109's were really that bad?!!!

[DamnedRen]

Did the German's really build 35000 109's in the different variants? And still lose the air war?

Guess they were really bad! Opps, not the German's, the planes.

Ren
________
DAG

[dedalos]

I am pretty sure they lost most of the air war, on the grownd.

[mechanic]

one simple answer.

Spitfires and hurricanes.




oh, and i suppose America helped out in a major way towards the end also.

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by dedalos
I am pretty sure they lost most of the air war, on the grownd.

I'm not so sure.  I think many ground losses came later. It would be interesting to see exactly how many 109's were lost to aerial combat.

Of the 35000. Sheesh!


Didn't the German Pilots actually dislike them at first but said, "oh well, use whacha got and wuit whinin?"

It's nice to know we have a choice of birds to fly in AH2. Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.

Ren
_______
DAG

[frank3]

Well alot of 109's were build in license too, some of those didn't even see the war I recall

[dedalos]

Originally posted by DamnedRen
I'm not so sure.  I think many ground losses came later. It would be interesting to see exactly how many 109's were lost to aerial combat.

Of the 35000. Sheesh!


Didn't the German Pilots actually dislike them at first but said, "oh well, use whacha got and wuit whinin?"

It's nice to know we have a choice of birds to fly in AH2. Imagine if you hadda fly just German planes all the time. You'd be on the losing end of the war...even in the game.

Ren
_______
DAG

Nah, Its one thing flying in the MA trying to turn with spits and an other to fly in packs with a mission objective and BnZ the spits all day long.  I don't think pilots went out flyin at 7K by them selfs looking for a fight with a spit, nor did the spit pull the moves we see in the MA when engaged by 109s.

In my opinion, the air war was won by bombing airfields and factories, rather than shooting down planes in dog fights.

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by dedalos
In my opinion, the air war was won by bombing airfields and factories, rather than shooting down planes in dog fights.

Actually, it's a known fact that Allied high level bombing was notoriously inaccurate. But. it's all they had. That's why they had to fly so many missions with so many planes. And even then they didn't do a whole lot of damage.

Contrary to popular belief bombing did not do much to shorten the war. Air superiority and the force of Aliied might on the ground made short work of the German Army. When the Allies hit mainlad Europe and established a foothold the war ended quite quickly and had not some of the leaders messed up it would have been over much sooner.

When First and Third started moving toward Germany they didn't stop until they had captured approximately 350,000 German troops in the Rhur Valley and they met the Russkies. It took all of 6 months. The Germans also had the Russians knocking on the door from the East.

One of today's fighter bombers can do more damage in one mission (without nukes) that a whole mission of B-17's.

[Eagler]

not true

for one ..
it forced the germans to commit to fighters, build more fighters  and use those fighters in defense against the bombers instead of having the luxury of building offensive planeset exclusively and using them as they did in the early days of the war - on offensive and not defensively

[JB82]

Many 109 in WWII were lost because they ran out of fuel.  109's only have 106 gallons in their main tank which only gave them about 10min over England.  I've heard upto %70 of the 109's lost in WWII ditched in the English Channel without any damage.  It was poor planing and the arrogance of the German High Command that caused the very high lose of 109's, not the plane itself.

P.S.  I must correct myself.  It was during the Battle of Britain, not the entire war itself, that the Germans lost so many because of running out of fuel.

[DamnedRen]

Originally posted by Eagler
not true

for one ..
it forced the germans to commit to fighters, build more fighters  and use those fighters in defense against the bombers instead of having the luxury of building offensive planeset exclusively and using them as they did in the early days of the war - on offensive and not defensively

Actually it did nothing to stop the advancement of German technology. They were still building/experimenting with improved planes until the end of the war. The German's committing fighters did nothing to lessen the inability of bombers to accurately hitting anything. In fact the Germans made more fighters near the end of the war than in the early years. What stopped the fighters was a lack of fighters and fuel. The factories were all spread out and never really damaged. The Germans went so far as to make synthetic fuel.
If they were able to hit a right city block they were lucky. Why do you think they flew some many bombers and missions? They couldn't hit anything with high level bombing. Technology was not advanced at the point. The Nordon was considered the cats meow because it could compute the wind from the plane to the ground.  However, turbulence and being shot at means they actually missed targets 95% of the time.  There were just  too many outside variables that caused them to miss targets. They did do a test and found the B-17 using a Nordon, under ideal conditions, could get pretty close to a target.

A stragegic bombing survey was conducted after the war and was considered a miserable failure. And was locked up as classified until after the war,
inthe '70s I think.  

The most accurate bomber was the Stuka. No other plane was as accurate.

The Brits released a survey 30 years after the war stating if their bombers (night bombing) hit within 5 miles of the target it was considered a hit.

What won the war in the ETO was ground forces taking away land and capturing troops. The Atlantic wall fell immediately on D-Day. What stopped the troops from an end run was the hedgerows. No one ever had planned for them until some Sgt. figured out they needed to put plow blades on the tanks and off they went to the races.

[Kweassa]

How long did the P-47 or P-51 serve the war? A year or two?

 The 109s emerged in the mid-'30s and served as combat planes even before WW2 started. It was the backbone of the Luftwaffe for more than 6~7 years, serving in two different fronts in large numbers.

 Only the Spitfire is really comparable to the 109 in terms of longetivity, since it also emegred in the '30s and became a mainstay of the RAF. About 23,000 Spitfires were produced - not as much as the 109, but that's still a very high number for a single aircraft and its variants.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by DamnedRen
A stragegic bombing survey was conducted after the war and was considered a miserable failure. And was locked up as classified until after the war,
inthe '70s I think.

Very wrong.

You can read the summaries here:

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm (ETO)

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm (PTO)

It would behoove people (not just you, Ren!) to check out these primary sources before they drew conclusions on the effectiveness of strategic bombing in WWII.

- oldman

[BlauK]

Naah... P-51 was an best airplane. That is why America won World War II. That is well known facts in lots books.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by JB82
Many 109 in WWII were lost because they ran out of fuel.  109's only have 106 gallons in their main tank which only gave them about 10min over England.  I've heard upto %70 of the 109's lost in WWII ditched in the English Channel without any damage.  It was poor planing and the arrogance of the German High Command that caused the very high lose of 109's, not the plane itself.

Exactly, on all fronts the Axis powers were led by blithering itiots. The intellegent military leaders like Rhommel and Yamamoto were ignored for the most part. Even these two blew it in N. Africa & at Midway.

The war was won by leadership and the industrial power if the USA. How can anyone hope to win a war when yo cannot inflict damage on thier War Production facilities. Even better leadership might have prolonged the war but the only hope for an Axis victory would have been to beat the US to the A-bomb.

[Mitchell]

Originally posted by DamnedRen
What stopped the fighters was a lack of fighters and fuel.
 

What do you think caused the shortage?