt make it back as well. Some of them may have been killed with just 1 7mm.
Wirthout taking account of the losses and how they were lost all you offer is anecdotal evidence that shpws no insight to how "tough" the p38 was.
-
Hazed, take a look at Bodie's book on the P-38, there are several pictures in it. I don't have a scanner, maybe someone else does. There is a picture of a P-38 that hit a telephone pole with the outer wing, and a picture of one that collided with a Lancaster.
The P-38 did have a couple of weak areas, the cooling system was very spread out and complex, with long plumbing, and relatively exposed radiators (the two pods on the sides of the fuselage booms), and the turbochargers were exposed, making them vulnerable. A shot up turbocharger could shut down an engine by sending turbo pieces down the intake, or by leaking oil out under pressure.
As far as the toughness of the P-47 goes, I'd say the story and pictures of Robet S. Johnson's plane should tell the tale.
And I agree, the P-51 was tin foil compared to the other two. I think several pilots who preferred the P-38 or P-47 called the P-51 the "spam can". Even the USAAF didn't like the hot rod lightweight P-51H.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Virgil you cant make any claim as to how "tough" a plane is based only on rare examples of a few who made it back heavily damaged.
You have to research the ones that didnt make it back as well. Some of them may have been killed with just 1 7mm.
Wirthout taking account of the losses and how they were lost all you offer is anecdotal evidence that shpws no insight to how "tough" the p38 was.
So, Wotan, show me a massive number that were shot down with a few hits.
Oh, and by the way, if I can't prove the P-38 was tough with a few examples, then you can't prove the Luftwaffe was superior, and that the P-38 was inferior to the Luftwaffe planes, with a few examples of their success.
Further, if the Luftwaffe and its planes were so great, and in your words "the P-38 was a pos" then why did the P-38D through P-38H have an air to air kill to loss ratio of 4:1 against the "vaunted Luftwaffe" and their "completely superior aircraft and pilots"? Or how about the P-38L and its 6:1 kill to loss ratio in air to air combat against that same Luftwaffe?
Want examples of P-38 pilots like the Luftwaffe pilots you posted above? Capt. Larry Blumer, 5 FW 190s in 15 minutes, likely including Luftwaffe ace Rudy Dassow. Robin Olds, 2 Fw 190s while alone in enemy territory (gun camera film confirms two destroyed). Ervin Ethel, 4 Me 109s and a 5th probable, while facing a flight of around 20, with no other Allied pilots close enough to help, and with no damage to his plane. The list goes on.
News flash, the Luftwaffe lost Wotan, blown out of the sky. Not always by superior numbers, and not always by pilots and planes with an advantage at the engagement either.
It's funny how a bunch of Luftwaffe fans get together and claim that everything the Allied side (that's the side that won, by the way) claims is exagerrated, and Allied pilots are liars and murderers, but they claim the Germans (the agressors, and the losers, by the way) never lied, never exagerrated, and never committed atrocities. When you win, you really don't have to make ridiculous claims, but when you lose I guess you need some real good excuses, and you need to show that you were at least in the game at some point.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
Hazed it's not the questions. It's the presentation. To try and correct percieved errors or deficiencies in some aircraft (109's and 190's predominately) some players repeatedly use irrelevant examples of other AH aircraft they believe to be over modelled. Mostly to show some imagined "bias." Or real life comparisons are dragged in to support ones case on how "flying" some airplane in an online arena doesn't compare to the REAL life anecdotes they read about in books. And that's bull.
That's my only point.
oedipus i can appreciate what you are saying and yes i too notice the over zealous LW lovers who border on the fanatical, and i have to say almost idolise them.But I can tell you right now i neither idolise nor appreciate any of the nazi doctrine.
I lost family in WW2 and i have been brought up with stories of just what they were capable of and ive read untold books on the subject.Including Martin gilberts 'second world war' some 700 pages long describing in clinical detail the attrocities commited.(BY ALL SIDES I MIGHT ADD)
What i dont appreciate is people claiming i have some alterior motives for my questioning of this game.
I am simply a player in a GAME.this game has NO POLITICAL standpoint and neither do I.I am looking at AH as literally a chess type game with peices being the aircraft and i honestly think i have an objective view.I 'play' with each peice and i make my mind up about them
My personal opinion is the p38 and p51 and la7 are or seem to be FAR more durable than other aircraft of similar design.
take the p51 for example, I think everyone MUST agree it was well known that the radiator was extremely badly positioned for a wartime fighter and it suffered because of it.It was constructed in a similar fashion to other aircraft of the time apart from (i think im right) a stressed skin construction and a laminar flow wing.This didnt make it any tougher than say a typhoon or a 190.
In AH it is no more vulnerable than some of the toughest planes of WW2. These i would include P47,F4u,190F,Il2,B17,Hurricane(to some extent),F4F among others.So why is it in this game i notice time and time again behaviour that just doesnt fit with the recorded stories by some of the best pilots of all time?.
Im fully aware that they often tell their stories with a little added or forgoten but GENERALLy you get a picture of the aircraft they flew.
for instance the amount of pilots that described the spitfire as a plane you strap on rather than get in, the B17 crews that say how much their aircraft took before they went down, the stories of P47s struggling home with no oil,wings holed etc even from LW pilots describing them?
why would a pilot from the LW praise the durability of a P47 then , for some unknown reason lie about how durable a p38 was? his motive is to piss off the company that makes the plane?? the pilots that flew them?? what a load of crock!!
If you read the book i named in the first post you would understand why i think it is a good insight into the planes and men who flew them.It is highly self critical of the LW aircraft and command structure.Galland totally dismisses the He162 for example as a complete waste of resources, he gives an open account. why? because he was being interogated NOT interveiwed.This was information for use by the United states armed forces, not info for a novel.
anyway i digress. I have to go back to the point im trying to make which is in this GAME there is certain flaws imo.One of them is durability when you compare some fighters which are really not constructed much differently in real life but behave totally differently in our game.I say its roadkill.
you call me whatever you want, you can claim im some dweeb out for a bigger score or easier time in his LW plane if you like.I know that i have an interest in ALL WW2 aircraft and i dont need some added bonus to make my chosen ride easier to win in a game with.To be honest if i was a pony pilot most of the time id want my model to be EXACTLY like it was,flaws and all.If it wasnt a suitable ground pounder then id damn well want that to pan out in the game.Why?? because then , when i flew the mighty p47 Id see all too clearly why it was so good for that job.
who knows we may get just a brief taste of why they , the pilots of WW2, loved their rides so much?
we'd fly the historically tough planes for jabo and the weaker ones for fighting air to air instead of the present system where the p51 and p38 and others can do just about anything asked of them.We have lost all sense of the character of the aircraft if you ask me.
im giving up yet again on this roadkill BB.
-
and to answer some of the other points in this post like trying to work out which plane was the toughest by how many kills it had vs losses is totally dumb.
The factors that cause these numbers are inumerable!
green pilots, flying orders, targets attacked and attackers ignored in favour of finishing missions, mechanical failure,weather, training, sizes of the forces involved etc etc etc . theres thousands of influencing factors to consider.
kill ratios in an airbattle where one side is attacking bombers predominantly whilst the other is trying to stop them mainly tell you how well they did as PILOTS not as a comparison of aircraft.
These factors, however, have little to do with the game we play as for one thing we dont have fear,mechanical trouble,a TRUELLY accurate model of the air, real planes or anything else apart from a computer model which attampts to recreate a FEEL.
claim whatever you like but it still boils down to the fact that this GAME is not 100% correct and is just code in a computer.
everyone dismisses what we 'feel' whilst playing it but for me that is actually the best representation we have.If it doesnt 'feel' right to a 'majority' of those that fly the model, I think it should be looked into.Of course not every complaint can be addressed but when dozens of players complain about the overly common oil damage on the 190s for example and HTC corrects it, AND then they stop complaining (so much :)) SURELY something has been done right.
I agreed the p38 had a far too weak tail in the early days but after the adjustment I began to notice it was incredibly strong.Just put it back down a touch and i think id find it acceptable.I dont want the glass tail back but i do want to see it being damaged just as easily as other planes of similar construction.Thats what i dont see at the moment.thats the point of the post.
hehe rather a large p.s. wasnt it :)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The airwar in the west broke the lw with overwhelming numbers. It was a large "gangbang".
I....uh, I mean, respectfully, you know, Wotan, because you're my friend and all....say that this is baloney.
The Luftwaffe had the ability to concentrate its planes in any given area at any given time. They had plenty of warning for each raid, because it took so long for the 8th AF to form up over England. Because of range considerations, the US had to split its fighter groups up in a zone relay system, so that in any given area there was only one group of escorts. The accounts cited by others here, e.g. the 61st Fighter Squadron meeting 60 Nazi planes, is understandable because of this.
Moreover, the critical period of the airwar, when the Luftwaffe lost its best and brightest, was generally from October, 1943 through the Berlin raids in March, 1944. After the close of the Berlin raids, bomber missions were rarely opposed by a significant fighter force. The Luftwaffe was not greatly outnumbered by Allied fighter groups during this period. By the late spring and early summer of 1944, of course, that had changed, and from there on out it was an aluminum overcast of Allied planes. But the Luftwaffe was broken before that, by even numbers in circumstances that the Luftwaffe ought to have been able to win. This is one of the reasons I've never been a big Galland fan. He was at the helm in this period, and he never did get their organization to the point at which he could respond to a raid with an organized, concentrated defense.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I've read parts of that report....Not everything you read in that report is the truth,
[snip]
Of course the P-38 cockpit was busy, it had switches, controls, and instruments for TWO engines!
I sat in a P-38, I can put one hand on both throttles, or both prop controls, or both mixture controls. Longer levers provide easier and smoother input, with finer control. Of course you had to swap hands at times, there were controls and switches on both sides of the cockpit.
Yes, I have sat in one too. Once with Blummer, whom you mentioned above who shot down 5 FWs in a day. He was in my home town shortly before he passed away..for our airshow. What a hot shot! :)
I've flown twins myself. The 38's cockpit could have been arranged better. Did you notice where the fuel tanks are? That is flat out wrong...out of sight out of mind. (Jeff Ethel?) And the yoke does block the panel....even though I'm pretty tall.
As for the fighter report...yes its exceptionally biased and inconclusive. But the coffee was paid for by the US governement. If you want more of it...I have a copy here in my library. Its comments about the 38 in combat are harsh to extreme.
BTW...allow me to introduce myself to you. I'm the head trainer over at Warbirds. I've been flying there for seven years....and know most of the people who came over to AH in the beginning. I have a lot of friends over here! I've done some writing, even on the P-38, and teaching aviation.
Sounds like you like your FTD. Love to meet up with you some day. We have a great air museum here in Fargo, ND. No P-38, however. ;)
Worr, out
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Wotan
the p38 is pos.
caldwel estimated that the on the west front the lw averaged operational strength averaged 1364 of day fighters.
So what is your point?
How many fighters from that 1,364 does it take ot overwhelm a flight of 8 P-38s flying close escort?
Interesting that Caldwel puts this time period under the heading in his book called "Temporary Ascendancey."
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Hazed, take a look at Bodie's book on the P-38, there are several pictures in it. I don't have a scanner, maybe someone else does. There is a picture of a P-38 that hit a telephone pole with the outer wing, and a picture of one that collided with a Lancaster.
Actually, it was a Halifax, which apparently crashed (as a Halifax went down in that area at approximately that time). Embedded in the leading edge of the P-38's wing is an entire vertical stabilizer from the Halifax.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
The Luftwaffe had the ability to concentrate its planes in any given area at any given time.
Exactly...and even into late 44 this still was the case any time the LW husbanded its resources. But in the end it was a battle of attrition. And no so much the tactics...particularily the sucess of Hub Zemke's strategies, as well as Doolittle's freedom for the fighters in 44...was the real death knell.
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by hazed-
and to answer some of the other points in this post like trying to work out which plane was the toughest by how many kills it had vs losses is totally dumb.
You are combining two separate discussions that are going on at the same time here, hazed.
I don't fly AH, but the 38 was a tough machine...but not notoriously so, like the P-47. The FW was also a tough little bugger. The 38 did have, however, liquid cooled engines. That made it more vulnerable that an air cooled engine in itself.
Worr, out
-
Virgil, what I meant by the McGuire reference is that we can try things in AH and, instead of worrying about the consequences, we can learn from them. The reason I mentioned McGuire is because here's a guy that had enough confidence in the agility of his airplane that he would engage a smaller, lighter opponent, at low altitude, with drop tanks, in a manner which, from my impression, had less to do with energy management and more to do with knife fighting. I tried to tie that in because it would be plausible that he would be using his maneuvering flaps in that situation. This is all the kind of stuff that I could try to do over and over again in AH, and only get better at as I crash or get shot down. The pilots who fought for real didn't have that luxury. So as abstract as I could make it, that sentance was basically a justification for the 38's performance in Europe and subsequent comparison to how it handles in AH (perceived, in response to the thread at that point). My argument would be that, in terms of agility, the P-38 was up to snuff, but only for those willing to take it there. Everybody who plays AH can take it there whenever they want.
And exactly what is it that leads you to believe it takes more pilot effort to turn a P-38?
I think you misunderstood. In AH, the P-38 requires a more hands on approach to get the most out of the turn rate (flap and engine management, you can even throw in the dive flap). Basically you have to make more adustments if you expect that airplane to hang around with the smaller/lighter ones. Whether making those adjustments is seen as an effort or not depends on the pilot. Again, this is a reference to flying in AH, not real life, but for all I know it could hold true in the real thing as well. I was reminded of flying in AW and seeing a comment about the P-38's lack of maneuverability. Someone who would make that comment in that game had not discovered the potential of that airplane, and I feel the same holds true for someone who says the P-38 is too maneuverable in AH. I don't think it is easy to keep it maneuverable in a fight because it requires more micro-managment than most of the other planes.
-
"I think everyone MUST agree it was well known that the radiator was extremely badly positioned for a wartime fighter and it suffered because of it"
The P-51 radiator was fine for A2A work; it was in the ground attack role that the Musatang really suffered. And trust me, in AH the Musztang radiator/oil system is really vulnerable. The thing is in AH we only have to fly about 20-30 miles to get home; in reality home was hundreds of miles away and radiator/oil damage over the target meant you weren't getting home. As for the rest of the P-51, I find it to be tougher than the likes of the Spit and Zeke and such, but nowhere close to being as tough as the really tough airplanes like the P-38, P-47, F4U and similar airplanes.
Oh, and about this:
"So how does presenting actual wartime FW test data charts and graphs showing that the FW190A5 was some 20mph faster on the deck than in AH, then HTC not even thanking or even acknowledging this contribution for months on end fit into your
little story Oedipus? "
That was more or less proven to be an estimate related to an engine performance estimation. It wasn't from an actual test and it most definately wasn't completely accurate. Prove otherwise if you can, or give it a rest. I'm all for improving aircraft when something seems broke, but you can't expect HTC to use fantasy numbers just to make your pet airplane "uber".
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Glasses
In 1944 all German pilots opened their chutes no less than 300m off the ground,some even lower, for fear of being shot by American fighters, they warned new pilots to do that when they were engaged by Americans . So by all accounts it was no fable and it indeed happen regularly. Of course that little dirty secret is not told in many of the romantic allied "non-fiction" books.
I hope you are not trying to imply that the Nazis didn't do this themselves?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Robin Olds, 2 Fw 190s while alone in enemy territory (gun camera film confirms two destroyed).
My squadron is in regular contact with the surviving members of the 479th FG and I'm sure we can get some first hand accounts Gen. Olds about that flight. Interesting side note, when the 479th started transitioning to the P-51D, most of the 'Raiders' wanted to keep their P-38's.
Ack-Ack
479th FG
-
I don't think that the P-51 is super tough, myself. I spent some time flying it this tour, it gets toejam up about as badly as a 109 or a 190, for the most part.
I've actually been putting some thought into the Damage Modelling, because it does seem that some planes are more vulnerable to certain guns that other planes are. For instance, Spitfires seem to go down awfully easy to .50 caliber fire, but they don't show any special vulnerability to 20mm as far as I've seen (like you can hit them with a quick shot of .50 and half the time they'll go down, but they aren't any weaker than other planes are to 20mm).
I have noticed that the La5/La7 are incredibly tough, both to .50 (especially to .50) and 20mm, except for the Hispano, which knifes through everything like butter.
The P47,F4U,F6F, and F4F are also incredibly tough, but they had a reputation for being very tough. I personally think the 190 is more than a bit frail, it isn't any tougher than the 109 is, despite its repuation for being more tough.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
[BI think he was a murderous zealot and stupidly got killed.
[/B]
So, in a war you give a free pass to the enemy?
IF they were trying to surrender then OK, but in a war the enemy is the enemy wether he just got shot out of the sky or burned out of a bunker, unless there's a clear indication that he is done fighting for good and surrenders he's fair game.
Chivalry, IMO, has no place on the battleground especialy in a war where any chivalrious action could get one or more of your allies killed.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Chivalry, IMO, has no place on the battleground especialy in a war where any chivalrious action could get one or more of your allies killed.
I'll bet I read "Wing Leader" half a dozen times before it dawned on me that Johnson was trying to kill the pilots in the planes he shot down.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
"Actually, it was a Halifax, which apparently crashed.."
I have a scan of that one.
wow, I could care less about the 38, but that's an outstanding picture. Also, this thread need more " :( "'s That cracks me up.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by worr
You are combining two separate discussions that are going on at the same time here, hazed.
I don't fly AH, but the 38 was a tough machine...but not notoriously so, like the P-47. The FW was also a tough little bugger. The 38 did have, however, liquid cooled engines. That made it more vulnerable that an air cooled engine in itself.
Worr, out
well isnt that the whole point? the first article i posted mentioned they were vulnerable.
I said the p47 was well known for being tough and the p38 wasnt.
In AH the p38 can take huge amounts of damage.I even flew one today and got 5 kills.I was shot up 3 times and i lost nothing/no damage.I was shot by an la7 a 190 and a 109(might have been a spit as both were on my 6).Now all im saying is this doesnt happen when someone hits me in the 190.Youre almost garenteed to lose a wingtip or some other vital part.
oed thanks for the link and the pic of the damaged p38 but i have to say it ive seen the same sort of damage on a hundred other planes including these:
-
now im not saying these pictures tell us nothing and i must admit it does make me rethink the toughness of the p38 in terms of structural strengh and just maybe i can accept it is capable of recieving a lot of damage but was it truelly on par with the infamous P47? And i have to say the wingtip damage really didnt look that bad.Looks to me as though it was pure luck only the tip was damaged rather than pure strengh that held it together.It also states the 109 flew of with engine damage, wobbling as it went.This points to the 109 being just as strong if you use the same basis for the arguement.The 109 was obviously hit in the engine somehow but it still flew!.
also theres been mention here by people who i assume know their stuff that the 190 was well known to be tough.Same as what ive read.But you CANT tell me the 190 in AH is as strong as the p38 or p51.Ive taken 3 or 4 flak hits in p51s and p38s but i rarely survive more than 1 hit in a 190 or planes like 205s, spits even 110s which imo seem to lose wings/wingtips immediately or catch fire.
I can accept the common fires if the 110 was known for it but then id like to see this coolant/engine vulnerability in p38s too.Its only right, right???
This is obviously a very hard point to agree on , ie whether you consider the aircraft durable based on your AH experience but HONESTLY if you just take one up and fly through some ack its very simple to test.
like i said before the p38 stories did suprise me but even the 200 odd holes doesnt tell us much if they were not 20mm hits. If you look into the damage sustained during the battle of britain you will see similar stories.This doesnt mean they always take that sort of damage im sure you'll agree.It does however point toward a higher durability than id previously thought.Then again you guys go on to say its vulnerable in other ways so what was so wrong about the statement in the book i quoted?
strange lot you guys!
I still stand by the p51 being too tough/durable and the La7 i cant find anything written about it but its just as hard to shoot down as the p47 in AH.Ive unloaded loads of rds into them and Ive been amazed to see them sprout a fuel leak and carry on.were they really built like that? and were they really so much more durable than the La5?
-
hazed , i fly the P38 a lot , and when i get hit i get hit , eng out ,black smoke , pieces falling off, i respect you too much to call you a liar , so you must have been lucky or are exaggerating, the P38 is not a hard plane to kill, ask me
44MAG
-
Originally posted by akak
I hope you are not trying to imply that the Nazis didn't do this themselves?
ack-ack
If by "Nazis" you mean Luftwaffe pilots of Heer(German Army)they did not (99.9%) shoot at pilots or any persons that surrendered it was not a policy to do that ,infact they were strictly forbidden to do so,it was a break of Genova convention since it incurred the pilot,soldier, etc had surrendered,you may have forgot that they instilled an extrict discipline into German servicemen,which forbeyed them of such dispicable actions. Though, the same cannot said for the SS . Look up at accounts by British , Russian or by German pilots to see if they(Luftwaffe) shot at parachuted (surrendering) airmen,in fact in some accounts they even aimed away from the cockpit area to not kill or wound the pilot. The term Nazi again is used to degrade them or make them seem less human ,I knew sooner or later it would be used to argue to justify the murder for the all rightous American Airmen,please.
Funny thing is the whole chute shooting phenomenon became common as the American Squadrons came active over Europe.
Again one thing is the total force of Germans on paper the other is the ones which were serviceable or were sent at any one time to intercept bomber and only a fraction a small fraction was being sent to escort both the twin and single engine bomber destroyers. Many of the "Experte'' Luftwaffe airmen who got shot and killed during those times were either hanging from parachutes or got bounced while attacking the bomber formations where you had enemy fire from all sides.
Again, this has nothing to do which what side won or lost,in fact it doesn't have to do with that is had to do with tactics,The fact that Galland was put into a position of high responsability didn't allow him to make great descisions in the air war without Goering approving them so in any case(of course you only read what YOU want to read,especially biased accounts) many of the steps he would take to improve or lessen the losses the German Air Arm were sabotaged by the higher ups out of rage and envy.
Again I prove my point you only read between the lines and did not the read the Full message I was trying to make. I didn't at any time call them liars, what I said that in the heat of the moment you guess and estimate or count so rapidly you make an estimation which in many cases proves that they saw more aircraft than there were and there are many accounts of that happening on both sides. I'm not calling him a liar ,he might aswell be telling the truth,the truth he thinks it is and what he saw.
-
Originally posted by worr
Yes, I have sat in one too. Once with Blummer, whom you mentioned above who shot down 5 FWs in a day. He was in my home town shortly before he passed away..for our airshow. What a hot shot! :)
I've flown twins myself. The 38's cockpit could have been arranged better. Did you notice where the fuel tanks are? That is flat out wrong...out of sight out of mind. (Jeff Ethel?) And the yoke does block the panel....even though I'm pretty tall.
As for the fighter report...yes its exceptionally biased and inconclusive. But the coffee was paid for by the US governement. If you want more of it...I have a copy here in my library. Its comments about the 38 in combat are harsh to extreme.
BTW...allow me to introduce myself to you. I'm the head trainer over at Warbirds. I've been flying there for seven years....and know most of the people who came over to AH in the beginning. I have a lot of friends over here! I've done some writing, even on the P-38, and teaching aviation.
Sounds like you like your FTD. Love to meet up with you some day. We have a great air museum here in Fargo, ND. No P-38, however. ;)
Worr, out
Worr, out
Yeah, I noticed the fuel switches, Ethel even commented on them. By the way, I talked to Bodie via email and he mentioned the Ethel crash. If you know Bodie, you know he and Ethel were at odds before Ethel died, and Bodie is still at odds with the family. On the other hand, Bodie said he felt the plane was on fire BEFORE it crashed, and Ethel was trying to escape the fire. He also felt the fire and the fact that the starboard (#2) engine shutdown, was due to a problem with the modified fuel system, and Ethel was desperately trying to find fuel to get the engine started. Bodie said the fire in the cockpit was due to a fuel leak and the dihedral caused the fuel to go into the cockpit.
I agree, the P-38 cockpit wasn't the perfect layout, but it was on the leading edge by far, and it was far enough ahead of its time to cause one to expect such problems. It could have been better, but it was not that bad either.
Stan Richardson was a good friend of Larry Blumer, and told me about Larry keeping a P-38 ready to fly, but often being to ill to fly it. It seems Larry suffered from Luekemia for more than a couple of decades. Stan did say that no amount of requests would get Larry to let him fly the P-38. Stan lives in Beaverton, near Tillamook, and goes to visit "Tangerine" regularly. I don't hear from him as much lately, but I do have a picture of Stan with "Tangerine".
Larry's civilian plane was crashed after he sold it, killing the pilot. The remains are reported to be at Kermit Weeks' museum, to be used to restore another P-38.
-
Originally posted by Ossie
Virgil, what I meant by the McGuire reference is that we can try things in AH and, instead of worrying about the consequences, we can learn from them. The reason I mentioned McGuire is because here's a guy that had enough confidence in the agility of his airplane that he would engage a smaller, lighter opponent, at low altitude, with drop tanks, in a manner which, from my impression, had less to do with energy management and more to do with knife fighting. I tried to tie that in because it would be plausible that he would be using his maneuvering flaps in that situation. This is all the kind of stuff that I could try to do over and over again in AH, and only get better at as I crash or get shot down. The pilots who fought for real didn't have that luxury. So as abstract as I could make it, that sentance was basically a justification for the 38's performance in Europe and subsequent comparison to how it handles in AH (perceived, in response to the thread at that point). My argument would be that, in terms of agility, the P-38 was up to snuff, but only for those willing to take it there. Everybody who plays AH can take it there whenever they want.
I think you misunderstood. In AH, the P-38 requires a more hands on approach to get the most out of the turn rate (flap and engine management, you can even throw in the dive flap). Basically you have to make more adustments if you expect that airplane to hang around with the smaller/lighter ones. Whether making those adjustments is seen as an effort or not depends on the pilot. Again, this is a reference to flying in AH, not real life, but for all I know it could hold true in the real thing as well. I was reminded of flying in AW and seeing a comment about the P-38's lack of maneuverability. Someone who would make that comment in that game had not discovered the potential of that airplane, and I feel the same holds true for someone who says the P-38 is too maneuverable in AH. I don't think it is easy to keep it maneuverable in a fight because it requires more micro-managment than most of the other planes.
Okay, I understand your point. As I said, I doubt flaps had anything at all to do with the McGuire crash.
The fact that you don't really die affects all planes and their learning curve. I agree with that too.
I agree completely that only a pilot truly devoted to getting everything the P-38 had could really fly it.
When you said pilot effort, I took it to mean actual resistance to control input, and the P-38 didn't have that problem. As far as the pilot being busy, while he did have to use the throttles to get the P-38 to roll really fast, or to get the ultimate turn out of it, he did not need to worry about trim, because the P-38 did not require constant trim input.
The pilots I talked to didn't complain that much about the cockpit being crowded and busy. They complained about the electric props, the fuel switches, and the lack of heat.
-
AS to the P38, it is WAY more durable then most planes in AH, every time I've flown it I've taken 20's after 20's and not lost anything, I was sleeping once, 109 came down and pinged the hell out of me, I got dammaged, engines smoking, 109 was usre it was a kill so he broke off, I returned to base.
last time I flew it I went through the town ack on a strafing run, obviously acks thing it's easy to hit as I took 10 20's the first pass (have it on film). All that happaned was that I got my engine #1 smoking.
Not sure why but everybody who flies the P38 regulary says it dies easily, everytime I fly it, it takes ALOT to make me go down.
As for the P47, it's not as durable as the P38, LA7 and F6F and F4F.
To me it has always seemed like the P47 should be tougher, atleast that's what combat reports say.
-
Nice work captain
:D
just forget it
these luftwabbles just want their cherry pickin planes get kills with one 30 mm shot
otherwise it sucks
:rolleyes:
many of these to give away again
-
What range are you getting shot from?
What range was the common WW2 dogfight fought at?
Get within d200 of a 38 and any shot will tear it to pieces.
I do agree the P-47 should be 1/3rd more tougher than the F6F to shoot down, right now you just aim at the wings and they snap out.
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
This is one of the reasons I've never been a big Galland fan. He was at the helm in this period, and he never did get their organization to the point at which he could respond to a raid with an organized, concentrated defense.
- oldman
he was too busy squeakin' to kurt tank that the proposed ta152 was going to be 2.3614 kmh too slow.
:D
-
This is one of the reasons I've never been a big Galland fan. He was at the helm in this period, and he never did get their organization to the point at which he could respond to a raid with an organized, concentrated defense.
I thought Galland argued with Hitler on this very point but Hitler didn't want to concentrate (pull back) forces. But I'm no WW2 history expert.
-
P-47 was the best:) My excuse for being the 100th post in this longggg overdone... discussion:)
-
Originally posted by Glasses
If by "Nazis" you mean Luftwaffe pilots of Heer(German Army)they did not (99.9%) shoot at pilots or any persons that surrendered it was not a policy to do that
The NAZIS deliberately murdered thousands of POWs, many in very awful ways. Malmedy, Mauthausen.
If a WW2 German pilot got shot in his chute or his family got incinerated in a bunker that is just too bad. NAZI Germany had to be defeated.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
Quite a large number of USAAF pilots (and thier command chain) believed that if the USAAF attack pilots shot at the ground under an enemy panzer they could knock it out. So......
Based on the opinions of hundreds, if not thousands, of USAAF ground attack pilots and thier leaders who registered the amount of dead enemy vehicles on the roads naturally concluded that what they were doing worked. Therefore I insist that HTC review the damage model on the AH's GV's and then summarily change it so that my richocets can kill and my ground attack sorties are more like what I've read in those combat stories and anecdotes.
yes i see your point oedipus but again what im saying is basically this.
From what ive read i would place the aircraft we are talking about in a certain order of suitability for roles due to what i have gathered from what i have read(not all pilot accounts btw)
my view on the toughest planes (at least ones we've mentioned) in order:
P47
F4u
F6F/190F's
f4fs
p38
typhoon
hurricane
p51/109s/spits/190A'a etc all pretty similar
I know this isnt very provable but isnt this a reasonable idea on the planes durability?the p47 described by all sides as a tank with wings:)
F4u was tough as old boots and often proved it when it crashed on the carrier decks etc much like the F4f/F6f.The 190F's were specially armoured for ground attack and there are stories about how the cylinders were shot away and the engines still run.(i have a book with the description in it)
The p38 i put above the typhoon purely because of what you have shown , but before that, and i know the typhoon had flaws with the tail being prone to breaking, Id have put the tyhoon above it as it was a very tough plane to shoot down due to its huge thick wings and heavy armoured plate etc. I always had an idea the p38 was easily damaged on the tail also but i cant remember where i read about it and as pointed out here it WAS vulnerable due to its cooling systems layout etc.The hurricane was a wooden construction that absorbed mg fire like a seive but was not so good with HE shells.It literally got smashed up but the fuselage stayed together because of the enormous amount of spars/honeycomb like effect.
The rest of these aircraft like early 190s, spits etc have nothing much to speak of in terms of incredible strength, at least i havent read about it and as for the p51 well ive said it over and over it was not a good ground attack due to the placement of the radiator but i dont think it was any less or more durable than say a spit or a 190a5 for instance.
now is this a baised view? is this a misinformed view? I think not.
idiots like bug32 can post all the dumb pictures they like I dont think im being biased when i ask for a tougher 190f8 and p47 and a less durable p38 and p51 BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE IN AH its almost the other way around!.
now agree or not i feel its a fair request to ask for it to be looked into.go test it by simply flying through ack at 500 ft in all these planes ONLINE.and whats more do it a lot.I have almost 3 years in this game and i know what i think.
maybe someone could explain to me exactly why the p51 would be stronger? whats so special about it that i havent read about?
Im so fed up with this that im really losing my interest in many of the planes in AH because im feeling more and more that AH isnt set right and it gets more and more annoying.Much the same as when we were killed by the super E nik.Most of the time it may well have been good flying on the nik pilots part but we would always blame it on the special E ability it seemed to have.
Same as now when i shoot a p51 and see it survive I curse the model and i cant understand how anyone in here can claim its not more durable than most. I think they are full of crap and whats worse they accuse me of trying to get an advantage for the LW planes when they are flying a model with the durability advantage! and i think they damn well know it too.whats worse is they even try to infer im a nazi! great! really helps with the animosity that one.I just like to play the bad guy in games bug.If this was starwars id want to be in tie fighters.Does that mean im about to become darth vader? :)
All thats going to happen is AH will lose the people who add some variety by forming LW squads (or others) to fight your pony squads or raf squads.I used to fly LW exclusively but ive given in and started to fly the easier planes.that way I dont get as frustrated with the modeling but its a shame if you ask me.LW squads are a great thing to have around just as italian squads and others.It adds to the game i think.
-
Hazed. That was a picture taken during ground tests for damage cause by various armaments. Not a bird that flew back to base in that condition. Fact is there are many, MANY pictures of P-47's, B17's and P-38's that made it home with lesser or equal damage. This backs up pilots anecdtoes that thier birds werre tough. Yet I do not recall seeing many LW (or ANY Japanese planes) that could take the same punishment like those could and make it home.
Oedipus i have read a couple of squadron accounts and there are enough anecdotes about german planes returning with incredible damage.
And that there are not many pictures is pretty simple, not much were made or survived.
It is even hard to get enough pictures of operational planes together and such "specials" are even rarer.
But here two anecdotes about the FW190 (sorry haven't all exact names in mind, but they will give a general idea):
A LW pilot flying a FW190 collided with a Spitfire during a hard fough dogfight. The Spit immediatly crashed. The FW190 made a smooth 3 point landing with 4 feet of one wing missing, the pilot refused the order to belly land cause the inflight characteristics of the FW190 were barrely influenced by the missing wing parts.
Another LW pilot returned in low-level flight from the Operation Bodenplatte in his FW190D9. He constantly scaned for enemies and after checkin his 6 and looking forward again he noticed he was directly flying towards 3 giant trees.
He tried to pull up, but didnt managed it in time.
He cut the top 3-4 Meters from the trees but wondered that his plane still flew.
The ride was a bit rough, but nothing special.
When he landed safety the technical stuff looked estonished at the FW190.
The pilot got out take a look at his plane.
The collision with the tree had ripped of the outer 2 feet of each propeller blade, that was the cause for the rough ride.
The radiator was full of tree-parts, totaly blocking the cooling ripps and both wing leading edges had scars were thy cut the other two trees of.
Those two examples show what was possible, but the general idea with the LW-pilots were that those were just rare and special incidents. Thats the reason why they were mentioned.
And i think thats the same reason why such things were noticed on the allied side two.
I just wonder how often both participants in a midair collision were killed?
How often did a pilot come back with 200+ bullets holes (bullet holes btw indicate that no explosives were used, so barrely they came from cannon fire)?
How many P47 made it back in the condition of Johnsons P47?
-
idiots like bug32
It's BUG322 dreckzwanzichesarslochschwein hund
flying schimmlippe
LOL
-
I have read of FW190A from JG26 flying for a long time with the whole engine on fire due to a malfunction, the guy gust continued and laned as normal. He did not blow up.
I have read cases of FW190 having whole engine cylinders shot off and flying normal.
There was a case of Bf109 deliberatly ramming a P51, cutting the P51 in half and the 109 survining the colision.
If I was one of the allied types I would now demand all this be taken as proof of the planes strength and demand my 109 and 190 be toughened up in AH.
And Virgil I find it hilarious how you attack LW fans for posting anectodal accounts while you do exactly the same in almost every one of your pots... And you use it in support of your wishes for AH airplane modeling. Why are you such a hypocrite? But I'm sure you wouldnt understand that...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have read of FW190A from JG26 flying for a long time with the whole engine on fire due to a malfunction, the guy gust continued and laned as normal. He did not blow up.
I have read cases of FW190 having whole engine cylinders shot off and flying normal.
There was a case of Bf109 deliberatly ramming a P51, cutting the P51 in half and the 109 survining the colision.
If I was one of the allied types I would now demand all this be taken as proof of the planes strength and demand my 109 and 190 be toughened up in AH.
And Virgil I find it hilarious how you attack LW fans for posting anectodal accounts while you do exactly the same in almost every one of your pots... And you use it in support of your wishes for AH airplane modeling. Why are you such a hypocrite? But I'm sure you wouldnt understand that...
Grunherz, you need to learn to READ, and COMPREHEND! Go right now and find where I asked for or supported any change in modeling. You can't, because I didn't. I don't even fly right now, my video card is fried.
And your Luftwaffe buddy Wotan was the one who said I shouldn't use isolated incidents to prove toughness. In other words, it was the LUFTWAFFE FAN WHO MADE THE FIRST COMPLAINT, then he went on to do exactly what he accused me of, and I called him on it. Read it again, and again, and when you learn to read and understand, then come back and talk to me. Otherwise, shut your pie hole. You can't or won't, read the posts before you run your mouth, and then you want to call me a hypocrite. I guess you want me to go back and show you EXACTLY how that worked out. I may just do that.
-
you are still wrong you need to know how much damage the ones shot down took not just consider the "miracles" that made it home.
You are wrong.
Look at the pic hazed posted, I can post a bunch more of various planes from hurricane to mossies to spitfire taking 3cm and making it home. But this is hardly representative of how tough the overall ac are. These were just the lucky ones.
Captain(?) you presented bs evidence that was supposed to show the 38 was tough. I replied to you and how wrong you were/are. I didnt bring up toughness you did.
I said the p38 is a pos.
as for your numbers as to a2a kills those on unverifiable estimates based on pilot claims and hardly credible.
The lw attacked bombers streams where they were weak. They were ordered for the most to get to the bombers. So even in a situation where 8 poor little p38 super aces find themselves in a situation where they were out numbered. They werent all attacked by the entire force of the lw.
Also as Glasses pointed out there have been allied claims of being out numbered but when you check to see how many fighters the lw had in the area its complete bs.
The lw later formed Gefechtsverband's that consisted of 3 staffels of Sturmbocks (36 or so 190s) and that inluded close escort gruppe of 109s, (a gruppen is 36 a/c and 4 stab = 40)
They also had a gruppen of 109s flying top cover 36 a/c and a stab) 40.
This represents strength on paper they rarely had all their aircraft operational.
The bombers we be strung out along the stream that ran 100 miles and when the lw attacked the bombers the "little friends" would be called to help. Any fighter in the area would converge.
Later the alles would sweep ahead and attack these formations as they formed up. They may have been "outnumbered" but they certainly werent "attacked" it was the other way around.
Heres an ah game example, in last saturdays cap event event my flight of 4 guys stumbled upon 20+ hurricanes forming up after they took off. In 5 min time I had 5 kills. The other guys in my squad had multiple kills as well. Their may have been more hurris but we werent "outnumbered" we got a bunch of ez kills. Some of the hurris didnt even know they were attacked.
Look at the fighters that jg 26 and jg 2 had in operation and you be hard pressed to find 1 day where they had 100 aircraft in the air.
Pilot stories are just that stories of faded glory. Fish stories that rarely line up with the reality of it. How could 8 p38 pilots flying into a combat area take time to count. BS.
-
Originally posted by Puke
I thought Galland argued with Hitler on this very point but Hitler didn't want to concentrate (pull back) forces. But I'm no WW2 history expert.
Not sure of your reference, but, in fact, most of the German fighter forces were based in, or near, Germany up until the June 6 invasion. After that they were thrown into the Normandy meatgrinder. By then, of course, the air war over Germany had been lost for quite awhile.
- oldman
-
Wotan the famus spitfire and blenheim pics were from tests, neither plane could fly after the damage from one 30mm.
-
5. Could he compare his experiences fighting against the airforces of both Germany and Japan? How were they similar / different?
A: Hard to answer! The German Air force in the early stages of the war had experienced pilots who were a menace. Later it became apparent to us that losses were forcing less experienced pilots into the fray, and of course our morale went up. The Germans by and large obeyed decent rules of warfare and so did we, with odd exception. The fighting was hard but in a strange way fair. The same applied to the Japanese I suppose, but there was no love lost there and no quarter given. The Japanese pilots were very aggressive and seemed to be experienced. Again in the face of severe losses they were capable of running away like the rest of us.
Faminz Interview with Alan Peart part 1 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65108)
. What was the attitude towards enemy pilots in each theatre - hated Germans more than Japanese? Feared Japanese more than
Germans if captured? Which pilots seemed to have the better training?
A: We respected the German opposition. They were the enemy and our job was to kill them and they us, but I never felt hate. In the case of the Japanese we were fed lots of horror tales about their behaviour and were lectured by those who had had personal experience of their atrocities. We thoroughly disliked the Japs. and we adopted a no-holds-barred attitude to our combat. We would have shot them down in their parachutes but I never saw a Jap bail out.
Part 2 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65153)
The NAZIS deliberately murdered thousands of POWs, many in very awful ways. Malmedy
You need to do some reading, The defendants at malmedy had their sentences commuted and when the army investigated the the crime scene after the snow had melted they didnt 150 machine gunned us soldiers who were lined up and shot in the back as the the survivors claimed. They found far fewer bodies that were strung out across the field indicating what the Germans claimed. That the soldiers were ran trying to escape into a wooded area across the field. Lt. Harold McGown the commander of those killed at malmedy supported the germans claim. He appeared at the trial of Joachim Peiper and stated that Peiper had been responsible for actually saving a number of Americans. Ofcourse he was accused of fraternization and was even accused of aiding the Germans avoid an american ambush.
The Malmedy defendents had a competent lawyer, Lt. Colonel Willis M. Everrette, Jr. who made numerous appeals and even took this case to the US supreme court. Everrette kept fighting for these Germans that he took it to the press and numerous clergy men protested. Finally Secretary of the Army appointed a commission to investigate into the trials held at Dachau (where the malmedy trial were held). The commision submitted its report to the Secretary of the army in Oct. 1948. Its finding were varified by an independent investigation by a review board appointed by General Lucious Clay (the american military Governor) and found that the defendant held for trial at Dachau were subject to all sorts of brutality. In 137 cases they found beatings to the point of knocking out teeth, and crushing testicles, the with holding of food, the impersonation of priests and defense attorneys to gain confessions and "mock trials" where I defend was "found guilty and sentenced to death but they would commute the sentence if they signed a confession. They even threatened the families of the defendents.
When Colonel A. H. Rosenfeild was confronted by the press with these with the rumors of mock trial he admitted as such saying
"Yes, ofcourse. We couldn't have made those birds talk otherwise.......It was a trick, and it worked like a charm"
Rosenfield after this resigned.
The American Lawyer George A. McDonough served both as a prosecuter and defense attorney in the war crimes program. He later served on the reviewing board and arbeitor of clemency claims wrote to the NY times complaining about the legal basis for these trials. Inregards to the Dachau trials (where the maolmedy defendents were tried) He said
"Hearsay evidence was admitted indiscriminately and sworn statements of witnesses were admissiable regardless of whether anybody knew the person who made the statement or the individual who took the statement. If a prosecutor considered a statement of a witness more damagin than the witness' oral testimony in court he would advise the witness to go back to his home, submit the statement as evidence, and any objection by defence counsel would be promptly overruled"
Again he sat as arbeitor for clemency claims. No wonder so many death sentences were commuted.
-
And the murder of re-caputred POWs after the 'Great Escape', Wotan?
-
Originally posted by Wotan
you are still wrong you need to know how much damage the ones shot down took not just consider the "miracles" that made it home.
You are wrong.
Look at the pic hazed posted, I can post a bunch more of various planes from hurricane to mossies to spitfire taking 3cm and making it home. But this is hardly representative of how tough the overall ac are. These were just the lucky ones.
Captain(?) you presented bs evidence that was supposed to show the 38 was tough. I replied to you and how wrong you were/are. I didnt bring up toughness you did.
I said the p38 is a pos.
as for your numbers as to a2a kills those on unverifiable estimates based on pilot claims and hardly credible.
The lw attacked bombers streams where they were weak. They were ordered for the most to get to the bombers. So even in a situation where 8 poor little p38 super aces find themselves in a situation where they were out numbered. They werent all attacked by the entire force of the lw.
Also as Glasses pointed out there have been allied claims of being out numbered but when you check to see how many fighters the lw had in the area its complete bs.
The lw later formed Gefechtsverband's that consisted of 3 staffels of Sturmbocks (36 or so 190s) and that inluded close escort gruppe of 109s, (a gruppen is 36 a/c and 4 stab = 40)
They also had a gruppen of 109s flying top cover 36 a/c and a stab) 40.
This represents strength on paper they rarely had all their aircraft operational.
The bombers we be strung out along the stream that ran 100 miles and when the lw attacked the bombers the "little friends" would be called to help. Any fighter in the area would converge.
Later the alles would sweep ahead and attack these formations as they formed up. They may have been "outnumbered" but they certainly werent "attacked" it was the other way around.
Heres an ah game example, in last saturdays cap event event my flight of 4 guys stumbled upon 20+ hurricanes forming up after they took off. In 5 min time I had 5 kills. The other guys in my squad had multiple kills as well. Their may have been more hurris but we werent "outnumbered" we got a bunch of ez kills. Some of the hurris didnt even know they were attacked.
Look at the fighters that jg 26 and jg 2 had in operation and you be hard pressed to find 1 day where they had 100 aircraft in the air.
Pilot stories are just that stories of faded glory. Fish stories that rarely line up with the reality of it. How could 8 p38 pilots flying into a combat area take time to count. BS.
I am somewhat dismayed at the level of vitriol being displayed by the Luftwaffe “Mafia” in this thread. I am disappointed in several of you.
With regard to American escort fighters being out-numbered, you ignore what Virgil has written and twist the argument. It’s as if you’re saying, “my mind is made up, so don’t confuse me with facts.”
From October through December of 1943, three fighter groups made up the entirety of the 8th Air Force’s long-range escort. These consisted of two P-38 groups operating from Kingscliffe and a single group of P-51B fighters borrowed from the 9th Air Force. Now if you look at the AARs, you will discover that the typical number of escorts accompanying the bombers to the target was frequently around 50. That’s right, 50, sometimes less. Typically 30% of the escorts would abort for various reasons (at this point the P-51 was proving no more reliable than the P-38, with typical early operational teething woes). So, a mission may begin with 75 escorts, and reach the target with considerably less than that.
Now here’s the second consideration you ignore: These 50 escorts had to defend up to 400 bombers over an area of up to and often exceeding, 500 square miles. This meant that the escort was usually broken down to squadron level formations, which then assumed station in flights of four above, ahead and on the flanks of various bomber boxes. This means that any group of four fighters may be 10 to 20 miles away from other fighters from the same squadron. Remember, this was during the time of General Eaker, who was dedicated to the tactic of close escort. It wasn’t until Doolittle took over that General Kepner was authorized to let the fighters roam or interdict the Luftwaffe. Shuttle tactics were introduced in February of 1944, which allowed relieved fighter groups to head for the deck and hit the Luftwaffe where they lived.
So, the Luftwaffe manages to get 150 fighters up to meet the bombers. Are they forced to scatter their forces? No, they concentrate their fighters on individual bomber boxes. Therefore, four P-38s were often faced with 40 or more fighters in their immediate area. That’s called local air superiority, and the Luftwaffe had that anytime they wanted it, even well into 1944.
As to American pilots not being able to count the enemy fighters, pure poppycock. I personally know literally dozens of veteran fighter pilots who flew fighters in the ETO. They would laugh at your contention. Furthermore, read the AARs, or at least Carter & Mueller. You will find that reported numbers of enemy fighters by American fighter pilots generally correlates well to the numbers reported in Luftwaffe documents.
Facts are difficult things. Indeed, the facts establish that a mere handful of P-38s and P-51s completely unraveled the Luftwaffe’s anti-bomber planning, significantly increased their losses, while simultaneously greatly reducing bomber losses to German fighters. By early 1944, the die was cast.
My regards,
Widewing
-
is it an either or arguement? Malmedy was brought up as an example of collective guilty. Do you think an innocent person should be executed for something he didnt do, just because another of his country men may be guilty of something entirely different?
Anyway from this site
Stalag Luft III, Sagan (http://www.elsham.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/gt_esc/)
The Reprisal
The balloon went up in spectacular style. A 'Grossfahndung' (national alert) was ordered with troops, police, Gestapo and Landwacht (Home Guard) alerted. Hitler, incensed, ordered that all those recaptured were to be shot. Goering, Feldmarschall Keitel, Maj-Gen Graevenitz and Maj-Gen Westhoff tried to persuade Hitler to see sense. Eventually he calmed down and decreed that 'more than half are to be shot and cremated.' This directive was teleprinted to Gestapo headquarters under Himmler's order, and a list of 50 was composed by General Nebe and Dr Hans Merton.
One by one the escapers were recaptured and on Himmler's orders, handed over to the Gestapo. This was not the normal practice; usually, recaptured PoWs were handed over to, and dealt with, by the civilian police. Singly, or in small groups, they were taken from civilian or military prisons, driven to remote locations, and shot whilst offered the chance to relieve themselves. The Gestapo groups submitted almost identical reports that 'the prisoners whilst relieving themselves, bolted for freedom and were shot whilst trying to escape.'' This infamous expression has now passed into history as an euphemism for cold blooded murder.
Three escapers, Per Bergsland (aka Rocky Rockland, because he Anglicised his name as the authorities were unsure how Norwegians serving in the RAF and then becoming PoWs would be treated by the Germans), (332 Sqdn, shot down Spitfire VB AB269 AH:D, during the Dieppe Landings), Jens Muller (331 Sqdn, shot down 19th June 1942, Spitfire VB AR298 FN:N), and Bram ("Bob") van der Stok (left), succeeded in reaching safety. Bergsland and Muller reached neutral Sweden, and van der Stock arrived in Gibraltar via Holland, Belgium, France and Spain. Out of the 73 others, 50 were murdered by the Gestapo, 17 were returned to Sagan, four sent to Sachsenhausen, and two to Colditz Castle. Word reached England of the atrocity; in mid July 1944 Anthony Eden, British Foreign Minister, made a speech in the House of Commons declaring that the perpetrators of the crime would be brought to justice.
At the camp, von Lindeiner-Wildau, the Kommandant, had surrendered to his superiors and been arrested. (He escaped execution, and was sentenced to two years' fortress arrest, which he survived.) A new man, Oberst (Colonel) Braune, arrived. On April 6th 1944 he called G/C Massey to his office. Under different circumstances, von Lindeiner and Massey, both professional and honourable career officers, would have been friends. Normally such meetings were as cordial as the peculiar circumstances allowed, and were preceded with a formal handshake. This time and with a new man in command, there was none. With a clear reluctance, the new Kommandant announced via the interpreter, S/L 'Wank' Murray, (102 Sqdn, shot down 8/9-Sep-39, Whitley III K8950 DY:M) that he was ordered to inform the Senior British Officer that forty-one escaping officers had been "shot whilst trying to escape." Massey couldn't believe it. "How many were wounded?" he asked, staggered. "None, and I am not permitted to give you any further information, except that their bodies and personal effects will be returned to you," was the stilted reply.
Prisoners and Luftwaffe alike were horrified. Hauptmann Pieber, the adjutant, afterwards said to Murray, "You must not think the Luftwaffe had anything to do with this ... we do not wish to be associated ... it is terrible." Later the list of names was posted and contained 47 names; an update a few days later added three more. The aftermath was a grim time with the Gestapo investigators poking their noses everywhere and prisoners and guards alike were very edgy. Pieber even told the PoWs to "be very careful, you are in great danger; no more tricks."
Pieber, too, was respected by the PoWs, and habitually congratulated prisoners who were promoted whilst in captivity, usually shaking their hand. Promotions which had been put into motion before a man was shot down would duly be notified to the Red Cross by the Air Ministry, and then word filtered down through the German High Command.
Simoleit was a professor of History, Geography and Ethnology, spoke several languages including English, Russian, Polish and Czech. Transferred to Sagan in early 1943, he was deputy Kommandant and ignored the ban on military courtesies to PoWs by providing full honours at the funeral of an RAF airman who was also Jewish.
Von Lindeiner died in 1963, aged 82; in his memoirs he expressed appreciation for the genuine sympathies of G/C Massey and the other Commonwealth officers when his Berlin apartment was destroyed by Allied bombers.
Later the Luftwaffe quietly allowed the prisoners to build a local memorial (left). This was designed by Wilton Todd (possibly 169 Sqdn, shot down 15/16-Feb-44, Mosquito II, HJ707 VI:B), and two of the stonemasons who carved the names were Dickie Head (possibly 139 Sqdn, shot down 24/25-Nov-43, Mosquito IV DZ614) and S/L John Hartnell-Beavis (10 Sqdn, shot down 25/26-Jul-1943, Halifax II, JD207 ZA:V, a former architect) and erected in the local cemetery
Urns containing ashes of the Fifty were originally buried there, but after the war were taken to the Old Garrison Cemetery at Poznan.
Both still remain today, but there were very few traces of the camp left when some veterans and survivors visited it all 50 years later. There is a local museum, of exhibits and items found at the camp. Paul Tobolski on visiting the memorial, corrected a small error on his father's initials, and liberated one of the tiles from Harry's entrance. He had never known his father.
An examination of the local road showed a shallow depression running at right angles across it, where 'Harry' runs 30 feet beneath. Some subsidence since 1944 has caused the depression to occur.
Different then what was accused at malmedy.
-
I'm going to deliver it for you, go back and read the posts, in order. Go ahead, I dare you. It's all there for everyone to see, but you and your buddies won't see it.
Originally posted by Wotan
Virgil you cant make any claim as to how "tough" a plane is based only on rare examples of a few who made it back heavily damaged.
You have to research the ones that didnt make it back as well. Some of them may have been killed with just 1 7mm.
Wirthout taking account of the losses and how they were lost all you offer is anecdotal evidence that shpws no insight to how "tough" the p38 was.
Above, you find WOTAN, telling me I cannot use isolated incidents to prove a point. And below, you find my reply, where "I" called WOTAN on his claim that isolated incidents don't prove points.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So, Wotan, show me a massive number that were shot down with a few hits.
Oh, and by the way, if I can't prove the P-38 was tough with a few examples, then you can't prove the Luftwaffe was superior, and that the P-38 was inferior to the Luftwaffe planes, with a few examples of their success.
See Grunherz? I told you I'd call you out on your ignorance, arrogance, and your complete lack of reading and comprehension skills.
Now, as for claims of Luftwaffe and German holding on moral high ground, I call roadkill.
You mental midgets can run around denying that Malmedy (by the way, if you're going to post about history, at least spell the freaking names of the events correctly), the Holocaust, and other atrocities didn't happen, but it does not make it fact.
Oh, and here's a genuine verified fact for you. The commander of the LUFTWAFFE, that brilliant heroin addicted idiot with delusions of grandeur, Hermann Goerring, follower of one of the most notorious homicidal maniacs in history, Adolf Hitler, ordered the execution of 50 unarmed Allied airmen who were recaptured POWS. Not only that, but the LUFTWAFFE followed those orders, with some help and guidance from the Gestapo and the SS. So much for the line of crap you're peddling about the Germans and the Luftwaffe carefully adhering to the Geneva convention. Not to mention Allied bomber crews, and U.S. bomber crews in particular, being sent from POW camps, to concentration camps.
You little goosesteppers need to learn a real simple fact. If you align yourselves with evil criminals, and you do their bidding, you are guilty of their crimes.
You can lie and deny all you want, Malmedy, Dachau, Buchenwald, Aushwitz, and the murder of POWs from Stalag Luft III all happened. And the Luftwaffe was a willing and able co-conspirator, and guilty of being an accomplice before, during, and after the fact.
The truth is, German blood flows freely through my veins, and I am proud of my German heritage. I can respect some of the pilots, and many of the planes. I know that many of them didn't have first hand direct knowledge of what was happening. But I know they were not all the lilly white guiltless knights of the air you dipsticks porttray them as. The most honorable of them accept the blame for what happened, and they don't glorify the victories, minimize the defeats, and they DO NOT DENY THE ATROCITIES. The difference between them and idiots like you is obvious, and they'd be disgusted and sickened by you. As a grandson of an honorable man who left Germany in the 1890s to come to the U.S., and a person who has deep ties to and feelings for Germany, people who spew the garbage like I've seen here really piss me off. You clowns are just plain full of crap.
-
So, Wotan, show me a massive number that were shot down with a few hits.
Oh, and by the way, if I can't prove the P-38 was tough with a few examples, then you can't prove the Luftwaffe was superior, and that the P-38 was inferior to the Luftwaffe planes, with a few examples of their success
I never said the luftwaffe was superior. You are lying. I never said the p38 was inferior to lw planes, again you are lying. I said imho the p38 sux. Some say the 109 sux, others the 190. Its my opinion take it with a grain of salt. But dont lie about what I said.
So, Wotan, show me a massive number that were shot down with a few hits.
Thats the point. both are unprovable unless you exanime everything. Not just the miracles that made it home. If you cant follow that change your bbs handle to "Corporal".
am somewhat dismayed at the level of vitriol being displayed by the Luftwaffe “Mafia” in this thread. I am disappointed in several of you.
Most of its just in response to "Captain" Kangaroo's vitrol.
I had made quite a long reply but we have a bad storm here in florida and power went out.
From October through December of 1943, three fighter groups made up the entirety of the 8th Air Force’s long-range escort. These consisted of two P-38 groups operating from Kingscliffe and a single group of P-51B fighters borrowed from the 9th Air Force. Now if you look at the AARs, you will discover that the typical number of escorts accompanying the bombers to the target was frequently around 50. That’s right, 50, sometimes less. Typically 30% of the escorts would abort for various reasons (at this point the P-51 was proving no more reliable than the P-38, with typical early operational teething woes). So, a mission may begin with 75 escorts, and reach the target with considerably less than that.
JG 2 and JG 26 were the only 2 jagdgeschwaders in france and jg 1 was the only jagdgeschwader defending germany.
A jagdgeschwader at this time was made of:
Geschwader Stab 4 a/c
I. Gruppe + Stab = 36 + 4 a/c
II. Gruppe + Stab = 36 + 4 a/c
III. Gruppe + Stab = 36 + 4 a/c
IV. Gruppe + Stab = 36 + 4 a/c
Total of 164 a/c
164 x 3 = 492 single eng fighter to cover west europe and germany.
Not all gruppen of a geschwader flew together. Some flew at night etc.....
Bombers streams stretched for 100s of miles and the lw attacked the stream where there was little fighter opposition. Most of the time it was between 60 and 80 fighters divided in sepreate rolls, thos who would attack the bombers, close escort for the bomber attackers and top cover. The allies launched seperate attacks that split the lw up even more.
The bombers would call out for help and any escort near enough would close on their position.
A small number of aggressive attackers can tie up a larger force. I used the example in ah of my 4 guys tieing up an overwhelming number of hurricanes and destroying a good many. In tod the other night my group of 8 were engage by 20 + hurris and spits we killed 12. We were out numbered but we were agressive and took the initiative. A p38 killing 5 fw190s in 5 min is no evidence of how good the plane is or the pilot. It does show his agressive spirit.
The allies could, due to their numbers, out pace the lw in the number of sorties and pilots and planes. The lw on the west front were stretched to the limit. The lw in west took areas of of limited local air superiority just long enough to achieve their mission. It wasnt enough to stem the tide nor could it have been.
In the AH Big Week scenario this was true as well. No matter how many we killed There was always a few more on the way.
That was what I meant by "gangbanged".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm going to deliver it for you, go back and read the posts, in order. Go ahead, I dare you. It's all there for everyone to see, but you and your buddies won't see it.
You are clearly correct in this debate and are doing a better job of presenting also. I'd jump in and bury the Luftwhiners (that is the correct term here ,yes?) with more data, but as you say they are twisting things to suit a predetermined opinion.
Now I am just a lonely AW refugee and not to be taken as seriously as a real AH player, but hey my $.02:)
DD
-
Widewing, i see your point of a max of 50 escorts at a time and if you compare the pure numbers, i agree, along the way the bombers had to go those 50 escorts were outnumbered.
But effectivly they were not.
1st the Luftwaffe barrely managed to bring 150 fighters in at a time, more often single Jagdgruppen of around 25-30 planes attacked, sometimes two, so if a bomber box was attacked it was rarely more than 60 planes.
If this bomber box was than defended by, lets say 12 P38, we can both agree, that from the pure numbers the P38s were outnumbered 5:1.
But than a very important thing has to be taken into account, bombers had absolute priority in 1943. It went so far that there was a standing order to any JG along the way the USAAF bombers had to go to avoid combat with the escorts at all costs, if attacked they were ordered to run and not to counterattack.
So than the 12 P38 effectively face not a single opponent, cause the LW pilots had to attack the buffs or they would face a court martial.
But in the anecdote of a P38 driver talking about that escort mission, he would say something like "I was surounded by enemies, we were atleast outnumbered 4:1 or even worse, but anyway i managed to get one of the LW-planes."
He would not be lying, but from that episode you cannot argue about any strength or weaknesses of the P38.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
Widewing, i see your point of a max of 50 escorts at a time and if you compare the pure numbers, i agree, along the way the bombers had to go those 50 escorts were outnumbered.
But effectivly they were not.
1st the Luftwaffe barrely managed to bring 150 fighters in at a time, more often single Jagdgruppen of around 25-30 planes attacked, sometimes two, so if a bomber box was attacked it was rarely more than 60 planes.
If this bomber box was than defended by, lets say 12 P38, we can both agree, that from the pure numbers the P38s were outnumbered 5:1.
But than a very important thing has to be taken into account, bombers had absolute priority in 1943. It went so far that there was a standing order to any JG along the way the USAAF bombers had to go to avoid combat with the escorts at all costs, if attacked they were ordered to run and not to counterattack.
So than the 12 P38 effectively face not a single opponent, cause the LW pilots had to attack the buffs or they would face a court martial.
But in the anecdote of a P38 driver talking about that escort mission, he would say something like "I was surounded by enemies, we were atleast outnumbered 4:1 or even worse, but anyway i managed to get one of the LW-planes."
He would not be lying, but from that episode you cannot argue about any strength or weaknesses of the P38.
This notion that Luftwaffe fighters never attacked the escorts flies in the face of the facts. Read the AARs, you will find that the escorts were constantly being bounced by German fighters. Talk to any of the veterans pilots and they will tell you that they spent a great deal of their time defending themselves as well as the bombers. Moreover, 8th AF doctrine of the time forbade the escorts pursuing the Luftwaffe. Standing orders were to stay with the bombers. Outside 8th AF fighter headquarters was a sign that reminded all fighter pilots that their primary mission was to “protect the bombers.” Once Doolittle took command in early January of 1944, that sign was replaced by another, which stated that the new primary mission of the fighters was to “destroy the Luftwaffe.” The day that sign was posted, the air war in the west was, essentially, won.
My regards,
Widewing
-
and what the hell has all this got to do with a computer model that is behhaving imo wrongly?
cant you guys take the discussion of air battles to another thread?
I have read books on the air war over Europe and quite honestly you (capt and Wotan) are BOTH correct on different air battles.
On some occasions the escorts were in the correct position and outnumbered the LW and on others they were overwhelmed by superior LW numbers.You are all showing far too much EMOTION in your posts to be taken seriously.
Glassess Im sorry mate but I dont always agree with what you type in here.Concerning attrocities I suggest you read 'second world war' by Martin Gilbert.After reading this and other books on WW2 im not quite of the opinion that all german troops were 'knights of old' in terms of honour.Many accounts of chivalry are there for all to read, like the submarine commander who towed in survivers against orders, The German pilots who allowed flyers in shot up planes to return home and many others but there is also tales of machine gunning survivers and yes stories of both sides shooting pilots in their parachutes.However this is not the place to try and prove or disprove them one way or the other.Its an Aircraft forum.
Its true there were many honourable German soldiers.Many that refused to carry out orders that broke their moral codes but there were also many NON SS soldiers that certainly didnt.My Uncle Harry who was a medic in the paras during WW2 and was at dunkirk and normandy often told me about some of his mates who were killled.He gave me a book called 'the road to dunkirk' which described many of the most barbaric executions that took place.He was very bitter towards Germans and would you believe Americans too as he actually lost his best friend to 'friendly fire' by the Americans.Every time i mentioned America he'd tense up and say ' bloody trigger happy bastards'.And this was 40 years on!
Capt it is GENERALLY accepted that the wehrmacht behaved honourably on the whole as did the Luftwaffe concerning adhering to the rules of war but as with ALL armies there were exceptions.Why are you all trying to cram information (in what ammounts to thousands of books all written with a LOT more understanding of what really went on) into a thread about a F*king computer GAME i'll never know!?!?
TALK ABOUT THE MODEL not the people that flew them please.Thats what the thread was about.Im sick of reading what amounts to half assed recollections of information that should only be quoted from an official source rather than some BS internet site made by some X warbirds flyer.
Ive seen pilot stories online that were clearly made up by amazinhunks who for some reason get a kick out of doing it.They are often interspersed with words and terms that are so modern in context that its clearly not written in the 1940's.
Wotan, Glassess () capt and all the others can we please stick to the thread topic, I do appreciate you were trying to help me prove(disprove in capt case) a point about the models.Thanks but it has now gone too far.Quote from books if you can and give me the IsBN numbers so i can check it if id like to or dont quote at all.obviously some of the things mentioned like P47s stories and the 190 cylinder story have been confirmed in other theads and are easily verifyable and as such are ok but a lot of the stuff we see is unconfirmable and could be made up couldnt it.
Id like to see the thread closed here.No one is going to change positions and its getting a little too personal for my liking.Skuzzy please close it off.
P.s. bug32, bug332, bug what ever , who gives a toss? youre still an Ass. :rolleyes: why dont you go sit on that helmet you keep posting pictures of, do us all a favour.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I said the p38 is a pos.
Wow...for a POS plane to have a positive kill ratio over Luftweenie planes must say a lot about the Nazi planes and the Nazi pilots. So you saying Nazi planes were even a greater POS than the P-38?
ack-ack
-
Widewing, the standing order is just for 1943, after facing more numerous escorts fighters the LW changed this standing order cause they noticed it would be suicidal.
The reaction was to deploy LW escort groups for the bomber interceptors.
From than on a LW attack force consisted of 2 Gruppen of escorts and 1 Gruppe of buff attackers. Bringing the total strength of such an attack to 70-90 planes.
And sure than the US escort pilots had a tough time, but when the LW started to field those attack groups the P51B was there and escort plane numbers had increased.
And sure i know of the USAAF doctrine in 1943 to stay close to the buffs, its one of the mistakes the USAAF made in the early days of the daylight offensive.
For 1943 we have on both sides standing orders - too stay with the buffs in the USAAF and to attack only the buffs with the LW - that lead to a somewhat confusing aircombat situation.
The USAAF felt overwhelmed, cause single squadrons had to defend bomber boxes against LW attacks of 30-60 planes.
On the other side LW pilots felt helpless about the escorts cause there orders limited their attacks on the buffs and during the approach on the bombers they were more or less defenseless. What kept them alive was the fact that the escorts were not allowed to leave close escort.
This goes only for the 1943 period, from early 1944 it totaly changed.
What i just wanted to point out is that the 1st two P38 groups were not effectivly facing odds of 4:1 to 20:1.
As my other post should have shown, they actually might have been in the mids of a large LW attack force, but those LW attacks had only one target, and that were the buffs not the few P38 escorts.
-
Naudet is correct the lw formed gefechtsverbands (battle formations)
1 gruppen flew top cover, 1 flew close escort The sturmgruppe attacked the bombers.
Full gefechtsverbands would have 116 planes but most were much smaller (between 60 and 80 planes)
The sturmgruppen and the close escorts would be most vulnerable to the escort fighters. The top cover is who first attcked the the escorts. A full gruppen would be 36 a/c and a stab, 40 planes.
As naudet said there may have well been more lw planes at the point they attacked but 20 to 1 odds........????
-
Who cares about the LuftWaffe?!?!
They get their flying apparel from the same place this guy shops!
(http://www.villagepeople-official.com/images/ericmont.jpg)
-SW
-
"See Grunherz? I told you I'd call you out on your ignorance, arrogance, and your complete lack of reading and comprehension skills."
So I see all you can throw around are insults and BS. I dont even sense one bit of humor in it like when most others post the same way. You're pathetic....
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You need to do some reading, The defendants at malmedy had their sentences commuted and when the army investigated the the crime scene after the snow had melted they didnt 150 machine gunned us soldiers who were lined up and shot in the back as the the survivors claimed.
They only found a bit less than 80 bodies so it was OK?
There was a controversy surrounding the botched prosecution, but only in the minds of revisionists and Nazi lovers does this mean that the crime did not take place.
-
Shooting of POW is unacceptable to me just the same as shooting pilots in parachutes.
Did I just agree with montezuma in some way?
-
LOL Wable hazed ur so typical
a luft whiner
i hope u lose all selfcontrol now, the more fun it is
btw that punt only fits wabble asses
yeah i like to attack ignorant arrogant people
i love it
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Robin Olds, 2 Fw 190s while alone in enemy territory (gun camera film confirms two destroyed).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by akak
My squadron is in regular contact with the surviving members of the 479th FG and I'm sure we can get some first hand accounts Gen. Olds about that flight.
Ack-Ack
479th FG
I arranged for and brought Gen. Olds to Seattle to speak for the Air Warrior Conference in Seattle last year (2001). He recounted this engagement during his talk.
He spotted the two FW-190's below him after becoming seperated from his flight. They were on a crossing heading, very close to the ground at high cruising speed. He dove down and with the extra speed crept up behind and below the two airplanes, shooting down the wingman first. Gen. Olds did not recount a "dogfight." It sounded like a classic and unseen bounce. The confirmation of the kills was not made using the gun camera film. Other US pilots, in P-47's that were high over the engagement, made an after action report that detailed a single P-38 diving on and destroying two FW-190's. Flying alone, Gen. Olds did not expect to receive credit for the two kills, but reported them anyway. Those were his first.
MiG
-
I arranged for and brought Gen. Olds to Seattle to speak for the Air Warrior Conference in Seattle last year (2001). He recounted this engagement during his talk.
It can't be true coz ubergoddes Galland said so
:rolleyes:
-
no it cant be true the way virgil and akak stated it. As it turns out they were not right.
With 47s above him and in position to see and verify his account then it seems to me those 2 fws were "outnumbered". Atleast by their definition (even though 47s didnt attack).
-
Bug go fly your pram (P38) eh?
ahhhh its a realshame HTC didnt have time to add the training wheels on the side of the p38 3d model, no worries, we all know they're there eh ;)
you keep using these witty names :D........ you almost made the sides of our mouths twitch into a smile with those hilarious jibes of yours!
dunno how you do it , making up those clever words like lufftwhiner'!! how you cleverly mixed 'luftwaffe' with 'whiner' and came up with that we will never know!! Incredible! we cant hope to ever be so clever and witty ourselves!!
ah whats that? you didnt make it up but instead cleverly repeat it over and over for years!! oh amazing!! what a wit you are.
ass :)
-
flew the 190 a few time every litle snap shot nme planes explodes it's to easy
Loser :) :) :D :D
-
Originally posted by Wotan
With 47s above him and in position to see and verify his account then it seems to me those 2 fws were "outnumbered". Atleast by their definition (even though 47s didnt attack).
I think my mind just blew a fuse.
2 LW fliers who clearly were so clueless that they were snuck up on, yet somehow manage to be killed by the umpteen zillion planes not engaged? Or is "carelessness" a new synonym for "outnumbered"?
DD
-
do some reading most fighter kills were done by an un seen attacker. Nothing new here. Happened to all sides and all front.
Still virgil and akak were wrong in their accounting.
My point about being outnumbered is the point virgil made that since there were 60 lw in an area that meant the 38 pilots were "out numbered". When the facts are most of hose lw were ordered to attack the bombers and avoid the escorts.
So if he can have that way so can I. See how that works?
***
Also why is it you think by calling some lw pilot stupid or by saying the lw in ww2 sucked will bother me? Insulting the "lw" doesnt phase me a bit.
I am not like you allied whiners who take personnal offense when some contradicts your "stories".
Or why is it you all throw out the "your a nazi" (implied or out right stated) when some disagress with your version. Not only do take personal offense to some else opinion you all respond with out right personal attacks and name calling. Seems pretty weak and pathetic.
Just my 2 cents.
Onething, if you get to the point of blowing your top (or fuse) over something you read on an internet bbs maybe you need a vacation, or a pill or something.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
"See Grunherz? I told you I'd call you out on your ignorance, arrogance, and your complete lack of reading and comprehension skills."
So I see all you can throw around are insults and BS. I dont even sense one bit of humor in it like when most others post the same way. You're pathetic....
Well, Grunherz, when you start the insults by calling me a hypocrite, don't be surprised when the favor is returned. Funny, you start hurling insults, and I'm the one who is pathetic. Typical of your B.S. arguements.
If there had been humor in your posts, I'd have responded in kind. There was no humor evident in your posts, hence, there was none in mine.
I can throw facts too, unfortunately facts are wasted on you, as is common sense and reason. The plain fact is that Wotan, one of your Luftwaffe buddies, was the one who told me I was proving nothing, so I responded in kind.
I'm not much for insults, and name calling, but if you really want it that way, I can oblige, so long as I find it entertaining. However, the level around here is too low to hold my attention for long.
If you prefer to argue facts, history, and common sense, by all means do so. It would be a welcome change, and I enjoy such discussions.
-
here's a different perspective:
The 109 Suxs
The 190 Suxs
The Spitfire Suxs
Any other plane barring the P-40 and P-38 suxs.
The reason: I suck in them.
BWAHAHAHAHAH. :D :D :D :D
And in any case, back on flametopic you must also remember that the 2 squadrons of 38's active at the time before the pony came into play were not only composed of green pilots (with a vet or 2 thrown in) and facing lots of mechanical trouble AND flying over enemy territory AND limited to close escort AND were very spread out as WideWing stated.....
AND yet they managed a + kill ratio facing overwhelming odds.
Talk to me goose!
-
Bug332: "Mein Fasher putsh my vingie in she Pshitteight and in gooooooold".
-
Originally posted by Shiva
IIRC, the Typhoon was taken out of service for a period during the BoB because its planform was similar enough to the FW-190 that British gunners were shooting at them. I'm not surprised that a group of American pilots might mistake a Typhoon for a Butcherbird in the heat of a dogfight, especially if they were recently-arrived.
bzzttt!!! no Tiffies flying during the BoB, while a few 190's were flying, then, dont think they entered combat until Dieppe raid in 1942.
-
There was never any 190's flying during BoB either.
190 A1 didn't see action untill 1941 after BoB.
-
Is there a full moon or something? This is one of the most retarded threads in history.
-
Why u show me ur gay friend glasses?
anyway ur german is very bad
-
But Bug that's you :D
-
The photo is very funny
but....
can't be me
coz i look very sexy like all p38 pilots are
:D
-
Glasses meinen jungen!! Es ist sehr gut to see the old "spirit" alive in this day and age. You would have made Hummler und Herr Gerbels sehr glucklich!
I've left a message for you here. Ppress [PLAY] on that page for the secret message from me and the Party,
Click here for my message (http://veepersplay.budlight.com/index.asp?id=06B30064886E46F7A69A50B0D175ED8B)
und
Heil!
-
LOL!!! :D
Anyhow Hazed it's true the Germans were not saints like I said in the other thread of "numbers the german view" but to think they were evil or they were demonic considering some of the things the "good, benevolent" allies did is really revisionist garbage.
I don't shed a tear for any of the Allies or Germans that died in WW2 but I do admire the sacrifices each individual made during that time and the accomplishments even though one at times they were fighting an uphill battle. It's just sickenig to see the allied fanatics white washing the facts when even when they commited attrocities aswell, justifying them and excusing them, it's the same as denying or excusing the holocaust . The difference of course is that one side won and the other lost thus the victors can make any history they wish to put up,even though that might not be the truth.
Again lack of counter argument just prompts insults heheh, the same as yelling a racial slur for the lack of a counter thought.
Thanks for proving me right again :D
-
Actually Glasses, a major difference is that one side was in the right and one side was in the wrong. I wonder if you appreciate that fact?
-
This will be my last post, since this thread is starting to feel like trying to reach the ceiling with my piss line. Bombjack, when you have two little kids fighting and along comes the teacher and says; What's going on? how did it happen?
-He Started it. Replies one kid
-NO!!! He did!!!. Says the other.
As you see, behind each side of a struggle, there is a perfectly a just reason as to their actions. No side ever declares they are evil, or innately bastardous. While living in a post WWII won by the allies, their views and justification of their actions seem benevolent, and almost legendary heroic. The villian (because each coin has two sides, especially in the rudimentary way of thinking good-evil) has senseless reasons, those which are unimaginable to understand by the brave conquering side of good.
What does all this apparent mumbo-jumbo mean? That we have already labeled each side of the WWII, and since it seems impossible to have two good forces fighting eachother, the losing side, by the default, is the evil one. Now the second point, regarding the 'senseless' reasons of the 'evil' side, translated into WWII means that it is socially impossible for us now to understand the reasons of the Nazi Germany in WWII. Not only because it was a reason of national pride which included cultural and racial unity (not rascim) which is a reason pretty insignificant in a country made up of Multiculturalism and mixture such as the US (not saying it is bad).
Another reason was the humilliation Germany suffered as result of the sanctions given by the allies after WWI, which led to trigger that intense sense of national unity and restoration, when in fact it was not Germany the one responsible for that previous war. During it's economical depression, most of the industries were not led by Germans, the German people were slowly being pushed away from their own affairs. Nowdays, we couldn't possibly understand how national pride could go above the restrains that could prevent a war, but back in those days national pride was trait to be admired and honored.
-
er glassess you DO believe Hitler was one of the lowest forms of humanity and most evil dictators of the 20th century though right? :D
Whilst i see where you are coming from in terms of your 'average' german during the war who quite understandibly did not see themselves as 'evil' but in fact fought for their sense of National pride and unity they still eventually learned just how dispicable the nazi's were and can not possibly think that the attrocities etc were fabricated! you often argue about 'actual figures' in other posts when to be honest the figures are irrelevent to the actual 'acts'.for instance (re other post) if it was 100 prisoners in the great escape shot/executed or just 1 the act has still been purpetrated.
'No side ever declares they are evil, or innately bastardous' you say but er they did start victimizing/murdering jews and other minorities from the very beginning, invaded poland, Holland, france etc. How Evil do you want it before its agreed to be so?
As to 'those days' they werent that long ago.My grandmother is alive and well and she lived through WW2 and was educated in a similar way.During the war she heard rumours of attrocities as a housewife in Britain so I think Germans were also 'aware'.
We have the benefit of a high standard of education with which to interpret our governments actions and i can accept a certain amount of ignorence due to poor understanding of what was going on and misinformation but wrong is wrong and you dont need education to understand beating and killing people, invading countries etc is wrong and lets be frank here thats possibly the nicest description of what they did ever written!
I must say you do often make some fair comments and its good to be reminded that even we, the allies , were no angels, I do think sometimes,however, that what you post can be easily missinterpreted and thought of as having a zeal for the country of that time.I've flown with you in a squadron for over a year and i never got the sense you were that way inclined but sometimes i read your posts and wince at whats written, and worry how the hell someone who doesnt know you would interpret it.careful mate.You even have me worried.
-
This will be my last post, since this thread is starting to feel like trying to reach the ceiling with my piss line. Bombjack, when you have two little kids fighting and along comes the teacher and says; What's going on? how did it happen?
-He Started it. Replies one kid
-NO!!! He did!!!. Says the other.
As you see, behind each side of a struggle, there is a perfectly a just reason as to their actions. No side ever declares they are evil, or innately bastardous. While living in a post WWII won by the allies, their views and justification of their actions seem benevolent, and almost legendary heroic. The villian (because each coin has two sides, especially in the rudimentary way of thinking good-evil) has senseless reasons, those which are unimaginable to understand by the brave conquering side of good.
What does all this apparent mumbo-jumbo mean? That we have already labeled each side of the WWII, and since it seems impossible to have two good forces fighting eachother, the losing side, by the default, is the evil one. Now the second point, regarding the 'senseless' reasons of the 'evil' side, translated into WWII means that it is socially impossible for us now to understand the reasons of the Nazi Germany in WWII. Not only because it was a reason of national pride which included cultural and racial unity (not rascim) which is a reason pretty insignificant in a country made up of Multiculturalism and mixture such as the US (not saying it is bad).
Another reason was the humilliation Germany suffered as result of the sanctions given by the allies after WWI, which led to trigger that intense sense of national unity and restoration, when in fact it was not Germany the one responsible for that previous war. During it's economical depression, most of the industries were not led by Germans, the German people were slowly being pushed away from their own affairs. Nowdays, we couldn't possibly understand how national pride could go above the restrains that could prevent a war, but back in those days national pride was trait to be admired and honored.
Glasses
I have yet to see a bigger pile of revisionist BS. This is an education for us all Glasses. Not only are you factually inaccurate, but downright offensive. I suppose a Nazi victory would have been an acceptable end to the war from your perspective, perhaps even preferable, since both positions were so equally good and all.
My first ignore list member
Charon
-
Originally posted by hazed-
well isnt that the whole point?
No.
There are two points and you combined them.
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Wotan
as for your numbers as to a2a kills those on unverifiable estimates based on pilot claims and hardly credible.
Hehe...Wotan. :)
The claims are easy to confirm. And since the war has been over for more then 50 years the numbers are being confirmed....and the margin of error still leaves you with the same impression.
Then again, if a statistic doesn't go your way...then damn them all! ;)
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Naudet
What i just wanted to point out is that the 1st two P38 groups were not effectivly facing odds of 4:1 to 20:1.
I read back from this quote...and couldn't find where you substantiated it.
The P-38s were attacked. Galland himself admitted that they prefered to attack the 38s. Goering gave the order to the LW to ignore the fighters...but this order came in 44.
BTW...there was only 1 38 group through to December....and most of the 38s were on the ground due to engine problems.
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Glasses
What does all this apparent mumbo-jumbo mean? That we have already labeled each side of the WWII, and since it seems impossible to have two good forces fighting eachother, the losing side, by the default, is the evil one.
Hehe...that's just too much. :)
Worr, out
-
I think Glasses is just trolling.
-
There was a case of Bf109 deliberatly ramming a P51, cutting the P51 in half and the 109 survining the colision.
LOL
Uncle Uncle ! :)
-
It's becoming a failry common troll then funked, both in other threads of the past week and some I remember from recent months. I've held my tounge on some of the more recent ones, but basically calling the allies equal war criminals was a bit too much this time (check out the other related thread for more justifications of Nazi Germany).
I have no problem with role players -- I role play for the dark side somewhat frequently, both here and in other WW2 games. But at least I know there was a dark side.
Charon
-
If you'd like to place the blame for the hijacking of your thread where it belongs, I'd suggest you take a look at your Luftwaffe buddies, Glasses, Wotan, and Grunherz. You asked some questions, and I provided some input you asked for.
As it always does when certain individuals from the "AH Luftwaffe" become involved, it was turned into something else. All I did was attempt to provide a little insight into why the P-38 was tougher than you might think.
As it turned out, you finally took exception to the hijacking of your thread, but you placed the blame on the wrong people. Oh, and since I can see that you have no need for my answers to your questions, and no respect for me at all (noted by the fact that you < S > your Luftwaffe buddies and capitalize their names, and refer to me as "capt"), I'll not waste any further time replying to your requests for information. Especially since what you really seek is for your buddies to back you up when you cry that your opponents plane is too tough. You do not want honest and objective information, you want someone to agree with you.
You'll never learn anything if you just ask for everyone to agree with you, and get pissed off and call for help from your Luftwaffe buddies when they don't, but then, you don't want to learn anyway.
-
My first post in this thread:
"The P38 doesnt seem too terribly tough to me and I only now fly my Gustav with the standard armament of a single MG151/20 and twin MG131. However I don't see the P38 too much and I have seen them survive my 30mm fire so there might be cause to look into it. As for the P51 it does seem a bit tough and I wonder why it doesnt get so many radiator hits from 6OC as the FW190D9. P47 seems just a little bit weak - but it's a big target and have an easy time aiming at it and hitting consistently especially in a top profile shot.
The toughest planes in AH are the F6F and F4F, the F4F is very very hard."
100% on topic.
Oh yea Virgil I really started ruining the thread by showing up.
Then you started ranting abou P38 being the best and trying to cut downed LW pilots with their props. Or do you think my outrage about your romance novel portrayal of a P38 strafing downed airmen was uncalled for and hijacking.
So dont get on your high horse here, you and the Allied BBS Gestapo are as responsible for this thread getting out of hand as anyone including the "LW Mafia".
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
My first post in this thread:
"As for the P51 it does seem a bit tough and I wonder why it doesnt get so many radiator hits from ***6OC as the FW190D9. ***
ahhhh the good ole anal retentive luftweenie in you just couldn't avoid adding this old luftwhiner chestnut.
:D
-
Yea but it's true. And I certainly learned from the P38 anal retentive allied whiner bunch that I might get the toughness of a plane changed if I cry long and loud enough... :p
-
Guess what HTC taking wabble whines serious?
:D
noway baby
-
well, no doubt, but you guys might have better luck if you didn't whine in the original german.
;)
-
As an addition to the above story, there was one instance of a Corsair pilot doing the same thing to a Japanese attack plane; the Japanese plane had attempted to climb away from attack, and the Corsair pilot followed. When they reached the attack plane's ceiling, both the Corsair pilot and the Japanese tail gunner discovered that their guns were frozen. The Corsair pilot recounted how he racked his brain trying to think of some way to down the Japanese plane. He finally thought of using the Corsair's propellor, and saw the Japanese gunner pounding on the breech of his gun as he moved in and chewed off the tail of the Japanese plane, which went down out of control. The Corsair pilot brought his plane home with bits of the Japanese plane stuck in his engine and wing leading edge, and with the tips of all the propellor blades missing -- but the plane was still functional.
(I'd give more details, but the book with the account of the action is at home, and I'm at work)
-
what a wast - he could have flown under the jap. plane & punched the engines (or shot it w/ his 0.45)
-
""""Ilfrey made a head-on pass at an Me-109 """"
HO dweeb.....:D
-
Oedipus:
Just got my Gunther Rall book which details him colliding with a Lavochkin fighter. The La lost a wing and went down to death while Rall landed his plane under full control. The 109 was written off due to damage, afterwards but survived a collision with a tough russian fighter and remained flyable well enough to land under power. The plane had a huge gash in its side and other damage and the props were badly damaged and bent.
So again whats your point from before?
Or is your Allied Gestapo USA ironworks airplanes mental conditioning not allow you to think that a non USA made plane can survive mid-airs? Guess what US planes were made of aluminum, steel and fabric just like most others.....
-
Yep youre a big time allied whine gestapo operative.... :D
But seriously if you look hard enough you will find that all sorts of planes survived freak collisions or battle damage and that its not really a great source of evidence for overall toughness.
-
And what about the guys who never made it back? And again one could just say the same thing about FW190 or BF109 as shown in this tread. If my scanner was working I could even show a picture of an FW190 with heavy wingtip damage of some 3-4 feet cut off due to collision with a Spitfire. The FW190 survived and spit died. And so on and so on for almost every plane.
I laugh at the mythical propaganda blasted out by some allied zealots here that their planes were some sort of flying armored titanium battleships while everyone else plane was made of balsa and ricepaper... Perhaps you have the same humor at the LW uber alles crowd.
But frankly I dont care too much in AH as most planes, even some bombers to my suprise, fall easily to a well aimed burst of 20mm and 13mm at close range as is my practice in a Bf109G6.
-
I laugh at the mythical propaganda blasted out by some allied zealots here that their planes were some sort of flying armored titanium battleships while everyone else plane was made of balsa and ricepaper...
Hmm, in AH it always seems that every opposing plane is a flying armored titanium battleship while my plane is always made of balsa and ricepaper :D
-
Hmm, in AH it always seems that every opposing plane is a flying armored titanium battleship while my plane is always made of balsa and ricepaper
Another dweeb who hasn't found the .armorme command...
:D
-
Well, guess those U.S. Lavochkins were a lil cheesy. :rolleyes:
-
hmm seems that we can all produce stories of exceptional durability or luck after collisions but only the Allied planes get the benefit of the doubt in the AH modeling.Its so rigged its laughable.
-
The winners always write the history. Don't you think that if Sparta crushed all thought of democracy coming from Athens, then we would be praising the virtues of Sparta, a militaristic (in that everything they did was oriented towards their military) society instead of Athens, a democratic society?
Anyways, we're here to fly planes and talk about them in a behaved manner, not dick around in a pi**ing contest all the time.
-
Where ya been, Ding? There's a big ol' movement starting up where the losers fanclub revises it. Doubtful Sparta would put up with that carp. ;)
-
Ummm... didn't Sparta eventually conquer Athens?
-
lol this isnt about who won you idiots, this is about making a game where SUPPOSEDLY its as near to the real thing as possible.If youre prepared to accept a computer game modelling one type as super tough whilst the other type as especially weak or underperforming then WHY ON EARTH are we bothering to call it a sim? why bother with all this roadkill about having to produce documents to get things changed?
you really have got me all wrong as to my motives on this but its obvious you wont believe me.I cant say it any CLEARER to you people, THINK about it, IM ENGLISH, and who do the ENGLISH love to hate? Who is the most important football team we want to beat? whos the people we love to take the piss out of for losing the war? THE GERMANS MATE! lol. Let me explain something that happened to me years ago, bear with me....
My mates mum lived with a german fellow in Hamburg and was coming home after a split up.(apparently he'd actually hit her once! we went tooled up ;)) well we went by truck to get her and her things and bring her home.Germany was lovely place and although we wanted to beat the toejam out of this bloke his mum said she wouldnt have it and so we had an awkward time behaving as civil as we could whilst we packed her things.we even went for a drive around at one point and this german fellow started to brag (as germans do :) ) about how the germans were so advanced and ahead of us in this and that.you know cars, economy etc etc and we were again ready to beat the crap out of him but we held back :). anyhow he came to this old castle like building, and he mentions it had the 'first flushing toilet in europe' (lol) and then said ' zo you see, we ze germans had toilets in our country before you englanders had doors on your hovels!!' to which i obviously replied 'yeah so how come we kicked your arse in the war' :D
He didnt say much after that comment and looked thoroughly pissed off and it was all the better for it, even his mum had to stiffle a laugh.Now you people are accusing me of loving germans or nazis or Lw planes but really I just like WW2 and want it real in AH.thats why i get so worked up about the models we have not some LW hero worship.I dont want super spitfires or super p51s.Its like playing chess with more peices than the other guy, the win at the end is diminished.Equal sides is the whole point of competition.cheating is for those annoying hackers who have no skill.If its ok for you guys to have advantages that didnt exist then so be it but im fed up with hearing this game is so accurate to the real thing when time after time while playing it its perfectly obvious it isnt.Why not give the LW their top and correctly performing aircraft AND THEN beat them? do you really think they will be that much more of a threat to your enjoyment?
I find it all hilarious(and annoying :)) how you guys always react. Its just a game not a simulation at all.
-
Hmm, I thought it was the French. Shows what I know.
-
Yea, me too :confused:
-
But that's not the point as much as soccer, flushing toilets and chess.
And anyone who's flown a 190 in AH can tell you that they're screwed at takeoff, apparently. Damn the prejudices of the modelers! I'm totally convinced that the German aircraft fanatics in this game have no ulterior motive for the improvement of their aircraft and the reduction of the damage model, flight model and armament effectiveness of the Allied planes other than to make sure that the game properly reflects their vast and unprejudiced library of statistical and historical data they've accumilated over the years thereby improving the game by "leveling" the playing field.
It's bound to be that way because the majority of the "squeak-n-moan about my plane being broke" threads reflect that. :D
----------------------------
"...and this german fellow started to brag (as germans do ) about how the germans were so advanced and ahead of us in this and that."
-
and all this time i thought the english hated us americans and i wonder why some people think the german stuff is SO MUCH BETTER than any thing built any where in the world
BTW a englishman, Thomas Crapper , invented the 1st flush toilet
-
Grunherz;
You are cracking me up dude.
Just in case you forget, exhale every so often. :)
-
naa the only reason we have to pretend we hate everyone is because we've pretty much been at war with everyone at one time or another! :)
BLOODY FRENCH!! ONION LOVING UNWASHED MOANERS! :D
-
Where ya been, Ding? There's a big ol' movement starting up where the losers fanclub revises it. Doubtful Sparta would put up with that carp.
Well, screw the losers. You fly a loser's plane because you like it.
You misunderstood on the idea the winners writing the history: i meant that sparta DID conquer athens eventually and destroyed the Long Walls, but they failed to destroy the idea of democracy, which was the opposite of their society. Now, if they had destroyed the idea of democracy, would we not be looking up to Sparta instead of Athens now, since history is always written by the winners of a conflict (this conflict being the one between the militaristic society and the democratic society)?
Now in the same way, since the Allies won WWII, wouldn't most texts, being written by the winners, favor the winner's perception of their equipment?
-
Please show us the books that say the Sherman was better than the Panther in a fight, or that the P-39 was a better fighter than the zero.
In our global information society all viewpoints can be examined. Even the views our former enemies can be studied, since these countries now enjoy some measure of free speech thanks to the USA.
Maybe if so many luftwaffe pilots had not been KILLED in their planes, more of them would have been around after the war to write about how great their planes were.
-
Originally posted by DingHao2
Well, screw the losers. You fly a loser's plane because you like it.
Now in the same way, since the Allies won WWII, wouldn't most texts, being written by the winners, favor the winner's perception of their equipment?
Whoa! You got me convinced! Next time I visit Barns and Noble I won't even see the Luftwaffe fanzines. :D