# Which theater of War Would you choose for flying?



## horseUSA (Dec 31, 2003)

Which theater of War Would you pick? I personally would go with the Pacific theater. I enjoy the action over the seas and the challange of navigation. I have to give it to those guys who flew out insearch of the enemy, many times meeting extraordinary situations which resulted in extreme loses. Now I will not take away from those who flew in the European theater, but I find the circumstance of sea battles to be a interesting event. Well enjoy the poll and share your thoughts. 

EDIT: Added Africa.


----------



## cill (Jan 3, 2004)

I would have like the Pacific theater. I personally love the F4U Corsair (one of the greatest fighters developed), and the guts of the men in the dive bomber, and torpedo squadrons to go against the wall of fire from the ships they were attacking. I feel that the quality of the aircraft and the conditions in which they were deployed appeal to me.


----------



## Crazy (Jan 3, 2004)

I dunno why, but the Pacific Front never really appealed to me  

European is my style,, if ya please


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2004)

well for me, it's over europe, the pacific would hav been to hot for me, an it was murder maintaining the planes out there, besides, you get some good views of france from the air


----------



## corpcasselbury (Jan 10, 2004)

All I can say is thast if you have to bail out, it's best to do it over land than over water usually. Drifting in a life raft in the middle of the ocean until your water runs out is not fun. So that is why I would have preferred flying in Europe. This is NOT, however, to take anything away from those who flew and fought in the Pacific.


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 11, 2004)

European. Why, much better atmosphere and more diversions. Besides, Japs are......well......(ahem)


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2004)

European of course! Again, not to take a thing away from the Pacific fliers, but the Spitfire, P-38, P-51, those are all I need to convince me to fly over Europe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 19, 2004)

personally for me it would have been the european, but that said i think the pacific fliers were much braver and i have the greastes respect for them, but i feel that european would have been a greater, if less rewarding, experience

remember im only 14 and i know nothing though


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 19, 2004)

Pacific to hot, not enough fighting. I don't like naval fighters anyway....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

admirable centements by cheddar cheese *clap*


----------



## Mike Rotch (Feb 12, 2004)

I voted Europe. Again it seems more mystical (!) then the Pacific. I think the Euro campaigners had it tougher from the point of view of E.A numbers trying to hack them down, whilst the Pacific chaps had a navigational nightmare.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 12, 2004)

Although I have an interest in WW2 Aircraft , I also have an interest in Warships , especially Battleships and Aircraft Carriers , fighting in the Pacific would have given me the best of both worlds , ie flying a Seafire from an Aircraft Carrier .


Andrew


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

No way would i want to be shot down in the Pacific theatre! the Japanese were really cruel to their prisoners of war and even if you didn't get captured you might drown or get eaten by sharks....do i'd rather take my chances with Europe...plus i'm British so i'd be closer to home


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 23, 2004)

i go europe because the planes are nicer and so is the view u get to see bombers explode u get the joy of killing nazis if u jump u land on ground u can crash land not ditch u fight tanks not pts u go faster u have more armament and better looking planes etc.,etc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

yeah, you dont wanna see your own bombers explode though


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 24, 2004)

PTO would be my type to fly against the Japanese. I would fly on F4U-1D with USN VBF-83 or VF-17 Jolly Rogers.


----------



## Archer (Feb 24, 2004)

VF-17 didn't fly -1Ds, at least not in combat 
Carriers are the way to go, good food and accomodations


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

Europe

Air-fighting and Culture all in one foul swoop!

Kiwimac


----------



## Rafe35 (Feb 25, 2004)

Archer said:


> VF-17 didn't fly -1Ds, at least not in combat
> Carriers are the way to go, good food and accomodations


No, but they fly on F4U-1, F4U-1A, FG-1A/D(dunno), and the last Corsair = F4U-4 Corsair.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

Hmmmm methinks someone has an unhealthy obsession with Corsairs...


----------



## Archer (Feb 27, 2004)

rafe may be obsessed, I'm still learning, I've only read The Jolly Rogers by Blackburn, the Definitive Account of Marine Fighting Squadron 214 in World War II (Swashbucklers and Black Sheep), and Corsair, the F4U in WWII and Korea. Still have the biggest book I have about Corsairs to read. Then I need to go find some more books to read. Rafe, you got any suggestions for a Corsair reading list? 
_Edit: I've also read Once They Were Eagles about the Black Sheep by Frank Walton - overall not that much really, especially since all but Once They Were Eagles I've read since Christmas_

(I also need to find time to read the CF-105 Arrow's Pilot's Operating Instructions and RCAF Testing/Basing Plans sometime)


----------



## RAF_Loke (Feb 27, 2004)

I'll chose Africa


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 27, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> u get to see bombers explode


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 27, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> yeah, you dont wanna see your own bombers explode though


 but you have to admit itd be FREAKING AWESOME!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

ok then, ill reluctantly admit


----------



## Bacher (Mar 6, 2004)

Gotta be European, cooler planes. Forget the endless Pacific Ocean;what if you couldn't find your home flattop?


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 13, 2004)

Europe - I just wanna fight over the Alps, what a view! You have to see it to believe it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 27, 2004)

no time to look at the alps when youve got a bunch of fw-190's on your tail


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

I'd say Africa, better weather, during the day at least. And you still get the cool planes of Europe..well the Hurricane and Spitfire at least.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

> cheddar cheese wrote:
> yeah, you dont wanna see your own bombers explode though
> 
> but you have to admit itd be FREAKING AWESOME!!!!!



not if u were flying in close formation...................


----------



## brad (Apr 12, 2004)

europe spits shooting down a bf109 wonderful


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

not if you got shot down first..............


----------



## Crazy (Apr 15, 2004)

This a post of epic proportions, a post to shake the very fabric of our belief!!!


----------



## brad (Apr 16, 2004)

Crazy said:


> This a post of epic proportions, a post to shake the very fabric of our belief!!!





i forgot what i was going to write


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

Crazy said:


> This a post of epic proportions, a post to shake the very fabric of our belief!!!



Bloody hell        thats almost as funny as a post hotspace made once that was bloody funny


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

very amusing .................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 16, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Crazy said:
> 
> 
> > This a post of epic proportions, a post to shake the very fabric of our belief!!!
> ...



how descriptive you are, not vague at all!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

but seriously, that was funny


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

but seriously, that was funny


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2004)

wheras a double do get your posts up IS NOT.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

it was an inadvertant double i say an INADVERTANT DOUBLE!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

sure.............

i would still rather fly in europe.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

et moi 8) europe c'est super! J'aime l'Alps


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

have you ever beet to see them.................

and since when did you like the alps?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

yes i have been to see them 8) i love the alps, breathtaking  i saw them when we went to monaco on holiday a few years back, we went into italy for the day to see them, was great


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I'm still going to say Africa, the weather was better during the day at least.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 4, 2004)

Hello all I am starting a write in campain for the theature that is not talked about at all, the CBITO 8)

I have said eltswhere, on another theature poll I think that to fly over the Hymalyas, in chappy weather in a C-47 or C-87  would be it. These mountains beat the Alps in hight and weather, mostly bad, and also the japs would be waiting because the mountains are taller then you can fly.  

Taking in fuel, arms, food, people, everything to get bombers and fighters operating in China after the burma road fell. I am surprised that we do not talk about this theature, were not the British Royal Navy operating to take Burma back and Tyland? Anyy help on that would be great.

The point is we have 4 major Theatures of operations, or five if you think of The Med and North Africa as two!


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well there's 6 if you want to be like that because Eastern Europe and Russia is a different theatre. 
My Grandad was in the Chindits, in Burma 1943.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

plan_D, sorry about that. I forgot the Eastern Front, how could I so much was fought there. What unit was your Grandfather with? We here just tend to talk about one area of operations, I just wanted to remind people of the others.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

75th Indian, I don't know his exact unit he never said much. I've written off to the Army for his operational record. My Great Uncle was an engineer in the RAF and he was at Malta I have a picture of him in a cockpit of a Spitfire but I haven't got a scanner


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

thanks I was just woundering.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

we only realy talk about the two european fronts and the pacific, because that's where the majors air fighting took place..........


----------



## MP-Willow (May 10, 2004)

Lanc, yes I think you have a point, save for major aircombat in North africa. But more to the point that there are other theatures that should be at least noted and listed for the pole. 

Was not India, Tieland and other areas in South Asia part of the empiere or commonwelth nations? Did not england have a lot of interests and men there? 

I ask to stir some discussion 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Yes, in Singapore, Burma and India, Britain had interests. It did have people there (My Grandad being one) but the British government didn't see any real importance in the area, that's why they got poor equipment. 
South-East asia did see a lot of air combat, with the British and Japanese trying to support one anothers ground troops.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 12, 2004)

Thanks. Do you know why the British thought less of this area, with all of the history and investment they had in it?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

It just wasn't as important as North Africa, Britain or Europe. 
The people out in Burma made do with their equipment though, the Chindits have to be one of the greatest fighting units in World War 2.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

along with lancaster crews.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

that was a cheap way to incorperate the lancaster into the conversation


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, it was.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

ill follow suit:

not forgetting the P.108 crews of course


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

no they were just plain stupid..................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 15, 2004)

well that is all good! I am trying to read more about the theature and what they did. I would agree that they did seem to get second billing or even well the srcaps.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I'd say the scraps, ancient aircraft from Europe were sent out there. And the men there were the greatest because they made do with it, and achieved a lot. 
A certain Japanese general said the Chindits were his biggest problem. 

The RAF out there were using Vildebeest for Gods sake.


----------



## bader (May 17, 2004)

i'm voting europe cos my fav planes like the mosquito were there


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Europe fliers seem to be in the majority.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Plan_D, what is a Vildebeest?

I admit i need to read up on the RAF in the PTO an other non-Europe theatures, but that sounds like a one hit wounder.

I have to agree that the men in these units did a lot with nothing. Just read a little about the flying tigers in China, or the Black Sheep, a bunch of cast off and trouble makers. But Pappy was a great Ace!


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

That's a Vildebeest, I'll give you information some other time.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

Plan -D, I looked it up a bit and I would agree that they were a sorry sight against anything that flew. But what I read was they were out of survice by 1940, but that might not be the case out side of the ETO. Thanks for the photo it is a nice one.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

They were supposed to be out of service by 1940 but those in Burma, India and Singapore had a severe lack of planes, and they were still using them in 1943. Sitting ducks if any Japanese planes were in the air.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

I would think that the Flak would have ripped them appart as well. The Japonese had just as good AA as the Germans, but that was about it. The war planners thought that they could win because they had better spirit. Now that might have been but the arms they were using were just not as good. Only at the begining can a case be made otherwise.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

Not with ground heavy weapons and armour though, the Japnese armour was always poor (Tanks were just crap). The Vildebeest was credited for quite a few successful raids, but it was just crap.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

Well ok I will agree that the tanks were poor, but they just needed to dig out a mountain and place the guns in caves. Why use a tank when you have to slog through jungle and over mountains. It is one thing to use them in the nice open spaces in Europe, just thunk Kursk, but another to have confind space like the PTO. Also getting the tanks to station takes a lot. But I think the tankers in the Headgerows had a little taste of what the GIs had to deal with in the Pacific. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

what exactily does PTO mean??

and don't say power take off or please turn over.................


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

Sorry, the Pacific Theature of Operations, just like ETO is European theature of Operations. I tend to use the letters and forget that some might not understand them. The Pacific and Asia are two areas of the war I am interested in. 8)


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2004)

if my eyes would be good enough a night fighter pilot would be my choice over the Reich during 44-45.......

E ~ Horrido !


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

Well, I know exactly where I would have been, 475th FG Satan's Angels in the Pacific. I've even done a couple drawings of what my plane would have looked like.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

The Japanese really did need a good tank, the Marines put their Shermans and Hellcats to good use, even in the jungles.


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

i voted for the european becauese of the planes although it would have been cool to fly pasific


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I'm not sure that the lank of a serious tank hurt the Japanese that much. The Marines never used that many tanks for any of the invasions and many of the ones used were destroy even without other tanks to oppose them. Tanks are best when they have room to maneuver and that just wasn't the case of the small, heavily vegetated islands of the Pacific.


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

I find some of the response's a bit disturbing. If you ever get a chance to serve on anothers land and in combat I surely do not think you will find it "cool" . In any case most likely you should think upon your chances of survival and how good it would be with the undertanding that you do not know the outcome of the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The Japanese did need a good tank, their lack of a tank did hurt them quite a bit. Your look on the Pacific seems to be only on the islands taken by the Marines, when in reality they were fighting in India, Burma and Singapore. The Japanese, and the Allies knew that the Japanese were at a disadvantage without an effective tank. 
In fact the Japanese bought a Tiger, and Panther off the Germans in 1945 but they stayed in Germany (Lended from Japan) to defend the Reich. 

The Marines did actually use their tanks very effectively for clearing the jungle, and burning out bunkers with their flame cannons (The flame armed ones)


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

ah little off topic aren't we Plan ? I am finding that these threads become very convoluted by some of you. Is this the result of lack of researching or sources ? possibly just being a gag party ?

yeah I know, I need to lighten up






I need a cup, long night last eve............


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

You can't really get an extensive discussion from 'What theater of war would you choose for flying?' since it's all opinion based.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

Plan_D, yes the Marines did use the tanks well and a lot of the vegitation was burned in part with Naypham, but still the volcanic or coral soils of a lot of the islands coupled with the well placed and dug in gun and troop posions in the Pacific made good tank use difficult. As for the tank in China-Burma-India (CBI) Theature yes they were used but I need to read more to be shure, but you are looking at more heavy jungle and mountains. Also remember the the IJA thought that they could win the fight because of the great "Fighting Warrior Spirit" of the troops.


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

a BIG FAT ?. why is the issue of tanks brought into this thread when one see's that the question was regarding flying ? see my point how easy these threads remain off topic ?


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I don't know, Erich, but this is interesting also. 

The Marines used their tanks to more effect than some may think. Yes, they were big bulks of metal charging through the Jungle but this was sometimes an advantage to the troops behind them. Clearing the Jungle itself and burning out the enemy (I may add it wasn't Napalm until late war). 
On top of this tanks provided an effective mobile turret being dug in, in any event of a Japanese counter-attack, tanks are surprisingly well hidden in the Jungle. 

In the CBI the British used their tanks to great effect, what seemed to be obselete designs in Europe were masters of the battlefield in India, and Burma. The thick armour of the Matilda proved invunerable to a lot of the Japanese AT equipment. This proved a huge disadvantage to the Japanese, and it is unfortunate that the tank forces in the Pacific are recognised as a failure when they weren't. 
The Japanese needed a tank, and you'll find a lot of their tanks were dug in but were destroyed too easily because of weak armour. And in fact poor armament as well.


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

which russin plane is the flying tank


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I believe you are refering to the Il-2.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Or maybe it's that one I posted a pic of. Tank with wings attached.
To avoid confusion; it's the Il-2 Sturmovik 'The Flying Tank'


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

it's a shame the idea of the tank with wings never took off (sorry about the pun)................


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

thancks for telling me


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

tank with wings is the A-10 Hog


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

a 10 hog strange name


----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

Well it is really the A-10 Thunderbolt 11
The Warthog nickname is given it because it just looks that ugly 
What you get when you design a plane around a 6 barrel 30mm gatling gun 8) It is the grandson of the P-47!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2004)

actually erich we're talking about a russain glider tank..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i think he knows, he told us its name


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

No, he was refering to the A-10 Warthog. The modern day American tank-buster.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2004)

sorry guyz for not making myself clear, the A-10 wass called a Hog by it's pilots. Have interviewed 2 pilots that kicked Iraqui butt some years ago in 1994 during the 50th anniversary of D-day and the taking of Rome


----------



## MP-Willow (May 31, 2004)

Erich -I sort of said that. But then I hope the two pilots had some great stories.

The the 1991 Gulf War used the A-10 a lot even scored a kill over a helicopter.

Now we are getting off topic again, so I would say why not come back.

Affrica-the first test of the US Military. And the use of Navel fighters in support of the landings. Why not talk Wildcats flying in low over the Marines! Putting fire were they needed it the most.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

I know an A-10 pilot. He was twice decorated over the Gulf, one DFC and one Bronze Star.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Naval fighters not Navel...we're not talking about belly-buttons here. 

It wasn't really that hard for A-10s to achieve kills in the Gulf, with the Iraqis digging in their T-55/54s and T-72s. Plus the thousands of veichles on the road from Basra to Baghdad, which even as an aircraft technician my dad was paid to clean up the mess...that's right...burnt corpses. After all my dad was in Iraq, the closest to the problem...those CH-47s don't half look strange with sand filters and in the middle of desert with nothing but three tents beside them...

...back on to World War 2...I think...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

yes...and i would have wanted to fly in europe


----------



## plan_D (Jun 2, 2004)

Since it's all opinion based this thread not surprisingly died long ago. The only reason I would want to fly in Europe would be to get my hands on a Me-262A-1a.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

i'd wanna pilot a hurricane


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

At what time of the war would you want to pilot a Hurricane C.C.?

I don't think I would have been big on flying any version of the 262 since the Allies virtually maintained standing patrols over its bases just waiting for one to take-off or land.


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

well if you would have been accepted into Kommando Welter in January of 45 you might have thought yourself lucky...


----------



## brad (Jun 2, 2004)

europe no questiuion


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

> At what time of the war would you want to pilot a Hurricane C.C.?



all through the war 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

I could understand piloting a Hurrican during the BoB, but after that I don't know. 

Did the Allies maintain nightfighter patrols over the base of Kommando Welter? Or did it not cause enough of a splash to deserve such attention?


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

LG there were no opposition to the night flying 262's by the RAF. Indeed several lancaster crews saw the jets flying by them but could not turn their turrets on the jets fast enough. The jet fatalities were all due to accidents. In the spring of 1945 the air base of Burg where 10./NJG 11 was located was obliterated by B-17's in a day raid. Only by minutes were most of the a/c and personell able to leave but some 5-6 jets were wiped out..... from here the jet unit flew off the autobahn with the jets hidden in the trees until the last minute before take off.

E `


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 4, 2004)

European because I don´t like going far a away from home!!! 8)


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 4, 2004)

European for me too     :


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 4, 2004)

Ok so we have come back to topic, but no one has said why they made the pick!

Some say close to home others just for fun. So I say Europe, but lets start with North Africa work over to the boot and Up the bloody thing. Then flying out of western Italy in a B-24 8) to eastern Europe, France and Germany! Though if all went well I might be back in the states before then with my 35 missions done!


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 11, 2004)

Bad thing about fighting in the pacific say that there was a storm ya went off course that would be it for you, wouldn't it?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 12, 2004)

i would say europe so i could fly the lancaster..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

Weather cause trouble in the ETO was well. In general, a plane could fly over a storm. If not, it was usually better safe than sorry and they would turn back.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 14, 2004)

WEather did have some problums but it was weather and luck that got the USAAC a A6M when it had to land in the Alutians. I think that is correct, help if it is not.

Lanc, why not fly in Burma in a Spifire and you could duel with the Japanese.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

MP-Willow, I believe the Aleautians Zero had to set down because of engine trouble.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2004)

Spitfires weren't numerous over Burma. They didn't even get any until 1942 if I remember correctly. The only plane my Grandad mentioned was the Hurricane, he used to see them buzz over his head when he was walking through the Jungle.


----------



## ev0 (Jun 14, 2004)

The europe theater since the jetaircrafts (+rocketpropelled) and many other to me interesting aircrafts flew and crashed there  
the me-262, p-47, spittfire and etc, etc, were great aircrafts!
but still. the f4u is one hell of a good fighter ^^


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I've seen a rocket-propelled Me-163 in a museum and that is as close as I ever wanna get.


----------



## Maestro (Jun 15, 2004)

I would fly in the European theater... I would like to pilot a good old Spitfire Mk. IX during Operation Overlord.

Ahhh... Dive-bombing U-boats at "Le Havre", straffing Normandy airstrips, escorting B-25s to their targets and back before D-Day, supporting the landing troops during D-Day... Damm ! It would be great !

Did you know that the first WW II flight sim I played was "Operation Overlord" by Rowan Software ?

Anyway...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

First WWII flight sim I played was Aces of the Pacific (and it some ways I still think it was one of the best). I've always been more interested in the Pacific and would love to have flown a P-38 escorting B-25s to Rabaul to chew up some shipping or an airfield.


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

Maestro there were no B-25 Mitchells over the D-day landings they were stationed in the Med. Do you mean the B-26 ? One of my customers in fact flew 2 missions in B-26's as a pilot on 6-6-44, blasiting bridges. He felw with the 397th bg and a total of 50 missions..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Didn't the RAF use the Mitchell in the ETO? I know that the B-26 was the exclusive AAF medium in Europe.


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

it was early if at all ! in Afrika and the Med where it excelled and of course we know all about the route with Doolittle over Japan from China.


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

geez it must be my old eyes...............hmmmmmm the RAf you say. Possibly. It was also lend lease to the Soviets and it was the fastest twin engine they had on hand, very hard to catch at night as sworn by German night fighter pilots


----------



## Maestro (Jun 15, 2004)

Erich said:


> Maestro there were no B-25 Mitchells over the D-day landings they were stationed in the Med. Do you mean the B-26 ? One of my customers in fact flew 2 missions in B-26's as a pilot on 6-6-44, blasiting bridges. He felw with the 397th bg and a total of 50 missions..........



No... In the game Oeration Overlord, the RAF use Mitchells to bomb big targets (costal cannons, airfields...). The game starts April 1st and ends June 6th 1944. But may be the game designers made mistakes...


----------



## Erich (Jun 15, 2004)

sounds like we need to do some serious research on this eh ?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

The RAF used Mitchells and they were in the ETO, but I am not saying the D-Day landings had B-25s overhead. A lot of the AAC planes were in the med, pacific and China. Yes we should look into it. 

Ev0, nice to have you on. now why would you like the aircraft?
Why not ETO and go for the Shuttle bombing missions. I would do it, to fly a Yak-7 escourting a box of B-24s


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

The old game, Aces over Europe had the RAF flying Mitchells.
The RAF did use the Mitchell. About 750 all told iin Mitchell I, II, and III vairants (B-25B,D, J respectively). Apparently they were being used right up until the end of the war. 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b025-22.html


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

thanks.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

No problem.


----------



## unkated (Jun 17, 2004)

I'd rather have flown in the European Theatre. Many many more places to land if you are in trouble:

- Average distance between airfields was probably under 20 miles between Spain and Moscow.
- LOTS of cleared fields between the airfields.
- LOTS of people concentrated in a comparatively small area. A town cannot be that far away. (Granted, you may not be picked up by the side of your choice...)
- LOTS of people listening to radios (or with telephones) available to fetch help.

In Afrika, in was not that hard to land away from a city (and airbase) - and be faced with an unpleasant or impossible walk to aid.

In the vast Paciifc, finding land, much less an airfield, could be a major challenge. Survival at sea, was not at all certain. Even in areas that were being combed for survivors, many people were just... missed, and never came home. Small, jungly islands were not necessarily a bargain either.

Then, we can discuss the out-of-plane amenities. Pearl Harbor was beautiful; Guadalcanal (or New Guinea or Saipan or Tinian or any of a score of Pacific airbases) were hot, dirty, disease-ridden with no towns, no entertainment except what was brought in (and there was never enough to go around). Or the "splendor" of sharing a cramped officer billet in the bowles of an aircraft carrier...

North Afrika was only a little better in the way of amenities.

But to be based in England... to return from a mission, shower, and flit out to a pub; to go to the Theatre or the British Museum in London... that surely makes Europe the best choice.

(None of this, of course, takes into account mission types, aircraft types, combat types, flying weather, etc. 

Unkated


----------



## unkated (Jun 17, 2004)

Erich -

Johnny Johnston's RAF night attack Group (sorry; I don't recall the number) included 2 Dutch Squadrons flying Mitchells (B-25s) during the period leading up to D-Day. 

Indeed, a quick gander at The RAF Operations in Support of Dday
http://www.raf.mod.uk/dday/rafu.html

Shows 137 and 139 Wings of No. 2 Group putting up 4 squards on Jun 6 itself.

unkated.


----------



## Erich (Jun 17, 2004)

thank you for the information. I was thinking after my posting-first- on the B-25 of only US led a/c, but I see I was not at all clear as RAF a/c units were quite involved before and during D-day.....

cheers  

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

Unkated, there were disadvantages to flying over all that land in Europe as well. You were constantly over enemy territory meaning more flak, more fighters, and lesser chance of escape if shot down. But as you said, none of the things you listed include aircraft, missions, weather, etc. I think the firsts two play a key part in deciding where you would have wanted to be . . . not that you had much of a choice back then.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

Choice!! You go where you are told. I think the ETO was good but all that frills of a London pub in my mind make the war seam less real. You are almost out of the war ater the mission. Now the PTO you were always in the war, and had time to raly after a mission and fly home in safe air. 

Unkated-Nice to hear from you! But the PTO would have been one hell of a ride! On e place we have not said much of is China and the AVG!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2004)

> and lesser chance of escape if shot down



did you know that Adjutant of J.G.3 "Udet" Franz Von Werra was the only german officer to escape from Britian and return to germany during WWII. He was shot down in kent on september 5th 1940 whilst flying a Bf. 109E-4......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

How did he escape?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 21, 2004)

i don't know, it didn't say, it's pretty amazing that only one man made it out though..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 21, 2004)

Well, there weren't as many people in England willing to help Germans escape as there were in France trying to help the Allied pilots escape.


----------



## ev0 (Jun 22, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Ev0, nice to have you on. now why would you like the aircraft?





What did you mean? "like the aircraft?" I assume that you wonder why I would like those aircrafts? Because the p-47 for example had a big circulation of jobs and it could take biiig amounts of damage.


------
Oh crap, my english sucks!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 22, 2004)

He probably stole a fishing boat or something. He might have got over to Ireland and got picked up in the Republic somewhere and taken home.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

I would thinking getting over to Ireland would have been even tougher. Maybe a U-Boat could have made it over there to get him, but how would he contact it? The fishing boat across the channel seems like a better option to me. It wouldn't have been easy, but probably the most likely means of escape.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 22, 2004)

he proberly stood a better chance of servival staying england, anything could have happened on the crossing..............


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

But he got out! But still ony one of how meny pilot that were lost in that campain. I think the war would have been a lot different if the German pilots would have been able to get back to their units.

EvO- I just wated to know why you liked the aircraft you named.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 22, 2004)

Getting alot of pilots who had been shot down back into action was a major advantage for the RAF. Just look at the indestructible Alan Deere.


----------



## ev0 (Jun 23, 2004)

ok ^^ Too bad that the p-47 did not have 4/6 20 mm cannons :/


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

The P-47 did very well with it's 8 .50cals. That was more than enough fire power for air-to-air and with as many as 3 500lb bombs and 10 HVARs it really didn't need the cannon for ground attack.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 23, 2004)

8x.50cals were fine for ground attack as LG said, they could take out and soft top, and even tanks by shooting at the ground so the bullets would bounce off the ground and up into the bottom of a tank, but the tiffy also made good use of 4x20mm.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 23, 2004)

That's thing 12.7mm at a high rate of fire had a good chance of destroying just about any German, Soviet or Allied tank. The only ones capable of withstanding the pounding would be the Big Cats.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 23, 2004)

And they wouldn't be able to stand up to 500lb bombs or 127mm rockets. Basically the P-47 was armed to take out whatever it might encounter on the battlefield.


----------



## ev0 (Jun 24, 2004)

ofcourse. It did very well with the 8*.50 but it would have been better with 20 mm's i think :I


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2004)

just replace the two inermost guns with 20mm cannon. The trick is the amount of shells to carry and that would be the problum. So LG -I would have to back of my cannon wish as I would need about 50 to 100rounds for good Air to Air and unless I have a high velosity cannon the rate of fire is slower, as I understand and well not good fore speedy fighters.

AS for bouncing rounds off the ground that is not that simple


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Typically, the 20mm cannons being used by the Allies had a rate of fire of about 10 rounds per sec. That 50-100 rounds is thus good for 5 to 10 secs of fire. In comparision, the 425rpg that the P-47 was designed to take was equivalent to 34 secs of firing time.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

The bouncing rounds off the ground was mostly by luck. It wasn't a skill, you fire at the tank and some will hit the ground below and maybe ricochet off. Lucky deflection but it's your kill, if you're willing to go against a Panther firing a 12.7mm MG back up at you, you deserve the praise. 

Especially in 1944 when they had the Wirbelwind that beautifully crafter Quad-20mm Mobile AA Gun.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 24, 2004)

But the Mg34 and Mg42's were 7.62... Did the Germans use any 12.7mm mg's? Or are you just wrong? (It's ok if you are) They did, however, have 15mm and 13mm mg's but these were for aircraft, and occasionally they were modded and placed on a turret for airfield defense. Who manned the guns? Hilterjugend! I've seen a pic with 4 (!) of these guns set up as AA.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 24, 2004)

any chance you can post it??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 24, 2004)

No scanner...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

No tank was fitted with AA MGs above 7.62mm as standard. There were higher calibre of 12.7mm (Captured) and 13mm retrofitted later on in the war. 
I shall find where it's mentioned, and maybe find a picture for you. 







You wouldn't want to go up against a column of tanks with a few of these as support. Some later models were equipped with RADAR.


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2004)

actually the turret moved to slowly and the unit with 1st W-SS in the Ardenne lost them all to ground forces. The best defence these put up was protection of the Panthers and Pz IV's of 1st SS against US ground forces where they could bring their 2cm fire to painful effect. Against Allied a/c they were sitting ducks....

E ~


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2004)

the 4 mgs' ? would you mean the excellent piece 2cm Flakvierling ?

here is another piece of AA that the Allies were glad there were not too many of. Flak-zwilling in 3.7cm. used as a ground and air unit plus tower defence agasint low flying Allied strafers.


----------



## Erich (Jun 24, 2004)

here is a pic of a Kriegsmarine version on one of the many ships and used for air defence. 2cm Flakvierling. although a navy version this frou barreled job was used extensively by the Luftwaffe Fla units.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 24, 2004)

The 2cm Vierling Wirbelwind which equipped the Flugabwehrzug of the Panzer Divisions were only seen as poor COMPARED to the 3.7cm FlaK which provided quick effective fire on both Air and Ground targets. Strafing a tank column with these 2cm and 3.7cm Wirbelwinds covering it, was not a fun experience.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

I don't have any direct experience with any German Flak guns (thank goodness). However, my experience on flight sims has inspired a healthy hate/respect of their 2cm AA guns.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

LG -there are some good combat stories of pilots and the flack. Also I think I read some of P-38s, but that might have been pacific, and I forget where I read it. Even if the turret was to slow the whole tank could turn to face the straffer. That is not as good, but the four guns just need to get in the way. With radar and radios I thik things could get pitty hairry for P-47s and others tropping in on them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2004)

well, i don't thing you want want to fly head on into a colum of these things....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

Well, when I have faced them in flight sims I have prefered to attack them via dive-bombing. If at all possible I always try and stay the heck away from them using the ground as cover.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 25, 2004)

They were deadly pieces of machinery and very effective. They were the best mobile AA unit the Wehrmacht had and I think they might be the best of the war. 

The Americans mostly had theirs on halftracks and I've seen prototypes on Shermans. The British used Light Tank Mk. II and III also they used the Crusader. The Soviets used trucks, basically.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

The Americans mostly relied on the .50cal for ground defense. While I think the .50cal was a good choice for air-to-air, I think 20mm is better as an anti-aircraft weapon. The .50cal has neither the range nor altitude to be very effective. For a fighter this is less important as the fighter is highly mobile whereas even SP AA guns are still realitively fixed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

i've seen quite a funny piece of footage in which an american (i think) truck with a AA gun on the back is speeding around, very fast, and when it goes round a corner it almost goes over sideways, the gunner keeps firing the whole time.........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 26, 2004)

The Americans used .50cal, 20mm and 37mm for mobile AA. And as I said mainly on Halftracks. A very good Canadian design off the Grizzly (M4A1) called the Skink AA had Quad-Polsten 20mm cannons but was never put into full production. 






There was an American design off the Grant chassis called the T36 with a 40mm AA cannon. I can't find a picture of that. 
Another American design off the M24 Chaffee was the T77E1 which had a computing sight system and was armed with Quad .50 cal. There is a pic on Google images just type in T77E1 (As if you really care) 

There was a British one based on the Light Tank Mk. II called the Light Tank AA Mk. II (Weren't we inventive) which had four 7.92mm Besa Machine guns. 






Also one based off the Crusader III (Cruiser Tank) called the Crusader III AA. The Mk. I had the turret removed and replaced by a 40mm AA cannon. Mk. II and III had two 20mm Oerlikon cannon put in the turret. 




There was also a triple-Oerlikon version which had the cannons in open turret. Only used for training though. I only can find pictures of models, for them. 

There were some more AA based on tanks but I can't be bothered. The British tanks had a good personal AA defence when the crew could be bothered to fit it or get engineers to do it. Twin-MG which was two either Vickers or Bren wielded to one another then on to the tank.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 26, 2004)

to be honest i don't really think i would be that scared if i went up against what would look like a tank with just a couple of MGs in the turret......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 26, 2004)

None of them have couple of MGs. If you are refering to the last picture they are two 20mm cannons.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

I'm a farmer, as such "a couple" is the only numerical tern i know, "a couple" where i come from can refer to any number below 7


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2004)

So you are refering to the Light AA Mk. III (or II) with FOUR 7.92mm. When you have four of those tanks per tank company its better than a few troops hoping for the best with Bren guns.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 27, 2004)

yes, but it's still not perfect.....................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 27, 2004)

Nothing ever is. As Erich rightly pointed out the 2cm Vierling Wirbelwinds were destroyed by aircraft at times, the things they were supposed to be destroying. They still weren't poor, but not perfect. The 3.7cm ones were very good, the best of the mobile AA in my opinion.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 27, 2004)

All of this sounds like a good reason to prefer the Pacific to me


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

LG- to be shot down over open ocean and drift with the sharks! Or if you were to be taken on land to go biuld bridges fot the railroad where each day you ask to die rather then to be treated like an animal! 

But the wide blue ocean would be better then all that AA stuff, not that the Pacific had its share. I would ay makig your torpeado run would have been very scarry.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2004)

they still had flack out there, the only differance was that it was coming up from ships................................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

Well, the Japanese AA on ships wasn't terribly effective. Their heavy weapons were ok and the 3.9in gun they were deploying late in the war was very good. However, the lacked any adequate medium or light weapons and their 25mm and 13.2mm weapons were totally outclassed by the 40mm Bofors and the 20mm Oerlikon. In short, I would rather face Japanese flak than German flak but the Germans were definitely more humane in their treatment of POWs (excluding the Russians) than the Japanese.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

But to be a German shot down and sent to the States where they were treated better then the Black soldiers, that must have been a big change. There was a POW camp near my home town, that I want to try and find more info on.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 29, 2004)

There is a pretty powerful scene in the Tuskegee Airmen movie where the black fighter pilots are forced to give up their seats on the train for German POWs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2004)

that problem wasn't really sorted 'til the 60's was it??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

It came to a huge head in the 60s. It is still somewhat an issue today, or at least some people try to make it one.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2004)

I'd go with the latter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 30, 2004)

we take it to a new level over here, have you heard of the British National Party??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

LG -we are still feeling the effects of it and what the country went through. I forgot about that part of the airman movie. Also though there is a nice bit when the two bomber pilots are stranded at there base. but for them the testient was no bomber lost to eemy fighters and that was done mostly with older planes. They did not get P-51s until latter.

It is a testiment to the fighting men of the all black and the Japanese American Units that they were some of the highest decorated units in the war. Patton personly requested the 92nd (I think that is right) Tank unit, because they were good!


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 30, 2004)

So I guess I can't say Wales again, can I  

Hot Space


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

If Welsh guards performed in World War 2 like they did in the Falklands, I wouldn't like to comment. And I know how the Irish Guards performed. 

Have you got a problem with the BNP, Lanc? This is a democracy, after all.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 1, 2004)

yes i'm just saying that there are members of the party that wouldn't exactily jump in to stop you beating up a black man or a forigner....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

Should they?


----------



## Maestro (Jul 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes i'm just saying that there are members of the party that wouldn't exactily jump in to stop you beating up a black man or a forigner....................



Excuse my ignorance, but is the BNP a true political party or is it only like the Ku Klux Klan ?

Because if it's a true political party, as a French-Canadian (so a foreigner for you), I'll never go in England if they get elected ! (I'm not afraid to fight once in a while, but I'm not mad enough to look for it.)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2004)

The BNP is a true political party, and it's not a lawless bunch of the thugs as the media like to make it out to be. Their policies are controversial as they wish to deport 100% of the Asylum Seekers that fail in application (at the current it is 4%) and they wish to deport most of the 'Asylum Seekers' already in the country. 

Being French-Canadian it would be no problem for them if over here on Vacation or if have the proper papers to be in Britain. Please don't get the wrong idea about them, as most of the "Asylum Seekers" are African, Middle-Eastern or East European. And this country is too small to be housing them all in such large numbers. This is what the BNP stands against.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 1, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> So I guess I can't say Wales again, can I
> 
> Hot Space



I'd reckon most people would frown on that, mate...


----------



## ev0 (Jul 1, 2004)

Was the question of this topic not "Which theater of War Would you choose for flying?"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2004)

yes, i hear the welsh theater was quite a hot spot.....................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

evO, yes it was, at times these things drift or truely dive off topic. So wha would you like to add?

As for the party and the sakers send them all to Canada


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

I would choose to be in the African Theater because aside from the pacific and the European theaters there was alot of land and when you had to bail out there was actually land there instead of landing on liquid water


----------



## Maestro (Jul 2, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> As for the party and the sakers send them all to Canada



Hmmm... Not a good idea... The province of Québec is already starting to looks like Haiti (politically, I mean). We don't need their population.  

By the way, may any of you tell me if they know ANY old French colonies that didn't ended in a dictatorship ?


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

Canada is not a dictatorship and it was at one time more French then English, sadly they just did not want to stay and exploit everything they could from the land as the English did and as Americans do now, we learned well.

As for Quebec, they are a breed apart and can be amusing at times. But I think they will always be part of Canada. 

Dan -Europe had lots of land to fall into! Africa had lots of hot desert and sand to get lost in with out a lot of Water


----------



## Maestro (Jul 5, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Canada is not a dictatorship and it was at one time more French then English, sadly they just did not want to stay and exploit everything they could from the land as the English did and as Americans do now, we learned well.
> 
> As for Quebec, they are a breed apart and can be amusing at times. But I think they will always be part of Canada.
> 
> Dan -Europe had lots of land to fall into! Africa had lots of hot desert and sand to get lost in with out a lot of Water



Only something I want to point out...

I never said that Canada was a dictatorship, I said that the Province of Québec was on its way to become one... We saw it during the "Crise d'Octobre" in the 70s, when the FLQ murdered a federal minister. And we can still see it with some f*cking searatists like Bernard Landry (or the "Reich Führer", as nicknamed by federalists), leader of the "Parti Québécois" or Pierre Falardeau and a guy named Villeneuve, both members of the old FLQ.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 5, 2004)

can we please keep politics out of this......................


----------



## Maestro (Jul 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> can we please keep politics out of this......................



You're right... I have the bad habit to speak of politic... Sorry.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

Thanks Meastro. Now more on topic, why not fly for Poland in 1939 8)
To face all that is overwhelming and then maybe escape to England and keep on flying!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 6, 2004)

> To face all that is overwhelming and then maybe escape to England and keep on flying!



what a great reason to keep flying......................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 8, 2004)

I would like to point out that England beat France in Canada but let them stay. Why, I will never know. 

Flying for Poland in 1939. Obselete plane, out-numbered, out-classed...yes, sounds like a joy.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 8, 2004)

I always thought it would be cool to fly night-fighter escort duty. It must of been fantastic to be up there in the black, flying by instruments, looking at the stars.

Or maybe a dive bomber like the Stuka, heading straight down at 90 degrees... That would have been some ride.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2004)

if you got to the target wtihout being shot up first......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 8, 2004)

I think night-flying would drive you mad. Long periods of time where absolutely nothing might happen but death could litterally come at any moment. At least at day you had a reasonable chance of seeing an attacker.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 9, 2004)

Well, that's what radar is for. But seriously, I think the fact that night fighting was more like a battle of detection and wits makes it more interesting, somehow. Though of course, I didn't have to do it, so what do I know...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 9, 2004)

i'd imagine there was a high risk of mid air collisions up there at night??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

That's true too. But at best an aircraft had radar covering a few degrees forward and a few degrees rearward and most lacked this rear-warning system. Did the Germans have equipment to home in on a Mossie's radar like they could home in on H2S? Was Schrage Musik used against the NF Mossies? Scary thoughts.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 9, 2004)

I wonder what the loss rate for night fighters escorts were compared to their day counterparts? I would imagine lower combat losses (due to less encounters(??)) but more chances of accidents?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

That would probably be right. You would still run the risk of flak though.


----------



## Erich (Jul 10, 2004)

From the Luftwaffe point of view, the nf's were like lone wolf's and although a staffel of Ju 88's as an example would be up in the air at the same time, it was highly unlikely the German a/c would be in close proximity to one another as the RAF and even US bomber stream were miles long. There was actually more fear of flak just right over the target as at night it was mostly the case to intercept all RAF a/c on the route in and the route going back out to England. The Schräg waffen was not used against the mossie just forward firing weapons, and yes the Rückswart(rear warning radar) could pick up the Mossie AI.

simply sep[akeing for day time activies there were much more 109's/Fw 190's in the air and tons of P-51's as escorts for interception compared to the Mossie squadrons supplied to ward off N.F.'s of which there were some obviously but were in essence told to protect individual areas at night so there wer not the en-masse that was seen during the day......does this make any sense ?

E ♪


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 11, 2004)

Erich said:


> From the Luftwaffe point of view, the nf's were like lone wolf's...



Yeah, again this is why I think night fighting over Europe would be so interesting. An intense cat and mouse game, trying to detect and pounce on the opponent before he does the same to you.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 11, 2004)

Probably hard on your nerves though.


----------



## BlackWolf3945 (Jul 18, 2004)

ETO is the way 'ta go...


Fade to Black...


----------



## Huckebein (Jul 19, 2004)

I'd say the ETO for beautiful landscape, (relatively) short distances and benevolent inhabitants (for a British pilot). On the other hand, air-air combat over Europe often got particularly vicious, despite the odd shows of valour and comradeship between opposing pilots. I just wouldn't enjoy being caught in a fierce 1943 Channel Front dogfight I don't think...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 19, 2004)

The Western Front was far more congenial that the Eastern.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 20, 2004)

I think the Western Front and Eastern Front were like different wars, almost. I'm about halfway into Beevor's Stalingrad, and the sheer scale of the fighting, losses, and horror is just awesome. An Axis pilot bailing out over Soviet territority would be as likely to be lynched by civilians as anything, and if the Soviet pilot survived his ramming attack and the SS interrogators, he'd be off to a POW camp with less than 1 in 3 chance of surviving the war... That was a hard war there.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2004)

Both sides brought it on themselves. In the West, the British and Germans were gentlemen at war, both being warrior nations with long standing war history. And chivilric standings they would treat one another with the most respect, or at least the old fashioned Prussian soldiers would. 

On the East both sides hated one another, the Germans saw Slavs as unter-menschen and the Slavs saw the Germans as the worst enemy in the world. In 1941 some Russian and Eastern European towns, and cities waved the invading Germans in because they hated the rule of Stalin. But even since 1939 when the Polish massacred hundreds of German civilians in Bromberg the hatred was present. 
Eventually when the Wehrmacht, along with the Waffen-SS passed through the villages and towns the Einzatgruppen came in. Mopping up civilians and taking them away. This had a backlash to the front, which whipped the Russian into returning the favour. Which made the Germans on the front do it back. 

Another thing is the Russians were brave, crazy and/or drunk. (  ) So the fighting in the air, and on the ground was going to be fierce. Russians were all too willing to ram a plane when out of ammo, anything to stop the Iron Beast which was the Third Reich. On top of that, Russia was where a lot of armoured battles took place. Which were always fierce, with the mass of T-34s against the Panthers and Tigers. Although, the desert had its fair share of armoured conflicts. On equal footing, and hte perfect terrain for armoured tactics. Rommel knew that all too well, unlucky for Guderian he had the Eastern Front from in 1941, and after 'failing' at Tula was relieved of his post. The best general in the war for Gods sake, only stopped by the OKW and OKH. Panzer Army 2 had been fighting for 4 months, non-stop. They needed repair, rest, replacements, fuel but the OKH pushed them further and further. Guderian was up to the task until it was just too much. 

Well, I got in the flow there. So there's some reading for you.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 20, 2004)

I think your absolutely right. On the Western Front there was something of a mutual respect. On the Eastern Front it was outright hatred.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 20, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I think your absolutely right. On the Western Front there was something of a mutual respect. On the Eastern Front it was outright hatred.



Concerning the Eastern Front, I absolutely agree with both Plan_D and LG. But the Western Front was more "rotten" than you think...

During my "History of the 20th century" course, we spoke with 3 WW II veteran. Two of them were captured : the first one was captured by both the Germans and the Japaneses while the other one was captured only by the Germans.

Both were saying that Germans well-treated only pilots and high-ranking officers. They were rotten with under-officers and forced privates to work for them in factories or mines.

When they wanted to awake the prisoners, they were sending SS soldiers in the barracks who were ordered to awake them by striking them with their rifles.

However, they said that German veterans from WW I were cool with prisoners. While the WW II rookies were acting as sons of bitches.

The one who was captured by Japaneses also said that he prefered being captured by Germans instead of being captured by Japaneses.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 20, 2004)

The Japanese were absolutely horrid with their prisoners. And I wasn't meaning to imply that life in a Luftstalag was like summer camp. But there are several examples of compassion and chivalery from the Western Front. Compassion on the Eastern Front was a quick death.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 21, 2004)

On the Western Front there was a lot of respect between the two sides, but there was always going to be young arrogant ones who will abuse their power. I've read an interview with a Canadian Halifax pilot who was captured. He didn't have too bad of a time until a story got back to the camp that Canadians on the front had killed some Germans who had surrendered, so all the Canadians in the camp were treat like shit for the next few months. Tied up a lot of the day, and only released to eat, maybe walk around. 

You still have the people you get caught by. If you're lucky you'll get caught by a decent officer (like Rommel), and you'll be treat well. Or if unlucky you'll get caught by some arrogant shit and be treat like shit, or even killed there and then. We all know it happened, it was just a bit better on the Western Front, than the East. 

If Germany was full of Rommels and Guderians, it would have been a Gentlemens war. 8) But instead it was dominated by Hitlers, Heydrichs and Goebbels. 

Still there are countless acts of chivalry. I heard of a U-Boat coming to the surface to give a lifeboat food, blankets and water. And the lifeboat was from the ship it had just sunk. 
Rommel cut his own troops water rations to give more to the British PoWs. So the Germans weren't all bad, some were just fighting for their country. 

'We weren't fighting for Hitler, we were fighting for Prussia. We didn't care about the reason, we were convinced our country was in danger so we were the first to protect it' Heinz Guderian.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 21, 2004)

May be there were countless act of chivalery in the Western Front, but there were also a lot of coward acts !

I remember of a veteran speaking of around 125 Canadian prisoners being murdered at Caen.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 22, 2004)

There's also the infamous massacre at Malmedy during the Battle of the Buldge. 

But the relationship that developed between Badder and Galland is a good example of how things could be friendlier in the West. Galland later admitted that Badder had nearly talked him into flying a 109. Also, Marsielle twice flew through ground fire over a British field in Africa to drop a note conderning the fate of one of the British pilots.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 22, 2004)

Before we get into the massacres the Germans did against the Allies. We must remember how we kindly returned the favour. Over Dresden 1945.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 22, 2004)

Dresden was terrible, but I do see a distinction. They people of Dresden had not surrendered. The soldiers at Malmedy had. That may be a fine line but it is a line that exists.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 22, 2004)

... And the 125 Canadians murdered at Caen were not soldiers that surrendered during the Battle of Caen, they were soldiers captured during past Allied operations (like Dieppe or Monte Cassino (Italy)).


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 23, 2004)

Of course, the idea used to be that civilians didn't HAVE to surrender--they weren't supposed to be combatents in the first place. Before the war began, both Churchill and FDR very emphatically condemned the deliberate bombing of civilians. They used to think it was a bad thing to do...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 23, 2004)

Plus the fact we killed plenty of Germans who had surrendered on the field. A prisoner was a waste of resources, as long as you all recognise the Allies did it as well. It wasn't just the Germans who did it.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 7, 2004)

the african theater brought the best out of the pilot and plane.
i would like to try how was desert air engaments.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

> the african theater brought the best out of the pilot and plane



providing the engine wasn't full of sand...................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

And you didn't die from lack of water.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

or attack from the enemy...................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Or having your mother asking you home for dinner, and don't be late.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Aug 7, 2004)

Actually I reckon being captured by the soviets wouldn't have been too pleasent..............


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2004)

well there's an easy answer to that, don't get captured...................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Surrender isn't an option "victory or death" as the Soviets put it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 8, 2004)

if only sumone had told the italains and french that................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

Well for the French it would be "Not one step back". For the Italians "Victory or Death".


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 10, 2004)

I have been reading of the poor treatment that Flyers got from Germans or Russians, but the Japanese were in my opinion worse. They came to the point of easting POWs to gain strength and some thought it made better worriers. That is only a few officers in certine ares. But they even left their own troops cut off and forgoten. The hell boat POW ship are another good one. 

But ven in Japa there were some civil officers. The comander at Iwo Jima was one. He was nice to his men and to POWs was also just a great field comander. The Japs were nice to the Nurses they took at Bataan.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 10, 2004)

Willow, why is ur grammer so very bad???


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 11, 2004)

Sorry poor typeing and not reading what I write before I hit Submit. I will try to be better, this post was one of the more outstandingly poor.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 11, 2004)

As long as we can understand it, it's fine. 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 11, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Willow, why is ur grammer so very bad???



No les, why is YOUR grammar so bad?


How can you try to be so right when your errors are so, so apparent?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

This kid makes me laugh.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 12, 2004)

GrG, go fuck urself u retard... I abbreviate to make my life easier... 
Ur, u, xfer, xistor, urself... Duh...

Are u that stupid, or u just acting that way??? Or tryin to pick a fight??? I think its the latter...

I asked an honest question, because his typing was so obviously not typos.... Is it because of his age, or carpletunnel??? I was curious so i asked...

Next time u have any stupid moronic comments, just stick em up ur ass...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 12, 2004)

plan_D said:


> This kid makes me laugh.



Thanks.  

Anywho, I don't just mean in that post, I forgot to point that out.


Plus, you spelled "Grammar" wrong.

Don't give me any of that "that's the way it's spelt in the U.S." crap, because I live in the U.S. and just happen to be on vacation.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 12, 2004)

calm down les, if any administrators still posted on the site you could get kicked out for that.....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 12, 2004)

Both GrG and Les should calm down... 

...although, their arguing is making for good entertainment.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 12, 2004)

Thats called a typo meatball... But I guess since ur perfect, u have no idea what I'm talking about... 

A typo is when u accidently hit the wrong key, which produces a word that sometimes is not spelled as it should...

Examples for just u...
faggjt (faggot)
retasd (retard)
morln (moron)
idiod (idiot)

Hope this little lesson will help u understand how some of us non-perfect people live our lives...

"Anywho, I don't just mean in that post, I forgot to point that out."
Mind showin me where i show poor grammer in my posts???

And dont go talkin about complete sentences and crap.. I type fast and to the point...


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 13, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> GrG, go f**k urself u retard... I abbreviate to make my life easier...
> Ur, u, xfer, xistor, urself... Duh...
> 
> Are u that stupid, or u just acting that way??? Or tryin to pick a fight??? I think its the latter...
> ...


 example of humens at our best.i prefer to be a cockroche,


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 13, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Thats called a typo meatball... But I guess since ur perfect, u have no idea what I'm talking about...
> 
> A typo is when u accidently hit the wrong key, which produces a word that sometimes is not spelled as it should...
> 
> ...



Hmm.. Grammar?

"dont" "showin" ''i''

"Don't" "Showin' '' ''I''


You misspelled Grammar again.




Anyway, what a mature way to point out typos!

Adults are just so much more developed, hunh?


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 13, 2004)

Thanks for the nice read, now can we all relax and get back to our point. WE were at one time talking about the theater we would fly in. So my pick for today is back in the CBI, but with the AVG. Getting all I could out of the P-40. It did stand up nicely to the A6M. 

Les, is that better for you? PM me if you have any futher coments on typing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 13, 2004)

i really thunk we do need to calm down.....................


----------



## Maestro (Aug 13, 2004)

Yeah, Lanc is right. Don't you think it's going a bit far ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2004)

Mp, it wasnt a big deal, i was just curious how come there were so many mistakes... Thought u mighta been drunk or didnt speak english all that well...

And that was a very good post hehe...

I dont really believe the P-40 stood up evenly vs. the A6M... I think ur statement about getting all you could get outta the Warhawk is correct... All those pilots in the AVG did the same thing.... 

Not sure what the loss rate was for them...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

The official kill total for the AVG was 286 confirmed. Most historians think the total was far higher than that, however (perhaps twice that number). Combat losses amount to about 50 P-40s (I'm not sure about the exact number) but only 9 pilots.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

which is impressive................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

there were some problems with record keeping in those earliy days.... Alot of records were lost... 

Boyington claimed to have shot down six Japanese aircraft while with the Flying Tigers... However, AVG records were poorly kept, and were lost in air raids... To compound the problem, the U.S. Air Force does not officially recognize the kills made by the AVG, even though the Tigers were eventually absorbed into the Fourteenth Air Force, led by Major General Claire Chennault...
Thus, the best confirmation that can be obtained on Boyington's record with the AVG is that he scored 3.5 kills...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

For the A6M x P-40, If I remember correctly, the only advantage the P-40 had was altitude...

I have a War Quote!

"A P-400 (P-39) is a P-40 with a Zero on it!"


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

The P-40 had greater firepower (starting with the E model anyway). It was also better armored and (importantly) had a higher diving speed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 14, 2004)

but the zero could outmanouver it...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

That is true, but the P-40 had considerable success against the Zero.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 15, 2004)

i didn't deney that......................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 15, 2004)

I think with the AVG and the P-40 vs the Zero, that pilot quality made up for the Warhawks lack of performance... That and tactics...

Most, if not all, of the pilots that flew with the Tigers had some decent experience in the air...


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 15, 2004)

Pilot skill is very importent. But the AVG was flying against some of the best Japan had at the time.

AS for posting drunk, I have a few places, but not here, it is to risky to say the wrong thing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 15, 2004)

Found some interesting info on the P-40 vs the Zero, with a former AVG guy, Erik Shilling: Flying Tiger...

Kinda long but a good read...

The P-40B (Tomahawk IIA) flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .

Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none... Armor plate that would stop any bullets fired from a Japanese fighter... Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter's machine gun bullets... Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft... 
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 mph... Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350 mph...

None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's .30 and .50 caliber guns... It only required a few incendiary bullets, even from our .30 cal. guns, to set fire to, or explode their aircraft...

Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the newer model Me.109s and British Spitfires, however in every case, each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to its contemporary model P-40.
Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best fighter of the war?

Hell, it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting combat that had been used during of WW I. 

The most dangerous problem: 

Although avoidable, possibly the tumble the P-40 would get into if stalling in an extreme nose high attitude... It would start a tail slide, finally swapping end for end and go into a tumble taking as much as 12,000 feet to recover... Frank Shield got into a tumble while we were having a dog fight... Frank had to bail out.... He had not recovered control while only a scant 2000 feet still in a vertical dive... He entered the tumble at 10,000 feet... 

Thoughts on the Japanese pilots:

Japanese pilots were highly disciplined... Damn few were up to the standards of our pilots graduated from the American military school in the states... 
However, most Americans were using the wrong tactic through no fault of their own... Combat in all theaters turned in our favor, improving considerably once this was overcome...

How did the P-40 compare to the Japanese Zero:

Of all the fighter planes flown against the Japanese, the P-40 was the most under-rated airplane and the Japanese Zero was the most overrated.... Contrary to popular belief, the P-40's larger turning radius did not present a problem when understood, and proper tactics were used against the Japanese fighters.... Also its lower rate of climb could easily be overcome... 

The P-40 which was more than 40 mph faster than the Zero, could still climb at a speed that the zero was incapable of attaining... Pilots that tried to dogfight lost their lives... Whereas the hit and run tactic with a faster plane was the only way to fight the Hayabusa or Zero...

Erich Hartman, Germany's leading Ace with 352 victories said, "I always avoid the turning combat when ever possible. "In half of my victories," Hartman said, "the pilot was unaware he was under attack until he was being hit..." Hartman averaged 70 victories a year... Therefore, why is it so difficult for some Americans to believe that 82 AVG pilots destroyed 297 Japanese in a seven month period???

To put our victories in their proper prospective: If all the AVG pilots had been of Eric Hartman's caliber, we would have destroyed 3,052 airplanes in this 7 month period... Provided there had been enough Japanese airplanes available to shoot down... Now, 296 doesn't seem so terribly outstanding, as a matter of fact somewhat shabby...

The P-40s was 50 mph faster than the Hayabusa we called the I-97...
The P-40's top speed was 70 mph faster than the I-96, an early fixed geared Mitsubishi...
The P-40 was 130 mph faster than the Japanese bomber, and 130 mph faster in a dive than any fighter the Japanese had...
The P-40's pilot protection was in the form of self-sealing fuel tanks. Almost two - inch thick bullet proof armor plate windshields, and 9 mm and 7 mm armor plate protecting the pilot from behind...Also the P-40's armor plate could stop the bullets from any military aircraft the Japanese had in the China - Burma theater...

The most irritating:

One author, writing for the Smithsonian's Air Space magazine claims, "The Zero to be the most fabulous fighter to come out of the war..." Those making such statements are ill informed... They either never flew the Zero, never fought the Zero as it should have been, and most likely are not pilots, nor aeronautical engineers, so how the hell do they know...
Aviation buffs always come up with the statement that the Zero was more maneuverable than the P-40... Emphatically not true... Flown properly the P-40 was an outstanding fighter, especially in the Chinese theater of war...

Actually the P-40 was more maneuverable than the Zero... Unfortunately, those that claim otherwise do not know the definition of maneuverability as defined by Webster's dictionary...

1. To perform a movement in military or naval tactics in order to secure an advantage...
2. An intended and controlled variation from a straight and level
flight path in the operation of an aircraft...
3. To make a series of changes in direction and position for a specific purpose...
4. Evasive movement or shift of tactics...
5. To manage into or out of a position or condition...
6. To bring about or secure as a result of skillful management...

Interesting comments by Saburo Sakai about the Zero:

In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans leading living Ace, I asked, "Commander, what was the Zero's top speed?" His answer amazed me when he said, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph, and a maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph... It became extremely heavy on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll... A further comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle, causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed their wings in a dive..." A captured Zero tested by Americans military, showed its top speed to be 319 mph, this was a later model, the AM6M5, and was tested without guns or ammunition... Therefore Saburo Sakai's statement that the top speed of the A6M2 and A6M3 of 309 mph would seem to be correct...
Saburo Sakai, in an interview made on August 11, 1996, admitted that, after flying the P-51 he had changed his mind and now rated the Zero as number two, where as before he thought it was the best... He said, "the P-51 could do everything the Zero could do and more..." My comment to him would have been that it's too bad you never got the opportunity to fly the P-40...

Compare this to the P-40's 355 mph, and he the maximum allowable dive speed of 480 mph, (occasionally our pilots dove as fast as 510 mph) 130 mph faster than the Zero... The P-40's roll rate at 260 mph was 96 degrees per second, three times that of the Zero's mere 35 degrees at the same speed...

What proof is there that the AVG, in the beginning of the war, was the only outfit using proper tactics?:

The Americans were still using the suicidal "Dogfight," or turning combat... When the Lockheed P-38s were first introduced into the Pacific theater in 1943... Saburo Sakai says, "The Zeros were shooting them down in large numbers..." Although the Lockheed had a 100 mile per hour speed advantage, this is what happened when the airplane wasn't being used properly... Saburo further states, "When the Americans changed their tactic, the Zero pilots became fearful of the P-38, because they were decimating the Zeros..."
As early as September 1941 Chennault was teaching us to hit and run, requiring speed, which was the P-40's forte against the Japanese... When properly used, it outclassed the Japanese Zero in every respect... It took the American Military 2 more years, and the loss of several hundred American pilots, before they stumbled on the secret of successfully fighting the Japanese in the air...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 17, 2004)

Some great stuff thanks for sharing  It is more prove of what great stuff the AVG had and did, but the astablishmnt would not listen.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 18, 2004)

yeah about the drinking then posting, don't do it, one mistake and we'll be all over you..................


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 18, 2004)

but not in the sexual sence...........................


----------



## Maestro (Aug 18, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but not in the sexual sence...........................



Heh... You've just remembered me a weird thing that happened last winter, during the first week of February.

As you (may be) all know, I'm working at the Mont Ste-Anne ski station as a security officer. During the first week of February, we have a special event that we call : "British Holidays". For 8 days, many High-Schools from UK come here to ski. In that bunch of groups, 2 of them were from USA. (One was from New-York and the other was from (I think) Washington.)

In the middle of the week, while I was locking down the gondollas (around 10:00 PM), I met two girls (who were very, very cute and I thought they were between 16 and 19 years old) from one of the groups from USA. The first one told me that her friend forgot her bag in the gondolla # 69 (how could I forget this number ?) and that they couldn't come back tomorrow because they were leaving for USA over the night.

I asked them to follow me and I (with a lot of luck) spotted that gondolla 10 or 20 feets away from us. I oppened the doors and the girl took her bag.

The same night, around 11:00 PM, I was in the main "chalet" and I met a bouncer from the bar just upstair. He told me that one of the two girls I met at the gondollas (I exactly know who it was) get caught three times in three nights SCREWING in the corner of the bar's dance floor !

The weirdest thing was that all groups were from 12 to 17 years old. So not only was she caught in the act, but nor her or her friend were old enough to enter the bar ! (Majority in Québec is 18 years old.)

I know, may be I shouldn't speak of that here. But if it bother a staff member I apologize for that but it's only a little story I wanted to tell.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2004)

that's nothing on what a 12 year old told me she's done..................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 19, 2004)

Sadly acts like that are being done by young people all the time now. Why not wait! Say until you are atlest 18  or better untill you your married! I know that sounds oldfashioned and pruddish, but why not? 

Now lets all fly with the VVS and save Mother Russia


----------



## Maestro (Aug 19, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Sadly acts like that are being done by young people all the time now. Why not wait! Say until you are atlest 18  or better untill you your married! I know that sounds oldfashioned and pruddish, but why not?



I'm a little conservator, but I don't agree with you. I don't care how old you are, when or with who you do it. All I want is that you don't do it in public.

If a 15 year old girl want to do it with a 19 year old guy, who care ? I just don't want to see it ! What is (suposed to be) made in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom.

More importantly, if we had to wait untill wedding, I would never had done it ! I hate everything linked to religion(s). Religion is poison : that's the cause of 90% of all wars. If I was a king, I would "abolish" every religions... and have a harem... Like the Vikings : No religions, a lot of girls !


----------



## JCS (Aug 19, 2004)

> I hate everything linked to religion(s). Religion is poison : that's the cause of 90% of all wars.



I couldnt agree with you more on that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 19, 2004)

I couldn't agree with you less.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 20, 2004)

> If a 15 year old girl want to do it with a 19 year old guy, who care ?



and if a 12 year old had unprotected sex with a 16 year old??


----------



## Maestro (Aug 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > If a 15 year old girl want to do it with a 19 year old guy, who care ?
> 
> 
> 
> and if a 12 year old had unprotected sex with a 16 year old??



Well, if a guy isn't smart enough to protect what he got between his legs, it's HIS problem. Same thing for the girl, if she doesn't care about getting pregnant, it's HER problem.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

so you haven't got a problem with that??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

and all this is vastly contributing to the topic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 21, 2004)

of course it is, besides, you're the mod, it's your job to get us back................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 21, 2004)

no, im not a mod, im a "mod" 

ACHTUNG! GET BACK ON TOPIC NOW YOU SKIVEY LITTLE INFERIORS OR I SHALL oh forget it, im crap at this job


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 21, 2004)

Agreed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

See, im not always wrong


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

I will try to get this on track again...

Reading back, I dont see a real reply from me to this thread, so here is my take...

I would want to fly on the Russian Front and go against the Luftwaffe Greats such as Hartmann and Barkhorn and all the other Aces in JG53, and flying either a Lend-Lease Spitfire IX, or an La-7...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

That is a very appealing front to fly on for me too, however i think i would prefer to fly for the axis during the later years flying an FW-190D-9 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

AS far as the plane I would most like to fly, it would be the 190D-9, hands down...

But as far as the theatre, i think that going up against the Varsity of the Luftwaffe would be more appealing than flying against alot of green American and British pilots...

More of an accomplishment i think...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 22, 2004)

the plane i would most like to fly is a P-38 but they mainly flew in the pacific and the pacific doesnt appeal to me


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 22, 2004)

Pacific woulda been cool against the Allies... Really prove ur mettle against guys like McCampbell and Foss and McGuire and Bong...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 23, 2004)

i'd wanna be in a shiden if i was in the pacific...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 23, 2004)

A plane is only as good as the pilot flying it...

But I agree with you Lanc... There were several great planes the Japs put into the air, but I believe the Shiden was the best all around of them all...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 24, 2004)

Bah!


I prefer the Ki-84 "Frank"...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 24, 2004)

I disagree...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 24, 2004)

i'd have the shiden anyday................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2004)

> A plane is only as good as the pilot flying it...



and if the lanc was flying then he could be had by a guy with a BB gun shooting out the side of a tigermoth...

sorry, cheap shot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 22, 2004)

very cheap, we shall have to have some form of simulated dogfight sumday, naturally you'll be in a tigermoth with a BB gun, now the, what plane should i have...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 22, 2004)

simulated? chicken; i want a real one


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 24, 2004)

fine, you find someone willing to lend you a tiger moth, i'll get in contact with the BBMF...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

you have to fly it yourself, im imagining a tigermoth is easier to fly than a spit or hurricane (logic dictates a lanc would be silly in a dogfight)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Honestly even for someone who loves flying as much as myself I would not have wanted to fly in any theatre of WW2, I value my life too much but if I had to choose it would have been the European. I think the aircraft in that theatre were the greatest and with all the bad weather over Germany (and trust me the weather is horrible I fly in it almost everyday before my unit got sent to Iraq) you would get many days not being able to fly and get shot down.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

Where's Russia in this poll?  

Seriously, the ETO!

The PTO was miserable, especially for ground based units. Malaria and disintary were common... how'd you like to fly a combat mission when you cannot hold your shit? And if you get shot down and end up in the water, you get eaten by sharks or have your head chopped off by some Samuri wannabe! What fun!

North Africa was also pretty miserable. And both the PTO and to a close degree North Africa had another bad feature - NO WOMEN! 

Much better to be based in England or France or Germany and have a warm bed to sleep in, good food to eat, and women to....  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

The European was much better like I said.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

> Where's Russia in this poll?



I think that would kinda count as Europe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

Yeah I think russia would count as the european.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> > Where's Russia in this poll?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that would kinda count as Europe



No, the Eastern front was so far away from the Western front, and the combat conditions were so different, that it is not appropriate to count them as the same theater. Also, the Germans did not consider them as the same theater.

It was further from the Western front to the Eastern Front than it was from the Western Front to the Med. Front until the last few months of the war!

The Eastern Front should be a seperate choice.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

No the Russian front was part of the European Theatre. The Germans never pushed into the Asia part of "Eurasia". Trust me I know my European geography I lived in Germany my whole life and my grandfather fought on the east front and in Stallingrad. That is why the Germans called the West Front and the Ost Front.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No the Russian front was part of the European Theatre. The Germans never pushed into the Asia part of "Eurasia". Trust me I know my European geography I lived in Germany my whole life and my grandfather fought on the east front and in Stallingrad. That is why the Germans called the West Front and the Ost Front.



It's not a matter of geography, it's a matter of conditions. The E. Front was very different in climate and in the nature of combat. On the W. Front, most air combat was over 15,000 feet, often over 25,000 feet. On the E. Front, it was almost all below 15,000 feet. There was no strategic air war on the E. Front, where on the W. Front until D-Day, there was no tactical war, and after D-Day the strategic war still had the priority. The differences were like night and day.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Its still in Europe, therefore it in the European theatre...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

thank you cheddar


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 25, 2004)

Actually, part of Russia is considered part of Asia...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

The part where the fighting was done was in Europe though. Although I agree most of it is in Asia.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 26, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Its still in Europe, therefore it in the European theatre...



Again, I have to say this is arbitrary nomenclature. If there was a continental plate running down the middle of Germany this would then make it two seperate Theaters? What about the MTO? There is no contiental plate defining that theater from the ETO.

The Allies recognized 3 theaters: ETO, MTO and PTO.

The Germans recognized 3 fronts: West, East, Med.

The Russians recognized one front: West (Germany's East)

The Japanese were too confused to really recognize specific fronts, but they clearly had a China front, an IndoChina Front (Korea, Burma, Philapines), a Pacific Front (perhaps divided into 2 regions), and an Australian Front.

Generally I see 5 real fronts: ETO, MTO, Russian, PTO, China/Asia

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes Russia is in Eurasia because most of it is in Asia however the farthest part that Germany pushed into was the still in the European part and therefore it is the European theatre.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Exactly.


I just see the PTO, ETO and MTO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Same here and in the ETO there was the West Front and the East Front (Russia).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Yup 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 9, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> the plane i would most like to fly is a P-38 but they mainly flew in the pacific and the pacific doesnt appeal to me



The P-38 flew 130,000+ sorties and ran up a 2,500+ aircraft score. They also had some major problems - No heat in the cocpit at -50deg, the AAF cruise setting didn't keep the oil fluid/incorrectly formulated fuel caused engines to die and a very criticle lack of training hurt it's performance when escorting though they got the job done droping the bomber loss rate to the 4/5% range that it remained the rest of the war. The L model cleared all of the problems.

In late 44 and 45 they were attack aircraft too and kicked butt in both rols.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Indeed 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

It was a magnificant plane, not my fav but a magnificant plane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

i'd feel much safer in a mossie over Europe.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Dont think I would.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

s'up to you............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Well in a dogfight the P-38 was much better than the Mossie.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

agreed, unless it was at night............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Depends on the time of war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

I agree that I would feel much safer over the ETO. Most air engagements in the PTO were over water, so if you got shot down you still had to deal with sharks and drowning. If you got shot down over land, you had to deal with the damn jungle and everything in the jungle wants to kill not just the japs.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 12, 2004)

As has been proven, for fighter pilots and targets of opportunity, noting beats the Eastern Front and Mother Russias Soil.....


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 12, 2004)

I would prefer the european one, i think its one of the most important and complete theaters of the war. Some say that the Pacific had battles between carriers and warships, but Europe also had important ones like the attack by the British against the Italian Navy or the Battle against the Bismarck, besides the all well known dogfights and bombing missions, so i think europe will be my favorite one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2004)

And with the Bismark it was naval aviation that ultimatly doomed the Bismark. If it had not been for a torpedo from a British Swordfish striking the Bismark in its only real vunerable spot the rudder the British Fleet may have never caught up with the Bismark. As in all theaters though aviation played a very vital role.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2004)

Darkstalker said:


> I would prefer the european one, i think its one of the most important and complete theaters of the war. Some say that the Pacific had battles between carriers and warships, but Europe also had important ones like the attack by the British against the Italian Navy or the Battle against the Bismarck, besides the all well known dogfights and bombing missions, so i think europe will be my favorite one.



The attack on the Italian Navy was MTO, not ETO.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And with the Bismark it was naval aviation that ultimatly doomed the Bismark. If it had not been for a torpedo from a British Swordfish striking the Bismark in its only real vunerable spot the rudder the British Fleet may have never caught up with the Bismark. As in all theaters though aviation played a very vital role.



Yep, and then my uncle sunk it!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 14, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Yep, and then my uncle sunk it!



Oh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2004)

MTO, ETO same thing. For the Germans it was the West Front, The Ost Front and Afrika. But again that is the way I look at it. And dont tell me I am wrong. You look at it the way the US did, I look at the way the Germans did so I am not wrong and neither are you. So lets not get in a long argument the way we did in other threads because you have to tell people that they are wrong all the time RG_Lunatic.

The attack on the Italian Fleet at Taranto in the ETO: 

The Plan.
Though the actual idea of the attack was very simple, just fly into Taranto and torpedo the Italian fleet, the plan behind its execution was complex indeed. Six groups of British warships and four convoys of merchantmen were to have their movements co-ordinated in an operation that stretched from Gibraltar to the coasts of Greece and Turkey. There were five main tasks to be accomplished; the Mediterranean Fleet was to be reinforced by warships from England, a convoy would be pushed through to Malta, other convoys would take supplies to Greece and Crete, empty merchantmen would be brought back to Alexandria and Taranto would be attacked. A total of two aircraft-carriers, five battleships, ten cruisers, thirty destroyers, four armed trawlers and a large number of merchantmen would take part. The naval forces were arranged as follows:- 

Force A: Battleships Warspite, Malaya, Valiant, aircraft-carrier Illustrious, 2 cruisers and 13 destroyers. This force would cover convoy MW3 going to Malta, rendezvous with Force F, then detach Illustrious and 4 cruisers for the Taranto attack. 

Force B: Two cruisers (Ajax and Sydney) would take troops and supplies from Port Said in Egypt to Suda Bay in Crete. First Sydney, later Ajax would then join Force A. 

Force C: One cruiser (Orion) would take RAF supplies and personnel to Piraeus in Greece and then go on to Suda Bay. 

Force D: Battleship Ramilles, two anti-aircraft ships (Coventry and Calcutta) 13 destroyers, 2 armed trawlers and 1 minesweeper. Part of this force would help escort convoy MW3 to Malta and later ME3 to Alexandria. 

Force F: Battleship Barham, 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers (3 more destroyers were temporarily attached from Force H). This force consisted of reinforcements for the Mediterannean Fleet. 

Force H: Aircraft-carrier Ark Royal, cruiser Sheffield and 5 destroyers sailing out of Gibraltar would escort Force F as far as the island of Malta. 

The merchant ships were gathered into four convoys:- 
Convoy AN6: Three merchantmen and two armed trawlers were to take petrol and bunker fuel from Port Said to Greece. 
Convoy MW3: From Alexandria, five ships to Malta and two to Suda Bay, Crete. 
Convoy ME3: Four empty, fast transports returning from Malta 
Convoy AS5: Empty merchantmen returning from Greece and Turkey to Egypt. 

Though a highly complicated series of movements needing great co-ordination, the very complexity caused great confusion within Supermarina, the Italian Naval Command, and at no point did the Italians have a clear picture of what was going on. This confusion was compounded by the striking lack of success of Italian aerial reconnaisance. Although their pilots often flew with courage and determination, their planes were generally obsolescent and no match for the radar directed British Fulmar fighters sent up from the carriers to intercept them. 

The Take Off.

On the afternoon of November 10th, 1940, HMS Illustrious, four cruisers and four destroyers detached from forces A and F and steamed north-east in the direction of the Greek island of Cephalonia. A further force of three cruisers was to make a series of diversionary attacks on Italian shipping in the waters between Italy and Albania. At 9.00PM on the evening of the following day at a point not far from the western end of Cephalonia, Illustrious turned into the wind and began to launch her planes. A mere 21 Swordfish were available to the British that night and they were launched in two waves with a little over an hour separating them. The first wave was led by Lt. Commander K. Williamson and consisted of six torpedo armed Swordfish, four more armed with either bombs or a mix of flares and bombs and two carrying only flares. The Swordfish carried a crew of two that night, a pilot and an observer, the normally carried gunner being left behind in favour of a large auxiliary petrol tank that was located next to the observer. The first wave took off uneventfully and slowly climbing, the planes straining under the weight of weapons and extra fuel, headed for Taranto. At first they flew through thick clouds and all flying was done by instrument, then after about 30 minutes in the air and at about 7,000ft they arrived above the clouds into a clear sky lit by a crescent moon. It must have been bitterly cold in the open cockpits of the Swordfish as they rumbled on their way but the aircrew probably didn't complain, they knew where they were going was sure to be very hot indeed. 

Although the Italians had no radar they did have a fairly effective accoustic early warning system that detected the noise of aero-engines at quite long distances and the Royal Navy aircrew knew they had no chance of achieving complete surprise. Taranto was a heavily defended anchorage, its defenders at wartime readiness levels, well trained and with plenty of ammunition. Around the harbour the Italians had positioned a formidable array of anti-aircraft weapons. There were 21 batteries of four inch guns, 84 anti-aircraft cannon of 20-37mm in calibre and 109 machine guns. Complementing the land-based guns were 22 large searchlights capable of either illuminating planes for the guns or dazzling attacking pilots and spoiling their aim. Originally, 90 barrage balloons had been deployed across the harbour in three rows. Tethered by steel cables which could shear the wings off unwary planes, they considerably reduced an attackers room for manoeuvre. Luckily for the British a lack of hydrogen had meant that only 30 balloons could be deployed on the night. The British pilots, however, were unaware of this. Apart from the land-based guns, the British had to contend with the guns of the Italian fleet. There were 6 battleships, 7 cruisers and 28 destroyers in the inner and outer harbours of Taranto and together they mustered more than 600 anti-aircraft weapons. As a final defense 4,600 yards of heavy steel-mesh anti-torpedo nets were slung across much of the harbour. The British had their work cut out. 

The First Wave.
By the time the first wave reached Taranto, the air-raid sirens had already sounded three times. The first two had been false alarms but they ensured that everyone in the harbour was wide awake when the British planes arrived. One Swordfish had lost contact with the other planes just after take off and had reached Taranto thirty minutes before the others. The pilot Lt. H.Swayne circled the target until the others caught up, his movements provoking the Italian guuners into frenzied attempts to bring him down. As the remainder of the first wave approached they could see the sky above Taranto criss-crossed with tracer fire and the bursts of heavy anti-aircraft guns. Into this cauldron they flew their fabric covered biplanes. The first planes into action were the flare carriers who dropped a line of magnesium parachute flares over the harbour, illuminating the Italian ships for the torpedo planes. Then came Lt. Com. Williamson's Swordfish. Approaching from the west he turned south-east as he flew over San Pietro Island, barely missing a ballon cable as he came up on Conti di Cavour and dropped his torpedo from a height of thirty feet. As he banked away his Swordfish was hit by machine gun fire and crashed into the sea. Both Williamson and his observer survived and were captured by the Italians. His torpedo just missed a destroyer and went on to hit the Cavour about halfway between the bridge and the B turret. Water poured into the stricken ship and she began to sink. Two more Swordfish flew a similar course to Williamson but slightly to the north. Both loosed their torpedoes at the Cavour, but both missed. The two planes turned and flew through the anti-aircraft fire unscathed. The fourth plane to make its run came in over San Pietro Island and then dived to the right, between the city of Taranto and a line of anchored cruisers that blazed away at him as he passed. He saw the Littorio in front of him and at a thousand yards from the ship dropped his torpedo. The torpedo struck home and the Littorio's starboard bow was torn by a 49ft by 32ft hole. Lt. Swayne, the pilot who had arrived early, now made his run. He came at the Littrio from the other side and 400 yards out dropped his torpedo. It struck the Littorio on the port quarter and opened a hole 23ft by 5ft. After two hits in such quick succession the Littorio started to go down. The last torpedo armed Swordfish in the first wave was piloted by Lt. M. Maund. He came in from the north-west, jinking and jerking as much was possible with a full load of weapons, desperately trying to avoid the ferocious fire of the Italian gunners who had already seen three torpedoes find their targets. 1,300 yards ahead Maund saw what was probably the Vittorio Veneto and he released his torpedo. The Swordfish, lightened by the dropping of the torpedo, leapt forward and at maximum speed raced through the anti-aircraft fire and out to the the safety of the open sea. The torpedo missed. The results from the four bomb carrying planes were disappointing. Although all four pilots daringly pressed home their attacks, two completely missed their targets and one landed a bomb on an Italian destroyer only for the bomb to fail to explode. The fourth pilot Sub. Lt. W. Sara dropped his bombs on the hangars of the Italian seaplane base causing great destruction. 

Barely 40 minutes after they had arrived the first wave, for the loss of one plane, had hit two battleships and the seaplane base and turned back home to the Illustrious. Now it was the turn of the second wave. 

The Second Wave.

The second wave of nine Swordfish was led by Lt.Commander 'Ginger' Hale and it had an unlucky start. As the final two planes, L5F and L5Q, were taxiing on the flight deck their wings happened to lock and despite the best efforts of the fitters and riggers to separate them, L5F suffered torn fabric on the wing and a broken strut. L5Q appeared to be undamaged and it took off. L5F was taken down to the hangar deck where a team of riggers tried to repair the damage in time for the plane to join the raid. L5Q, however, had been damaged and in the excitement of the moment this had escaped notice. A few miles from Illustrious, the auxiliary petrol tank fell off and the engine cut out. The pilot was able to restart the engine but had no choice but to return to the carrier where enthusiastic gunners on the escorting cruisers almost shot him down. After withdrawing and firing a recognition flare he was able to land safely. Meanwhile L5F had been repaired in just over 20 minutes, had taken off and was now flying for Taranto. Around midnight, 30 minutes after the last plane of the first wave had turned for home, Lt. Comdr. Hale and his seven planes appeared over Taranto. The Italians had heard them coming and they were met by a hail of anti-aircraft fire that was, if anything, more intense than that which had greeted the first wave. Again the flare-carrying planes went in first and again the harbour was lit up in a magnesium glow. The planes had carried a mix of flares and bombs and after lighting the harbour with their 24 magnesium flares they flew over the Italian oil storage tanks onto which they dropped their bombs. The oil storage depot started to burn. Hale came in next flying over to the north shore of the harbour and then turning south-east towards the line of battleships. From a height of 30ft and 700 yards out, Hale dropped his torpedo at the Littorio. Sharply turning and climbing Hale somehow managed to avoid the anti-aircraft fire and barely missed the cable of a barrage balloon. He headed back out to sea. His torpedo hit the Littorio blowing a third massive hole in her side. Hale was followed by the Swordfish piloted by Lt. G. Bayley and his observer Lt. H. Slaughter. As they flew over the Italian cruisers they disappeared, probably victims of anti-aircraft fire. The following day Bayley's body was recovered from the sea. There was no trace of Slaughter. The Swordfish of Lt. Lea attacked next and after turning a full circle in which to lose height he came in very low. He saw the Duilio ahead of him dropped his torpedo and hit the battleship 30 feet below the waterline. A hole 36ft by 40ft was opened in her hull. Lea's Swordfish sped away just above the surface of the harbour and as he passed between the cruisers Fiume and Zara, the two ships fired on each other in their eagerness to bring him down. The crew of the Duilio ran her aground on a beach to stop her sinking. The remaining two Swordfish made torpedo runs on the Veneto, neither scoring a hit although one of the pilots remembered flying over an anti-aircraft barge so close he could feel the heat from the guns' muzzle blasts. The other aircraft had one of its ailerons shot to pieces and a hole about 3ft by 1 1/2ft blown in the lower wing. Only the legendary, in this case miraculous, sturdiness of the Swordfish was able to bring the plane safely back to the Illustrious. As the planes of the second wave were heading for home L5F, the aircraft damaged in the flightdeck collision, appeared. This Swordfish was piloted by Lt. E. Clifford and armed with bombs. Clifford aided by the light of the burning seaplane hangars, spotted the cruiser Trento and made a dive-bombibg attack from 2,500ft. None of his six bombs exploded, though one hit the Trento and ruptured her oil tanks from the force of the impact. Clifford also departed unscathed. 

Back on Illustrious, everyone nervously waited. Carrier deck landings are fraught with danger at the best of times, but at night with combat fatigued pilots and possible anti-aircraft fire damage were even more so. The arranged rendezvous time was 1.00am, but the Illustrious was ordered to withdraw if any threat were detected from Italian submarines, aircraft or surface units. It was quite possible that the Swordfish might make their way to the rendezvous and find their deck had gone. One o'clock came and went with no sign of the Swordfish on the carrier's radar screens. The crew waited in silence. Then almost 15 minutes later the first blip appeared on the screen, then another and another. At 1.20 the first of the first wave successfully landed and was followed by all the other planes of the first wave save that of the flight leader, shot down over Taranto. By the time the first wave had been recovered Hale and the second wave had arrived and were waitng their turn to land. All landed safely, the last to land being L5F, which had been the last to take off. 

The Aftermath.

The cost in human life had been surprisingly light and nothing compared to some of the other great naval engagements of the war. The Royal Navy had lost two men killed and two more taken prisoner-of-war. The Italians had lost a total of 40 men; one on the Duilio, sixteen on the Conti di Cavour and twenty-three on the Littorio. The Littorio was to be out of action for five months, the Duilio for six months, and the Conti di Cavour was still being repaired when Italy surrendered. The Trento was out of commission for months from the damage of the single unexploded bomb. Perhaps as important as the physical damage done to the Italian warships was the psychological damage. Taranto, the main offensive base of the Royal italian Navy had been shown to be insecure. The day after the raid Supermarina ordered the Vittorio Veneto and the Giulio Cesare to sail north for the port of Naples, where they would be safer. They would also be so far away from the important sealanes as to pose almost no threat to the British. The Italian fleet did fight other actions against the British, the largest being at Cape Matapan, but the raid on Taranto effectively ended any hope the Italians had of actually turning the Mediterranean into the Mare Nostrum so beloved of Fascist propaganda. For the Royal Navy it had been a good night's work.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2004)

Please everyone dont think the part about "Dont tell me I am wrong in the last post I made was inteaded for all of you" It was only inteaded for one person who always tells me I am wrong. So if it is not you, please dont take offense to that comment.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2004)

It depends on when. In 1942, the Germans considered the Med. a different front. After early 1943, they did not.

Given that the Allied forces operating in the Med were entirely seperated from those in the West, I think it is valid to consider it a different front. Certainly in the context of this thread, the Med. and E. Front are different from the W. Front, as they dictate different combat tactics and altitudes, different enemy units, and different living conditions.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 14, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, and then my uncle sunk it!
> ...



Admiral John C. Tovey, credited with having sunk the Bismark. My Uncle twice removed (ie: our common relation is my Mom's great-great grandparent) on my Mother's side.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 14, 2004)

Interesting fact.........

RG, i agree that the Med should be considered a seperate front...


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 14, 2004)

I've read the story before but I still like it!!! I love swordfish!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2004)

Whether the med front was a different front of the ETO all depends on whether you look at it from the German point of view or the Allied point of view. If you look at from the German no it was not different, if you look at it from the Allied yes it was. Since I look at it from the German point of view then I am wrong because RG_Lunatic says so.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 15, 2004)

Yup....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

> Admiral John C. Tovey, credited with having sunk the Bismark.



do you mean he dropped the torp from the swordfish?? 2 things, no-one can prove who dropped the torp that crippled it, it's known to have come from one of two aircraft, secondly the torp didn't sink the ship, it only dissabled the rudder, she was finished off by the royal navy later onn............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 15, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Admiral John C. Tovey, credited with having sunk the Bismark.
> 
> 
> 
> do you mean he dropped the torp from the swordfish?? 2 things, no-one can prove who dropped the torp that crippled it, it's known to have come from one of two aircraft, secondly the torp didn't sink the ship, it only dissabled the rudder, she was finished off by the royal navy later onn............



No I mean that he was in charge of the fleet that sunk the Bismark, and was officially recognized by the crown for having done so.

Of course I know it's silly, it was a combine effort and there was a huge amount of luck involved. I was really just kind of making a joke. I think it is absurd that the British credited one man with having "sunk the Bismark".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 15, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Whether the med front was a different front of the ETO all depends on whether you look at it from the German point of view or the Allied point of view. If you look at from the German no it was not different, if you look at it from the Allied yes it was. Since I look at it from the German point of view then I am wrong because RG_Lunatic says so.



Poor Alder, he's being picked on again by the big bad Lunatic  

Seriously, it is a matter of terminology. You say the German's considered it the same front. Well, that is only true after 1943, prior to that Africa was a seperate theater, even for the Germans.

To me the more rational way to look at it is by unit deployments. I consider the MTO different than the ETO (West) because the Allied units were entirely different and the Axis units were mostly different and had to be shifted from one to the other. Living conditions were different, occupied nations were different, units were different - to me that means different theaters. To you Alder, well you just want to go by however the Germans defined things, and for political reasons they didn't want to admit they were fighting a 3 front war.

So by your defintion, there was only the ETO and PTO right? Jeeze talk about limiting the discussion. For purposes of this discussion doesn't it make sense to break the areas of the war up into as many different areas as possible?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

No if you read the posts I said earlier I said there was the ETO, PTO and Afrika. Secondly I do not look at everything from the German side. I only look at the German side of things when it makes sense to me as a German. I also give credit to the US and the British. I am not making them out to be inferior or anything, hell they one the war! You can not say that I only say these things because I am German. I happen to be an American citizen and have been so for a number of years now and am proud of that. I just dont like being told I am wrong for something that I am not. If you had actually read the post I said there was the ETO, PTO and Afrika. The Germans had the West Front, the Ost Front, and Afrika. Also I would hope you know that most of the "Med Theatre" as you call it is in Europe which is why the Germans classifed it in either the ETO or the Afrika Theatre depending on where you are talking about. If you are talking about Italy and mainland Europe it is the ETO if you are talking about Malta, Krete and below it is Afrika. I never said you were wrong in what you said I just said I consider it the way the Germans did, now is that wrong?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

excuse me it was won the war not one the war


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

And I have to rephase something in my post about the most of the med theatre being in Europe. That did not come out the way I wanted to post it. The northern part of the "Med Theatre is in Europe", The southern part is in North Africa. Therefore I consider the so called "Med Theatre" either the ETO or the Afrika theatre.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

I agree there - I was just about to point that out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

It just makes sense to me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

Yep.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

I am not saying that he is wrong but it is not how I see it.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 16, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not saying that he is wrong but it is not how I see it.



I understand how you see things. Please try to see how I see things.

I don't really care what the official classifications were in answering this poll question. To me what matters is the conditions faced by the pilots involved. With this criteria, there were a lot more "theaters" than just the 3-5 typically considered. With respect to the MTO, prior to the Allies capturing Rome, conditions for the pilots of both sides were very different than those stationed on the what we call the Western Front (France). The planes were usually not quite as advanced, fighting altitudes were generally lower, and living conditions were different.

The same holds true for the Pacific. It is hard to consider the conditions of the USN's fight against the IJN to have been the same as those of the USAAF's fight against the IJA in Burma and China. There was some overlap, but these were really very different conditions in many respects.

So, for purposes of this particular poll question, I think it makes sense to divide the theaters up as much as reasonably possible, not to reduce them as a matter of nomenclature w.r.t. any one sides official point of view.

That's my opinion, and like your's, it is neither wrong nor right. I just think it is more "reasonable" w.r.t. this particular poll question.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 16, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> excuse me it was won the war not one the war



You realize you can edit your own posts right?


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2004)

One of the reasons I really like this site is that everyone is allowed to have an opinion. The thing about aircraft is that there are points that are and will renain sudjective. like the toughest fighter there are aircraft that went down the reason of which we will never know. Ie. how many P-38 went down to bad fuel or improper proceedures - a great many - and not due to the aircraft or how many went down because the attacking aircraft was never seen. Don't take the opposing views personaly I'm shure its not ment that way.

Sorry for sticking my nose in!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 16, 2004)

On the of which theater: I don't know my aircraft choises limit me a little P-38, F-4U, B-25. The ugly fact that no one had any choices in the matter is there too. The ETO was the safest from the stand point that it was best to be a POW than swim with the sharks and a lot of pilots that served in both the PTO and the ETO thought the PTO was hardest and the foe was better (a grain of salt here, most of those fought in the PTO first and fought the best Japenese and the worst Germans) and last the base conditions were much better in the ETO.

Of course no fighter pilot ever thought anything bad could happen to him/her! Probably the ETO.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

No problem wmaxt, that is what this forum is about. RG_Lunatic I do understand what you are saying and again like I said before you are not wrong. I just see things differently. As for the editing my own posts, ofcourse I know that I am not stupid, I just did not catch it before I hit submit. LOL


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

No there is a way to edit after posting it - if you view your post, you will see the buttons "quote" and "EDIT", among a couple of other things. Click that to edit it 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

OH okay that I did not know, but cool will have to use that from now on. I thought he was saying edit it before I click send.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Ok 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

no prob thanks for looking out for me


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No problem wmaxt, that is what this forum is about. RG_Lunatic I do understand what you are saying and again like I said before you are not wrong. I just see things differently. As for the editing my own posts, ofcourse I know that I am not stupid, I just did not catch it before I hit submit. LOL



Ummm... i don't understand, you can just then hit the "edit" button and fix it.

Please don't take this as me saying your "stupid". It's easy to miss features of this kind of forum, the "edit" button only appears next to the "quote" button of your own posts. I used to run a couple of phpBB's, so I'm very familiar with it's formats.

Edit: Ooops I see someone has already directed you to the edit button  

<--- note to self: read all posts in thread before replying.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

no problem, thanks anyhow


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

what i find easiest RG is to go back to you last post and read every post from there, you don't miss anything then..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

I think everyone does that, but sometimes when ypuread a post you get outraged by it or you want to be the first to answer a question, so naturally you stop reading on and reply to the post that you are interested in in the first place.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Yeah I do that sometimes, just answer to one that I am reading without quoting or replying to that post and then I realize that there were like 20 more posts after that.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

I've done it too.  
Ah, the magic of the "quote" button!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

I just get really interested in one post and forget about the others sometimes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

You can also "fake" quotes, example:



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> best be off, i got a whole herd of sheep that need a damn good seeing to.............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

It's a pretty dirty thing to do, though!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

I know  But when used in moderation it is a good laugh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Yeah it does sound like fun if not used to much.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

It'll be another couple of months before I do that again 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Well it cant be too obvious either.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Nope. I havent done that in ages actually...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Never have, did not know you could.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

OH well.

Back to the topic, I would have liked to fly in the ETO, purely because if you got shot down the chances of surviving were much higher. If I had to say which plane, Probably a Fiat G.50 in 1941 over Italy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Depends on whether you were Allied or German and where you got shot down at. German POW camps were not vacation resorts. They were by far nothing like Japanese ones though. As for the Fiat G.50 I dont know about that. It was not a very good aircraft.

Freccia" stands for "Arrow", and is a typical name for wishful thinking or ignorance on behalf of the enemy's capabilities. It was the first all-metal low-set monowing fighter with retractable main gear of the Italian airforce. It was an intermediate design with a semi open cockpit, and meant to be a compromise between a short-range lightly armed defensive fighter, a medium range fighter-bomber, and a long-range fighter. Also, the fighter had to adopt a radial engine because the Italian Air Ministry had declared that all fighters be fitted with one, since there were no powerfull Vee engines built in Italy itself.
By the time the first prototype was ready, the G.50 was matched against a contemporary design: the Macchi MC.200 Seatta. The design of the Seatta had started later, and wasn't compromised to death, naturally it won the contest. Even so, the Italians by now realised that they needed fighters in numbers, and because the production lines of the G.50 were in their place and starting up, they still ordered the aircraft. 

The Freccia was exported to Finland (9 G.50 Serie I, 26 G.50bis) and Croatia (5 G.50bis), and was used in the campaigns against France, Greece, during the Battle of Britain, and in the North African theatre. In France it did moderately well, because the Italians were carefull not to use it against french fighters. During the Battle of Bratain it never encountered english fighters, saving them probably from a certain doom. In Greece, at last, they saw real combat against Gloster Gladiators (bi-wing aircraft), and had more losses than victories. Only after the Fiat CR.42 was mixed with the G.50's the Italians made progress. In the North African theatre, finally, they also were outclassed considerably by the Hawker Hurricane and the Gloster Gladiator.

Strengths:


Good structural strength 
Excellent handling 
Excellent maneuverability 

Weaknesses:


Low/Medium speed 
Low/Medium climb rate 
Insufficient armament


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

For what it was though I think the Regia Aeronautica managed to utilise them extremely well though. The G.50 has always been a favourite of mine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Yeah but to have more losses then victories against Gloster Gladiators. The Gladiator might have had good performance for a bi-plane but against a single engine fighter it should not have stood a chance.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

The Gladiator was actually a superb plane. More than a match for planes such as the G.50, due to their manoeverability.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

Okay but the G.50 was nothing more than a second rate aircraft. In my opinion atleast.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> First flown in 1934, and introducted into service in 1937, the Gloster Gladiator was developed from the Gauntlet biplane fighter. Even when it was introduced the design was being eclipsed by the new generation of monoplane fighters, such as the Spitfire
> 
> Supermarine Spitfire Mk. Vc
> Spitfire Mk.V Trop
> ...



*Gloster Gladiator*

Role Fighter 
Crew 1 pilot 
First Flight 
Entered Service 
Manufacturer 
Dimensions 
Length 27 ft 5 in 8.4 m 
Wingspan 32 ft 3 in 9.8 m 
Height 11 ft 7 in 3.2 m 
Wing area 323 ft² 30 m² 
Weights 
Empty 3,444 lb 1,560 kg 
Loaded 4,864 lb 2,205 kg 
Maximum takeoff lb kg 
Capacity 
Powerplant 
Engines One Bristol Mercury VIII AS 
Power 850 hp 630 kW 
Performance 
Maximum speed 257 mph at 14,600 ft 414 km/h at 4,500 m 
Combat range miles km 
Ferry range 444 miles 710 km 
Service ceiling 33,500 ft 10,200 m 
Rate of climb 2220 ft/min 670 m/min 
Wing loading lb/ft² kg/m² 
Thrust/Weight 
Power/Mass hp/lb kW/kg 
Avionics 
Avionics 
Armament 
Guns Four x 0.303 (7.7 mm) Browning machine-guns |-


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

CC a bi-plane will never beat a monoplane assuming both pilots know what they're doing.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Pretty much all "modern WW2" monoplane aircraft far outclassed any bi-plane. That is why pretty much every airforce adopted the supiorior mono plane and ditched bi-planes by 1941.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

exactily..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

I know, but im just saying that the performance stats of the Gladiator and the G.50 were pretty similar. I realise that the G.50 was a poor plane but I am saying the Italians utilised them very effectively. The Gladiator was one of the final biplanes so the biplane concept will be reaching its pinnacle and the design will be very advanced. However with the G.50 being one of the first monoplanes it will have many teething problems.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Not to put the Italians down or anything but they did not come up with very many good aircraft designs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

and bi-plane design wasn't that advanced.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2004)

nope, the Gloster Gladiator may have been advanced for a bi-plane but it did not stand a chance against fighters like the Me-109, Fw-190 and so forth.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not to put the Italians down or anything but they did not come up with very many good aircraft designs.



No they didnt. But they were good pilots. ALthough when they did make a good design, boy oh boy it was good. The the Reggiane Re-2005 for example. Its widely regarded as the best Italian single seat fighter, and some sources say the best fighter of the war. Going a little far there maybe, but undersatndable.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 20, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> No they didnt. But they were good pilots. ALthough when they did make a good design, boy oh boy it was good. The the Reggiane Re-2005 for example. Its widely regarded as the best Italian single seat fighter, *and some sources say the best fighter of the war.* Going a little far there maybe, but undersatndable.



You should tell your sources to stop smoking weed...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I will have to go against those that say it was the best fighter of the war. Though it was competitive with other designs such as the Spitfire, P-51, Me-109, and Fw-190 I still dont think it was better. I will not argue that fact thought that it might have been Italy's best design. I dont know eneough about it to argue that. It certainly was not a bad aircraft. The fact that it was powed by a Daimler Benz DB-605 may have helped it out though.

Engine One 1,475 hp Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 V-12 inline liquid-cooled piston. 
Dimensions: Span: 36 ft 1 in / 11 m. 
Length: 28 ft 7 3/4 in / 8.73 m. 
Height: 10 ft 4 in / 3.15 m. 
Wing area: 219.58 sq ft / 20.4 m2. 
Weights: Empty: 5,732 lb / 2,600 kg. 
Maximum: 7,960 lb / 3,610 kg. 
Max speed: 6,560 ft / 2,000 m: 421 mph / 678 kph 
13,120 ft / 4,000 m: 351 mph / 565 kph
22,800 ft / 6,950 m: 421 mph / 678 kph 
22,965 ft / 7,000 m: 421 mph / 678 kph 
Cruise speed: 320 mph / 515 kph 
climb rate: Time to 6,560 ft / 2,000 m: 1 min 55 sec 
13,120 ft / 4,000 m: 4 min 28 sec 
19,685 ft / 6,000 m: 5 min 
Service ceiling: 37,730 ft / 11,500 m 
Range: 609 miles / 980 km. 
Crew one 
Armament: 
Two 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns with 350 rounds each in upper engine cowling. 
One 20 mm Mauser MG 151 cannon with 150 rounds firing through propellor hub. 
Two 20 mm Mauser MG 151 cannon with 200 rounds each in wings. 
Up to 2,200 lb / 1,000 kg bomb or fuel tank under fuselage. 
Two wing hardpoints for 353 lb / 160 kg of bombs or fuel tanks. 

Here is a brief History of Re-2005:

it had exceptional flying charaterisics ,very powerful armament and exceptional handling.It was "the fighter" but it was limited by a slow production during the war, also due to the american bombing runs over the Reggiane factory.
However the Re 2005 could fight in the most difficult and important scenario of the Italian war ,giving evidence to its good qualities.To evaluate how the Re 2005 was considered from pilots who flew it , it can be used the sentence of General Vittorio Minguzzi :"all the series 5 fighters (Macchi 205,Fiat G55 and Re 2005) were competitive with the best aliies fighters, including Mustang and Spitfire IX,each one getting in evidence for a particular flight character.The Re 2005 in particular is the best in handling at high altitudes".
The Reggiane Re 2005 Sagittario was the ultimate refinement of a series of fighters which started with the Re 2000 Falco I and continued with the Re 2001 Ariete I and Re 2002 Ariete II.The 2005 was a turn round in the Reggiane airplanes,an occasion offered by the avaiability of the new engine Daimler-Benz DB-605 capable of producing 1475 HP.The Reggiane technical staff leaded by Ing.Alessio and Ing.Longhi devoted itself with much resolve to the realization of the new fighter and the result was of great excellence.The complete d machine had little in common with the other planes of the Reggiane fighter series.The wing structure and the empennages were retained ,while the fuselage,undercarriage,wing profiles and armament were completely new.The construction of the first prototype was started in October 1941 and completed at the end of 1942.After the first flights the prototype was sent to the Experimental Air Force Centre of Guidonia,where some modifications were requested and the Re 2005 proved to have better performance than the others series 5 fighters, with a top speed of 678 km\h at 2000 m.
The Air Force ordered 750 Reggiane, but only few were produced.A series was produced also for the Luftwaffe.
In May of 1943, the first Sagittarios entered service with the Regia Aeronautica. The first prototype and several of the zero series aircraft were used operationally by the 362a Squadriglia, 22o Gruppo at Naples-Capodichino starting in May 1943, being used to defend Rome and Naples. The squadron had developed a rather daring method of attacking Allied B-17s which involved diving head-on with all guns blazing, then flipping the aircraft over on its back and diving away at the last minute.The Reggiane had good behaviour in close dogfight and , according to General Minguzzi, who flew both Re 2005 and Spitfire, was even better than the Spit in tight turns and handling.The operative life of the Sagittario was concluded by the Armistice , that came in the September 1943. 
Re 2005 was used also in R.S.I. (Italian fascist Social Republic-costituited in the north of italy after Allies invasion)with good result and by luftwaffe.About Luftwaffe's use of the Sagittario many say that it was used to defend Bucharest and Berlin; their fate thereafter being unknown.At least one Re 2005 was captured by the U.S., and the fuselage of one Re 2005 survives in the Museo Aeronautico Caproni di Taledo in Milano, been restored by GAVS.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

But again it was certainly not the best fighter of the war and even if they had produced more would not have made an impact for the axis. Especially not with Me-109G's and K's and Fw-190's.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> But again it was certainly not the best fighter of the war and even if they had produced more would not have made an impact for the axis. Especially not with Me-109G's and K's and Fw-190's.



I don't know, the armament looks pretty good to me. I'm assuming it had a total of 3 x 20mm cannon, not 5 as the info presented above would imply?

Weak firepower was a real issue for the 109 later in the war. One 20mm and two relatively weak machine guns was weak armament by 1943. 109's carrying guns in pods were greatly diminished for anything but bomber attack.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

Yes but the Re-2005 was certainly not the best fighter the Axis built.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but the Re-2005 was certainly not the best fighter the Axis built.



Well, of course not. For all practical purposes, I think that honor has to go to the FW190 Dora9, as later models saw too small a production to be significant, and the air-cooled FW's lacked the necessary speed and high altitude performance, and the Bf109's were obsolete by 1943.

Another failing of the Nazi gangster mentality was that Messershmitt was in tighter with the Nazi's than Tank/FW, so even though in 1943 and 1944 the FW was clearly the superior fighter, Bf109's were ordered to the maximum capacity of the Messershmitt company to produce, and FW's were ordered to "fill the gap" between this number and what the RLM required. Had this been reversed, the German's would have done much better.

The FW's were not only better fighters than the 109's, they were also a better attack planes. If the Luftwaffe' could have traded 3 Bf109's for 2 FW190's it would have been better off for the trade.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

Now I am not going to argue that later Fw-190s were better aircraft but I dont think you can say that that later Me-109s were obsolete. The G and K were just as good as there allied counterparts. To say that the G and the K were obsolete is saying that the later Spitfires were obsolete which they certainly were not.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Now I am not going to argue that later Fw-190s were better aircraft but I dont think you can say that that later Me-109s were obsolete. The G and K were just as good as there allied counterparts. To say that the G and the K were obsolete is saying that the later Spitfires were obsolete which they certainly were not.



Well, I think it is clear these later 109's were inferior to their Allied opponents and to the FW's of the same period. By the 109G, the plane was no longer handling well. The 109K was a fast climber but it was inferior to the Allied planes in every other aspect. The 109 series peaked in the Bf109F-2 and after that it went downhill, the airframe was just too old and was being pushed far beyond its orginal design specs. It could not turn with allied fighters, it lacked firepower, had very poor endurance, and it was fragile.

Edit: oh and 109 high speed roll efficency was terrible, and stick forces for any manuvering at 300 IAS and above were extreme.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I will agree that the F was the peak of the 109 and that it was being driven beyond original design specs but the G and the K were marvelous fighters.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 21, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree that the F was the peak of the 109 and that it was being driven beyond original design specs but the G and the K were marvelous fighters.



Well this is a whole topic in and of itself. Make a new thread and I'll try to post some charts showing the performance issues in the later model 109's. I think you will see that at speed it simply did not manuver well, and all 1944 combat was at speed unless the pilots were rookies.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

That I will agree with you on. It had issues later on especially at high speeds and it certainly was not the best fighter built in WW2 but for me the Me-109G is my favorite fighter of WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

There is a thread on the Me-109 already there just has not been much posting there for a while


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 21, 2004)

I think the Re-2005 _was one of_ the best planes of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

I can agree with you on that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 21, 2004)

> even though in 1943 and 1944 the FW was clearly the superior fighter, Bf109's were ordered to the maximum capacity of the Messershmitt company to produce, and FW's were ordered to "fill the gap" between this number and what the RLM required. Had this been reversed, the German's would have done much better.
> 
> The FW's were not only better fighters than the 109's, they were also a better attack planes. If the Luftwaffe' could have traded 3 Bf109's for 2 FW190's it would have been better off for the trade.



I whole heartedly agree with u RG.... I had an argument about 5 years ago with a supposed WWII German Ace, who flew -109's, concerning the -190 and its superior performance compared to the -109... He wouldnt listen to me on any of the points i was trying to make.... He kept on saying "I no like Focke Wulf..." Musta said that 10 times.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2004)

Well I will agree that the Fw-190 had superior performance but the Me-109G is still my fav figher of World War 2. I too do agree with RG on the aspects that the Me-109 was exceeding its original design specs. However many of the pilots who flew the Me-109 will agree with your supposed Ace, just because of the fact that they loved there Me-109. The same would be for the Spitfire pilots, they would say that there beloved Spitfire was the best plane of WW2. Here is a story about a Bf-109E captured and flown by the british. The man who owns the website that I got this from owns a Bf-109 himself and says the same thing that he understands why the Luftwaffe pilots who flew it loved it so much.(Ofcourse this is a Bf-109E which still had great handling characteristics)

On May 4, 1940, a Bf 109E (Wn: 1304) was flown to RAF Boscombe Down, where it was appraised by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A AEE); then later flown to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough for handling trials, and allocated the serial number AE479. The results of the RAE's evaluation were discussed on Thursday, March 9, 1944 at a meeting of the Royal Aeronautical Society in London, at which M.B. Morgan and R. Smelt of the RAE lectured on 'The aerodynamic features of German aircraft'. About the Bf 109E they had this to say: 


Photo of what is believed to be Bf 109E (W/nr. 1304)
Take-off
This is best done with the flaps at 20 degrees. The throttle can be opened very quickly without fear of choking the engine. Acceleration is good, and there is little tendency to swing or bucket. The stick must be held hard forward to get the tail up. It is advisable to let the airplane fly itself off since, if pulled off too soon, the left wing will not lift, and on applying aileron the wing lifts and falls again, with the ailerons snatching a little. If no attempt is made to pull the airplane off quickly, the take-off run is short, and initial climb good. 

Approach
Stalling speeds on the glide are 75 mph flaps up, and 61 mph flaps down. Lowering the flaps makes the ailerons feel heavier and slightly less effective, and causes a marked nose-down pitching moment, readily corrected owing to the juxtaposition of trim and flap operating wheels. If the engine is opened up to simulate a baulked landing with flaps and undercarriage down, the airplane becomes tail-heavy but can easily be held with one hand while trim is adjusted. Normal approach speed is 90 mph. At speeds above 100 mph, the pilot has the impression of diving, and below 80 mph one of sinking. At 90 mph the glide path is reasonably steep and the view fairly good. Longitudinally the airplane is markedly stable, and the elevator heavier and more responsive than is usual in single-seater fighters. These features add considerably to the ease of approach. Aileron effectiveness is adequate; the rudder is sluggish for small movements. 

Landing
This is more difficult than on the Hurricane I or Spitfire I. Owing to the high ground attitude, the airplane must be rotated through a large angle before touchdown, and this requires a fair amount of skill. If a wheel landing is done the left wing tends to drop just before touchdown, and if the ailerons are used to lift it, they snatch, causing over-correction. The brakes can be applied immediately after touchdown without fear of lifting the tail. The ground run is short, with no tendency to swing. View during hold-off and ground run is very poor, and landing at night would not be easy. 

Taxiing
The aircraft can be taxied fast without danger of bucketing, but is is difficult to turn quickly; an unusually large amount of throttle is needed, in conjunction with harsh braking, when manuevering in a confined space. The brakes are foot-operated, and pilots expressed a strong preference for the hand operation system to which they are more accustomed. 

Lateral Trim
There is no procounced change of lateral trim with speed of throttle setting provided that care is taken to fly with no sideslip. 

Directional Trim
Absence of rudder trimmer is a bad feature, although at low speeds the practical consequences are not so alarming as the curves might suggest, since the rudder is fairly light on the climb. At high speeds, however, the pilot is seriously inconvenienced, as above 300 mph about 2 1/2 degrees of port (left) rudder are needed for flight with no sideslip and a very heavy foot load is needed to keep this on. In consequence the pilot's left foot becomes tired, and this affects his ability to put on left rudder in order to assist a turn to port (left). Hence at high speeds the Bf 109E turns far more readily to the right than to the left. 

Longitudinal Trim
Five three-quarter turns of a 11.7 in diameter wheel on the pilot's left are needed to move the adjustable tailplane through its full 12-degrees range. The wheel rotation is in the natural sense. Tailplane and elevator angles to trim were measured at various speeds in various condition; the elevator angles were corrected to constant tail setting. The airplane is statically stable both stick fixed and stick free. 

'One Control' tests, flat turns, sideslips
The airplane was trimmed to fly straight and level at 230 mph at 10,000 feet. In this condition the airplane is not in trim directionally and a slight pressure is needed on the left rudder pedal to prevent sideslip. This influences the results of the following tests: 

Ailerons fixed central - On suddenly applying half-rudder the nose swings through about eight degrees and the airplane banks about five degrees with the nose pitching down a little. On releasing the rudder it returns to central, and the airplane does a slowly damped oscillation in yaw and roll. The right wing then slowly falls. Good baned turns can be done in either direction on rudder alone, with little sideslip if the rudder is used gently. Release of the rudder in a steady 30-degree banked turn in either direction results in the left wing slowly rising. 

Rudder fixed central - Abrupt displacement of the ailerons gives bank with no appreciable opposite yaw. On releasing the stick it returns smartly to central with no oscillation. If the ailerons are released in a 30-degree banked turn, it is impossible to assess the spiral stability, since whether the wing slowly comes up or goes down depends critically on the precise position of the rudder. Excellent banked turns can be done in either direction on ailerons alone. There is very little sideslip on entry or recovery, even if the ailerons are used very harshly. In the turn there is no appreciable sideslip. 

Steady flat turns - Only half-rudder was used during this test. Full rudder can be applied with a very heavy foot load, but the nose-down pitching movement due to sideslip requires a quite excessive pull on the stick to keep the nose up. When flat turning steadily with half-rudder, wings level, about half opposite aileron is needed. The speed falls from 230 mph to 175 mph, rate of flat turn is about 110. 

Steady sideslip when gliding - Gliding at 100 mph with flaps and undercarriage up the maximum angle of bank in a straight sideslip is about five degrees. About 1/4 opposite aileron is needed in conjuction with full rudder. The airplane is faily nose-heavy, vibrates and is a little unsteady. On release of all three controls the wing comes up quickly and the airplane glides steadily at the trimmed speed. With flaps and undercarriage down, gliding at 90 mph, the maximum angle of bank is again five degrees 1/5 opposite aileron being needed with full rudder. The nose-down pitching movement is not so pronounced as before, and vibration is still present. Behaviour on releasing the control is similar to that with flaps up. 

Stalling Test
The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results: 

Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both rudder and ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slots are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. With flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slots open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sole adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide. 

Safety in the Dive
During a dive at 400 mph all three controls were in turn displaced slightly and released. No vibration, flutter or snaking developed. If the elevator is trimmed for level flight at full throttle, a large push is needed to hold in the dive, and there is a temptation to trim in. If, in fact, the airplane is trimmed into the dive, recovery is difficult unless the trimmer is moved back owing to the excessive heaviness of the elevator. 

Ailerons
At low speeds the aileron control is very good, there being a definete resistance to stick movement, while response is brisk. As speed is increased, the ailerons bevome heavier, but response remains excellent. They are at their best between 150 mph and 200 mph, one pilot describing them as an 'ideal control' over this range. Above 200 mph they start becoming unpleasantly heavy, and between 300 mph and 400 mph are termed 'solid' by the test pilots. A pilot exerting all his strength cannot apply more than one-fifth aileron at 400 mph. Measurements of stick-top force when the pilot applied about one-fifth aileron in half a second and then held the ailerons steady, together with the corresponding time to 45 degrees bank, were made at various speeds. The results at 400 mph are given below: 

Max sideways force a pilot can apply conveniently to the Bf 109 stick 40 lbs. 
Corresponding stick displacement 1/5th. 
Time to 45-degree bank 4 seconds. 
Deduced balance factor Kb2 - 0.145.

Several points of interest emerge from these tests: 

a. Owing to the cramped Bf 109 cockpit, a pilot can only apply about 40 lb sideway force on the stick, as against 60 lb or more possible if he had more room. 
b. The designer has also penalized himself by the unusually small stick-top travel of four inches, giving a poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron. 
c. The time to 45-degree bank of four seconds at 400 mph, which is quite escessive for a fighter, classes the airplane immediately as very unmanoeuvrable in roll at high speeds. 

Elevator
This is an exceptionally good control at low air speeds, being fairly heavy and not over-sensitive. Above 250 mph, however, it becomes too heavy, so that maneuvrability is seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard, cannot put on enough 'g' to black himself out; stick force -'g' probably esceeds 20 lb/g in the dive. 

Rudder
The rudder is light, but rather sluggish at low speeds. At 200 mph the sluggishness has disappeared. Between 200 mph and 300 mph the rudder is the lightest of the three controls for movement, but at 300 mph and above, absence of a rudder trimmer is severely felt, the force to prevent sideslip at 400 mph being excessive. 

Harmony
The controls are well harmonised between 150 mph and 250 mph. At lower speeds harmony is spoiled by the sluggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds elevator and ailerons are so heavy that the word 'harmony' is inappropriate. 

Aerobatics
These are not easy. Loops must be started from about 280 mph when the elevator is unduly heavy; there is a tendency for the slots to open at the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatching and loss of direction. At speeds below 250 mph the airplane can be rolled quite quickly, but in the final stages of the roll there is a strong tendency for the nose to fall, and the stick must be moved well back to keep the nose up. Upward rolls are difficult. Owing to elevator heaviness only a gentle pull-out from the dive is possible, and considerable speed is lost before the upward roll can be started. 

Fighting Qualities
A series of mock dogfights with our own fighters brought out forcibly the good and bad points of the airplane. These may be summarised as follows:

Good Points:
High top speed and excellent rate of climb.
Engine does not cut immediately under negative 'g'.
Good control at low speeds.
Gentle stall, even under 'g'.

Bad Points:
Ailerons and elevator far too heavy at high speeds.
Owing to high wing loading the airplane stalls readily under 'g' and has a relatively poor turning circle.
Absence of a rudder trimmer, curtailing ability to bank left in the dive.
Cockpit too cramped for comfort.


Further Comments
At full throttle at 12,000 feet the minimum radius of steady turn without height loss is about 890 feet in the case of the Bf 109E, with its wing loading of 32 lb/sq ft. The corresponding figure for a comparable fighter with a wing loading of 25 lb/sq ft, such as the Spitfire I or Hurricane I, is about 690 feet. Although the more heavily loaded fighter is thus at a considerable disadvantage, it is important to bear in mind that these minimum radii of turn are obtained by going as near to the stall as possible. In this respect the Bf 109E scores by its excellent control near the stall and innocuous behaviour at the stall, giving the pilot confidence to get the last ounce out of his airplanes turning performance. 

The extremely bad maneuvrability of the Bf 109E at high speeds quickly became known to our pilots (RAF). On several occasions a Bf 109E was coaxed to self-destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate altitude. Our pilot would do a half-roll and quick pull-out from the subsequent steep dive. In the excitement of the moment the Bf 109E pilot would follow, only to find that he had insufficient height for recovery owing to his heavy elevator, and would go straight into the ground without a shot being fired. 

Pilots verbatim impressions of some features are of interest. For example, the DB 601 engine came in for much favourable comment from the viewpoint of response to throttle and insusceptability to sudden negative 'g'; while the throttle arrangements were described as 'marvellously simple, there being just one lever with no gate or over-ride to worry about'. Suprisingly though, the manual operation of flaps and tail setting were also liked; 'they are easy to operate, and being manual are not likely to go wrong'; juxtaposition of the flap and tail actuating wheels is an excellent feature. 

Performance by 1940 standards was good. When put into a full throttle climb at low air speeds, the airplane climbed at a very steep angle, and our fighters used to have difficulty in keeping their sights on the enemy even when at such a height that their rates of climb were comparible. This steep climb at low air speed was one of the standard evasion maneuvres used by the German pilots. Another was to push the stick forward abruptly and bunt into a dive with considerable negative 'g'. The importance of arranging that the engine whould not cut under these circumstances cannot be over-stressed. Speed is picked up quickly in a dive, and if being attacked by an airplane of slightly inferior level performance, this feature can be used with advantage to get out of range. There is no doubt that in the autumn of 1940 the Bf 109E in spite of its faults, was a doughty opponent to set against our own equipment'. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hanna


Just Imagine...
Track around the canopy though Nine, Eleven and now Twelve O'clock. Rolling out gently and now the specks are becoming objects and I can see wings and start to discern fuselages and engines. We're at five miles and closing at 420 knots and greater than seven miles a minute. Less than 50 seconds to go. There's the '51 escort high and behind the bombers... Good.... they're not a factor for the initial attack, but we will need to worry about them on the egress. 20 seconds and two miles. I've picked my target - the lead ship... I've misjudged the attack slightly, just missed the dead 180 so I've got a slight crosser which is going to foul up my sighting solution. 10 seconds to run... The B-17's light up ! Flashes from all over the airframes and smoke trails streak behind as the gunners let rip and fill the skies with lead. They're out of range buts its still frightening. The lead ship is filling my windscreen and closing rapidly. Now.... Fire ! Two second burst.... flash... flash... flash... HITS ! all in his cockpit and fuselage area... pull slightly on the control column to just clear the port wing, the fin slicing past just by me and roll hard left. World. B-17s gyrating round, stop inverted... pull 5 G's, nose down, down, down. Streamers pouring from the wingtips. I've lost the P-51's, I can't see them but I know they'll be after us. I'm out of here vertically down with a windscreen full of ground, rolling as I go to miss any pursuing Mustangs' sighting solutions - straight towards the Fatherland... only it isn't - it's Suffolk and Ron's calling... "Jimmy says can we do that one again Mark.. ". This is David Puttnam's Memphis Belle and we are airborne with five B-17's, seven P-51s, three '109's and a B-25. I'm leading the '109 formation. We're short on gas, it's cold at 12,000 feet and this is fantastic, tremendous fun. The Bf 109 is, without doubt, the most satisfying and challenging aircraft that I have ever flown. 

Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company relates his experiences flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109J (export version to Spain).
To my eye, the aircraft looks dangerous, both to the enemy and to its own pilots. The aircrafts difficult reputation is well known and right from the outset you are aware that it is an aeroplane that needs to be treated with a great deal of respect. Talk to people about the '109 and all you hear about is how you are going to wrap it up on take-off or landing ! As you walk up to the '109 one is at first struck by the small size of the aricraft, particularly if parked next to a comtemporary American fighter. Closer examination reveals a crazy looking knocked-knee undercarriage, a very heavily framed sideways opening canopy with almost no forward view in the three point attitude, a long rear fuselage and tiny tail surfaces. A walk-round reveals ingenious split radiator flaps which double as an extension to the landing flaps, ailerons with a lot of movement and rather odd looking external mass balances. Also independently operating leading edge slats. These devices should glide open and shut on the ground with the pressure of a single finger. Other unusual features include the horizontal stabilizer doubling as the elevator trimmer and the complete absence of a rudder trim system. Overall the finish is a strange mix of innovative and archaic. 

Climbing on board you have to be careful not to stand on the radiator flap, then lower yourself gently downwards and forwards, taking your wight by holding onto the windscreen. Once in you are aware that you are almost lying down in the aeroplane, the position reminicent of a racing car. The cockpit is very narrow and if you have broad shoulders (don't all fighter pilots ?), it is a tight squeeze. Once streapped in, itself a knuckle wrapping affair, you can take stock. First impressions are of simplicity and straight forwardness. 

From left to right, the co-located elevator trim and flap trim wheels fall easily to hand. You need several turns to get the flaps fully down to 40º and the idea is that you can crank both together. In practice this is a little difficult and I tend to operate the services separately. Coming forward we see the tailwheel locking lever. This either allows the tailwheel to castor or locks it dead ahead. Next is the throttle quadrant, consisting of the propeller lever, and a huge throttle handle. Forward and down, on the floor is an enormous and very effective ki-gass primer and a T shaped handle. DIrectly above this and in line with the canopy seal is the yellow and black hood jettison lever. Pulling this releases two very strong springs in the rear part of the canopy, causing the rear section to come loose and therefore the whole main part of the hood becomes unhinged and can be pushed clear away into the aiflow. Looking directly forwards we have clustered together the standard instument panel with vertical select magnetos on the left, starter and booster coil slightly right of center and engine instruments all grouped together on the right hand side. Our aeroplane has a mixture of British, Spanish and German instruments in this area. 

The center console under the main instrument panel consists of a 720 channel radio. E2B compass and a large placard courtesy of the Civil Aviation Authority warning of the dire consequences if you land in a crosswind equal to or greater than 10 knots, or trim the aircraft at speeds in excess of 250 knots. Just to the left of the center console, close to your left knee is the undercarriage up/down selector and the mechanical and electrical undercarriage position indicator. On G-BOML this is a rotary selector with a neutral position. Select the undercarriage up or down then activate a hydraulic button on the front of the control column. This gives 750 psi to the system instantly. Immediately beneath the undercarriage selector is the control for the Radiator flaps. These are also hydraulically controlled with an open/close and neutral position, and activated by the trigger on the stick at 375 psi. If you leave the radiator flap control in anything other than neutral and then try to activate the undercarriage you will not have enough pressure to enable the gear to travel. 

Right hand side of the cockpit sees the electrical switches, battery master boost, pumps, pitot heat and a self contained pre-oil system and that's it ! There is no rudder trim, or rudder pedal adjust; also the seat can only be adjusted pre-flight and has the choice of only three settings. If you are any bigger than 6 feet tall, it's all starting to get a bit confined. Once you are strapped in and comfortable close the canopy to check the seating position. Normally, if you haven't flown the 109 before you get a clout on the head as you swing the heavy lid over and down. Nobody sits that low in a fighter ! The OFMC aeroplane has the original flat top ot it - however the Charles Church aircraft has a slight bulge to the top of the canopy - about an inch or so. This is practically indescernable externally, but gives a very helpful lift to the eyeline over the nose. 

It's getting dangersously close to going flying now ! OK, open the hood again (in case we catch fire and have to get out in a hurry!). To start, power ON, bost pumps ON. Three good shots on the very stiff primer. Set the throttle about 1/2 inch open. "CLEAR PROP". Push the start button, a few blades and boost coil and mags together. It's a good starter and with a brief snort of flame the '109 fires up immediately. Checking oil pressure is rising right away... Idle initially at 700 RPM, then gently up to 1000 to warm up. Less than 1000 RPM and the whole aeroplane starts to rock from side to side on the gear with some sort of harmonic. This is a most unusual sensation and is quite good fun ! One is immediately aware after start that the aeroplane is "Rattley"; engine, canopy, reduction gear all provide little vibrations and shakes transmitted directly to the pilot. 

Close the rad flaps with the selector, and activate the hydraulic trigger. Check the 375 psi and that they close together. Reopen them now to delay the coolant temperature rise. The '109 needs a lot of power to get moving so you need to allow the engine to warm a little before you pile the power onto it. Power up to 1800 RPM and suddenly we're rolling... power back... to turn, stick forward against the instrument panel to lighten the tail. A blast of throttle and a jab of brakes. Do this in a Spitfire and you are on your nose ! The '109 however is very tail heavy and is reluctant to turn - you can very easily lock up a wheel. If you do not use the above technique you will charge off across the airfield in a straight line ! Forward view can only be described as apalling, and due to the tail/brake arrangement this makes weaving more difficult than on other similar types. I prefer to taxy with the hood open to help this a little. By the time we are at the end of the strip the aircraft is already starting to get hot. So quickly on with the run-up. Hood closed again with a satisfying thud. I'm sitting as high as I can and my head is touching the canopy. I am not wearing goggles as they scratch and catch the hood if they are up on your head. A large bonedome is out of the question and in my opinion is a flight safety hazard in this aircraft. Hood positively locked... and push up on to it to check, Oil temperature is 30º, coolant temperature is greater than or at 60º. Brakes hard on (there is no parking brake), stick back and power gently up to 0 boost (30") and 2300 RPM. Exercise the prop at least twice, RPM falling back to 1800 each time, keep an eye on the oil pressure. The noise and vibration levels have now increased dramatically. Power back down to 1800 RPM and check the mags. Insignificant drop on each side. We must hurry as the coolant temperature is at 98ºC and going UP - we have to get rolling to get some cooling air through the radiators. Pretake off checks... Elevator trim set to +1º, no rudder trim, throttle friction light. This is vital as I'm going to need to use my left hand for various services immediately after take-off. Mixture is automatic, pitch fully fine... fuel - I know we're full (85 gallons); the gauge is unserviceable again, so I'm limited to a maximum of 1 hour 15 minutes cruise or 1 hour if any high power work is involved. Fuel/Oil cock is ON, both boost pumps are ON, pressure is good, primer is done up. Flaps - crank down to 20º for take off. Rad flaps checked at full open; if we take off with them closed we will certainly boil the engine and guaranteeed to crack the head. Gyro's set to Duxford's runway. Instruments; temps and pressures all in the green for take off. Radiator is now 102º. Oxygen we don't have, hood rechecked down and locked, harness tight and secure, hydraulics select down in the gear and pressurise the system check 750 psi. Controls full and free, tail wheel locked. Got to go - 105º. There's no time to hang around and worry about the take off. Here we go... Power gently up and keep it coming smoothly up to +8 (46")... it's VERY noisy ! Keep the tail down initially, keep it straight by feel rather than any positive technique... tail coming up now... once the rudders effective. Unconcious corrections to the rudder are happening all the time. It's incredcibly entertaining to watch the '109 take off or land. The rudder literally flashes around ! The alternative technique (rather tongue in cheek) is Walter Eichorn's, of using full right rudder throughout the take-off roll and varying the swing with the throttle ! 

The little fighter is now bucketing along, accelerating rapidly. As the tail lifts there is a positive tendancy to swing left - this can be checked easily however, although if you are really agressive lifting the tail it is difficult to stop and happens very quickly. Now the tail's up and you can see vagualy where you are going. It's a rough, wild, buckety ride on grass and with noise, smoke from the stakcs and the aeroplane bouncing around it's exciting ! 

Quick glance at the ASI - 100 mph, slight check back on the stick and we're flying. Hand off the throttle, rotate the gear selector and activate the hydraulic button. The mechanical indicators motor up very quickly and you feel a clonk, clonk as the gear comes home. Relect Neutral on the undercarriage selector. Quick look out at the wings and you see the slats fully out, starting to creep in as the airspeed increases and the angle of attack reduces. 130 mph and an immediate climbing turn up and right onto the downwind leg just in case I need to put the aeroplane down in a hurry. Our company S.O.P. is to always fly an overhead orbit of the field to allow everything to stabilize before setting off - this has saved at least one of our aeroplanes. 

Start to frantically crank the flap up - now up the speeds, increasing through 150, power back to +6 (42") and 2650 for the climb. Plenty of airflow through the narrow radiators now, so close them and remember to keep a careful eye on the coolant gauge for the next few minutes until the temperature has settled down. With the rad flaps closed the aircraft accelerates postively. I'm aware as we climb that I'm holding in a little right rudder to keep the tail in the middle, but the foot loads are light, and it's no problems. Level off and power back to +4(38") and 2000 RPM. The speed's picked up to the '109 cruise of about 235-240 mph and now the tail is right in the middle and no rudder input is necessary. 

Once settled down with adrenalin level back down to just high, we can take stock of our situation. The initial reaction is of delight to be flying a classic aeroplane, and next the realization that this is a real fighter ! You feel agressive flying it. The urge is to go looking for something to bounce and shoot down ! 

The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. This is particularly true of the Charles Church's Collection clipped wing aircraft. Our round tipped aeroplane is slightly less nice to feel. With the speed further back the roll rate remains good, particularly with a bit of help from the rudder. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Another peculiarity is that when you have been in a hard turn with the slats deployed, and then you roll rapidly one way and stop, there is a strange sensation for a second of so of a kind of dead area over the ailerons - almost as if they are not connected ! Just when you are starting to get worried they work again ! 

Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally. Pitch tends to heavy up above 250 mph but it is still easily manageable up to 300 mph and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. This means that running in for an airshow above 300 mph the aeroplane has a slight tucking in sensation - a sort of desire to get down to ground level ! This is easily held on the stick or can be trimmed out but is slightly surprising initially. Maneuvering above 300, two hands can be required for more aggressive performance. EIther that or get on the trimmer to help you. Despite this heavying up it is still quite easy to get at 5G's at these speeds. 

The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane. Initial acceleration is rapid, particularly with nose down, up to about 320 mph. After that the '109 starts to become a little reluctant and you have to be fairly determined to get over 350-360 mph. 

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem. 

In addition to the above the small cockpit makes you feel more a part of the aeroplane and the overall smaller dimensions make you more difficult to spot. There's no doubt that when you are flying the '109 and you look out and see the crosses on the wings you feel aggressive; if you are in an allied fighter it is very intimidating to see this dangerous little aeroplane turning in on you ! 

Returning to the circuit it is almost essential to join for a run and break. Over the field break from 50 feet, up and over 4G's onto the downwind leg. Speed at 150 knots or less, gear select to DOWN and activate the button and feel the gear come down asymmetrically. Check the mechanical indicators (ignore the electric position indicators), pitch fully fine... fuel - both boost pumps ON. If you have less than 1/4 fuel and the rear pump is not on the engine may stop in the three-point attitude. Rad flaps to full open and wings flaps to 10º to 15º. As the wing passes the threshold downwind - take all the power off and roll into the finals turn, cranking the flap like mad as you go. The important things is to set up a highish rate of descent, curved approach. The aircraft is reluctant to lose speed around finals so ideally you should initiate the turn quite slow at about 100-105. Slats normally deploy half way round finals but you the pilot are not aware they have come out. The ideal is to keep turning with the speed slowly bleeding, and roll out at about 10 feet at the right speed and just starting to transition to the three point attitude, the last speed I usually see is just about 90; I'm normally too busy to look after that ! 

The '109 is one of the most controllable aircraft that I have flown at slow speed around finals, and provided you don't get too slow is one of the easiest to three point. It just feels right ! THe only problem is getting it too slow. If this happens you end up with a very high sink rate, very quickly and absolutely no ability to check or flare to round out. It literally falls out of your hands ! 

Once down on three points the aircraft tends to stay down - but this is when you have to be careful. The forward view has gone to hell and you cannot afford to let any sort of swing develop. The problem is that the initial detection is more difficult. The aeroplane is completely unpredictable and can diverge in either direction. There never seems to be any pattern to this. Sometimes the most immaculate three pointer will turn into a potential disaster half way through the landing roll. Other times a ropey landing will roll thraight as an arrow ! 

When we first started flying the '109 both my father and I did a lot of practice circuits on the grass before trying a paved strip. Operating off grass is preferred. Although it is a much smoother ride on the hard, directionally the aircraft is definitely more sensative. WIthout doubt you cannot afford to relax until you are positively stationary. I would never make a rolling exit from a runway in the '109. It is just as likely to wrap itself up at 25 as it is at 80 mph. Another promlem is that you have to go easy on the brakes. Hammer them too early in the landing roll and they will have faded to nothing just when you need them ! The final word of advice is always three point the aircraft and if the wind is such that it makes a three pointer inadvisable it's simple: the aeroplane stays in the hanger ! 

Having said all this, I like the aeroplane very much, and I think I can understand why many of the Luftwaffe aces had such a high regard and preference for it. Our intention is to eventually re-engine our aeroplane with a Daimler-Benz 605 and convert it to a late '109G or perhaps even a 'K


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

Better chances of survival in case of a shoot-down. I could have become a POW or I coud have escaped and lived to fly another day...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

What was better chances.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2005)

Yes, what? Better chances of survival through eating pumpkin pie?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

pumpkin pie?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Yes, a Pie with Pumpkin in


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

surely it's the innards of the pumpkin though, you would not simply place an entire pumpkin into a pie??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

You would if you had my culinary knowledge


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 6, 2005)

that's true.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2005)

That I can believe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Oh, I clicked the page, thinking you were agreeing to a sensible statement, but oh no.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

well it was a true statement atleast..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Funnily enough, im currently having a conversation about cooking right now


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

with who??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Aimee 8) But that was earlier, we're talking about the Donkey Sanctuary now


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

i once had a conversation about pasty eating techniques.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

My advice? Dont eat them at all, theyre ing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

no they're not, i'm eating one right now.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Food at the computer? Naughty.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)

you assume i'm refering to food


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

What else could you be referring to?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Some one who just walked into this convo could deffinatly think something else.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 7, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

I want a mouse in the shape of a donkey's head...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

what?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2005)

My friend has a mouse for the computer in the shape of a donkeys head and it absolutely rules!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 8, 2005)

i've seen a computer mouse in the form of a pair of breasts once.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

That I have to have!


----------



## Mukhulai (May 20, 2005)

I would preffer flying Me109G over western front or fighting with Zero over Pacific. Because that would be most challenging. After all we all dreaming, right.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2005)

Dreaming? Ridiculous  I grew up in Poland and after the German take over I went off to England to fly Spitfires in 535 sqd. during the BoB


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

Alright CC you need to take your medicine.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

Medicine? No no this is true!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

I am calling for help!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

"On forums, no-one can hear you scream..."

The irony being that thats true


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 22, 2005)

OH damn I am in trouble.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2005)

Indeed you are


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

Where did everyone go, we need to get back on topic.


----------



## Glider (May 24, 2005)

DerAlder
Your request is met 

The MTO is the one for me as the weathers better, French and Italian wine on hand and its not to far from home. In addition the women look good, theres skiing in the winter and as wars go if there is such a thing it was a fairly clean one.
Finally there is a good selection of planes to fly and I fancy a go in a Fiat G55. Good speed, excellent performance, 3 x 20 and 2x HMG and masses of ammunition so I can have a go at some of the longer range shots without worrying about running out at the wrong time. 
Also I definately fancy it against the P38, P40 and Spit 5's that were fairly common in that area. 
Hows that for logic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

Interesting reasoning. I think the MTO would have been quite interesting and a lot safer then the Eastern Front.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 24, 2005)

SOME WHERE WARM!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2005)

Yeah the MTO sounds good.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2005)

I actually think it was the possibly the best theatre to fly in.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

if i was in the MTO i would, without a doubt, be in one of the coolest british planes ever, the hurricane Mk.IID...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2005)

And I would be shooting you down with an MC.202 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

No, because i would be in a Spitfire flying top cover


----------



## Glider (May 25, 2005)

And my Fiat G55 would take the lot of you on


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

Bring it on!


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

Alright, everyone get on Il-2...Italy...Of course I'll be in the Spitfire Mk.IXe


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

I really need a better computer so I could play this instead of my laptop


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

PBY in the Caribbean, why rough it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Im with FLYBOYJ here. You guys go an fight the war and me and him will sit back look at chicks and drink Pina Coladas!


----------



## superunknown (May 26, 2005)

It would have to be Europe, due to the fact if you ever had to bail out or make a forced landing your chances of survival are higher. The Pacific was mostly water, so your main options are drowning, being eaten by sharks, getting picked up by the Japenese or just floating around and dying of dehydration. Even if you are over land, there is hardly anywhere to put down, too many trees. Africa, It's a freakin' desert for gods sake!!.
Screw the nice weather, I want to live!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

superunknown said:



> It would have to be Europe, due to the fact if you ever had to bail out or make a forced landing your chances of survival are higher. The Pacific was mostly water, so your main options are drowning, being eaten by sharks, getting picked up by the Japenese or just floating around and dying of dehydration. Even if you are over land, there is hardly anywhere to put down, too many trees. Africa, It's a freakin' desert for gods sake!!.
> Screw the nice weather, I want to live!!



And please explain how the Carribean would not be better. There are plenty of islands to land on within distance from where you are. The weather is good. There are beautiful women. There are cocktail drinks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Im with FLYBOYJ here. You guys go an fight the war and me and him will sit back look at chicks and drink Pina Coladas!



I'm with you - weekends off, maybe we'll have to drop a couple of depth charges on a sub or something during the week! 8)


----------



## superunknown (May 26, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> superunknown said:
> 
> 
> > It would have to be Europe, due to the fact if you ever had to bail out or make a forced landing your chances of survival are higher. The Pacific was mostly water, so your main options are drowning, being eaten by sharks, getting picked up by the Japenese or just floating around and dying of dehydration. Even if you are over land, there is hardly anywhere to put down, too many trees. Africa, It's a freakin' desert for gods sake!!.
> ...



Good point, reserve me a deckchair! I'll have my cocktail in a coconut shell, with one of those paper umbrellas sticking out the top! 8)


----------



## mosquitoman (May 26, 2005)

Mind if I join you in my Liberator?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Mind if I join you in my Liberator?



Sure, come on down, I think Barbados or Key West would make a great first deployment.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2005)

Can I land me P-38 there?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

We can build up something like McHales Navy, as long as I get to coach the Baseball team.


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2005)

ETO at night .....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Interesting choice. I think that would be quite exciting there Erich. If I were to do that I would want to fly a Ju-88C-6 or He-219A-7.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 26, 2005)

I'd go for ETO, flying a Tiffy or Mustang with 2nd TAF. That would satsify my adrenaline cravings, and I could still be home for tea  Failing that, B17s in Europe


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2005)

Eagle there were no He 219 A-7's in the units. It stopped at the A-2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Ah I did not know that. I thought they were built in small numbers and operational.


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2005)

it's really funny because at one time I thought A-5's and A-7's were filling the bill for I./NJG 1 but was not the case. I really do think that there were more prototypes built than operational Uhu's. Ridiculous.

the older books of all sorts have not done indepth research on the craft and hopeful when a freind from Holland does his I./NJG 1 synopsis that all will be revealed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2005)

Okay good stuff, then I am not the only one who atleast thought this.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2005)

yes i've always notised how many prototypes the germans always made, we got by on 3 or 4, but the germans made 30+!!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 26, 2005)

ETO I'd have a Mossie doing the nightly run to Berlin with a cookie


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2005)

and I'll be there right above you friend with my Me 262A-1a

I see ALL !  "Im Schatten des Mundes liegen"

The German prototyped everything to death.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

I agree. If they put a coffee machine and a toilet in a a large transport they prototyped it!


----------



## Blitzkrieg Bop (Jun 5, 2005)

My god. I wanted to react on a post on the 1st page only to find out there are 25 pages with posts... This site is goin like HELL!  

Anyway, the theater i would pick defenitely is the ETO. And not on the eastern front or Pacific era, but based in the UK looks very appealing to me (its only a dream ofcourse, and when dreaming, u dont see much of the sheere horrors of the "job"...). Also when you'd be shot down (and survived) you would be treated correctly (as can be in a ww2 wartime period). if u would be an russian or german pilot shot down on the eastern front (or an amarican on the pacific front) on enemy territory you'd probably never come back in your home country or you would be coming back in like 1960... however, this is ofcourse just one aspect of why i choose the ETO. I like the idea of a "Gentlemans" war. But as i said, their just dreams (just as we all here like to dream..)

regards


----------



## trackend (Jun 5, 2005)

Id go for the Pacific as most of the water is warmer than the English Channel and the North sea, and knowing my luck Id be shot down.


----------



## Blitzkrieg Bop (Jun 5, 2005)

Maybe we can swim up together then


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Im still with Flyboy here drinking pina coladas in the carribean!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2005)

8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Hell it beats the cold of the East Front, it beats the invasion in the west front, it beats the sand flies of Nort Afrika, and it sure as hell beats the jungles of the Pacific.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 12, 2006)

I'd go to the PTO. At least theres no snow, cold weather and plenty of beaches.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 12, 2006)

I know the Pacific and i would rather be at the ETO, 

PTO isn't cold, but its freaking hot and if u get caught by the Japanese or any hostile Asians, hell they would stick a barbecue stick through ur dick or insert many sticks into ur skin and strum it like a guitar or even worse... theres only a little chance that u can get anywhere where they speak good english


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

Better to handle heat than the cold.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2006)

Heat is one thing, but humid heat sucks. I have been in the desert in 125 F weather here in California and it was hot, but not unbearable. I have been in Saudi when it was 100 F and 95% humidity and I thought I was going to melt. Plus if you get captured in the ETO, you have a much better chance of surviving the war to get home.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2006)

I agree with you. I would rather be in the ETO, I like the climate better in the ETO. Plus you dont have to worry as much about landing in the ocean and never been found when you have engine problems or get shot down. I dont mind a dry heat but the humid heat of the PTO would drive me insane. Plus all the damn mosquitos and malaria. Screw that.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 13, 2006)

ETO for me. I could fly a P-47 and bombed the SS infantry or panzer divisions ( which i hate the SS so its killing two birds with one stone).


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> ETO for me. I could fly a P-47 and bombed the SS infantry or panzer divisions ( which i hate the SS so its killing two birds with one stone).



Thats the spirit!


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 13, 2006)

I would choose the ETO as well, not sure what in though...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2006)

Northern Italy, from 43-45 flying MC.205 for the RSI


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 14, 2006)

And u'd be dead inside of 5 missions....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> And u'd be dead inside of 5 missions....




Some of you guys make it so hard for yourself!


----------



## MacArther (Apr 15, 2006)

Pacific theatre for me. Call me hell bent or whatever, but you attack American soil (/ships) WHILE saying your at peace with America, YOUR GOING DOWN!!! That, and I would be able to fly in the same theatre as Bong. ::Salivates:: 19+ aircraft to personal record... now that would be nice, plus I would have to worry too much about my rounds landing in a specific area on a Japanese plane, I could just plug away with .50 cals and watch the fireworks.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 15, 2006)

Flyboy, neat watercolor print you posted there. PBY in the PI.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy, neat watercolor print you posted there. PBY in the PI.


Thanks! PI, Caribbean, Panama - as long as I have my Mai-Ti at the end of the day!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 16, 2006)

Actually, it might be "PBY in the Carribean (or Brazil)"


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 5, 2006)

I would say the European theatre. Youd have more chance of being kept alive by the Germans than the Japs. And the naval fighters just dont do it for me.


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 10, 2006)

Btw, i meant kept alive if youre shot down, and bail out over enemy territory


----------



## ndicki (Nov 10, 2006)

Africa for me! It did not say where in Africa, and as I have absolutely no intention of turning some corner of a foreign field into forever England, Southern Rhodesia sounds just the thing. I could spend the entire war in a nice, civilized place, speeding glum heroes down the line after teaching them to fly Harvards. Just the ticket!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

You kind of have to look at this way. The Japs looked at capture and surrendure as weakness so you were fucked if you were captured. The Germans for the most part gave you the: 

"Vell Vell Flyboy it looks like ze waar is offer for u. U vill be enjoying vine graass soop and ersatz kaffee, ja? Ve hope u vill enjoy your staay in ze Vaterland, ja."


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 10, 2006)

exactly my point


----------



## ndicki (Nov 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You kind of have to look at this way. The Japs looked at capture and surrendure as weakness so you were fucked if you were captured. The Germans for the most part gave you the:
> 
> "Vell Vell Flyboy it looks like ze waar is offer for u. U vill be enjoying vine graass soop and ersatz kaffee, ja? Ve hope u vill enjoy your staay in ze Vaterland, ja."



My Father, an RAF pilot, was advised that in the case of being shot down over France, it was probably better to surrender - if obliged to by circumstances - to the Germans, rather than try to contact the French - who would probably hand him over not to the Luftwaffe as they were supposed to, but to the Milice, a collaborationist political police force. Very nasty.

Having said that, many RAF fliers were helped by the French, and managed as a result to get back to Britain to carry on the good work.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 12, 2006)

i would pick Africa as Australia is 2/3 desert, but if i came to a real choice what is better dying of thirst in a desert after getting shot down or getting eaten by sharks or salt water crocodiles around borneo or captured by Japanese, you would stand better chance with the crocodiles and sharks or getting shot down over europe and hopefuly not fall into the hands of the gestapo. buggar the views it isn't a scenery flight. you would be there for a reason not a vacation trip


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2006)

Yeap I agree, I would go where my country sent me and needed me the most and do my job.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 12, 2006)

ndicki said:


> My Father, an RAF pilot, was advised that in the case of being shot down over France, it was probably better to surrender - if obliged to by circumstances - to the Germans, rather than try to contact the French - who would probably hand him over not to the Luftwaffe as they were supposed to, but to the Milice, a collaborationist political police force. Very nasty.
> 
> Having said that, many RAF fliers were helped by the French, and managed as a result to get back to Britain to carry on the good work.



interesting ndicki. my dad told me that many Australian bomber crews when flying near Russian captured territory had a card saying they were English but it was printed in Russian of course in the event they were shot down near Russian troops and bailed out. They could not tell the Russians they were Australians in case the Russians thought they said they were Austrian etc. So much for Allied Intelligence at the time. Great say the wrong phrase in Russian to your Allies and they would shoot you


----------



## ndicki (Nov 13, 2006)

I wonder what they told the Poles to say - didn't matter who caught them, they were in trouble!


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Nov 20, 2006)

I would choose European theater, especially Russian because I love Russian aircraft.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 29, 2006)

I would probably choose Europe, because if I got shot down, I would be treated alot better than what the Japanese would do...


----------



## R-2800 (Nov 30, 2006)

> I would probably choose Europe, because if I got shot down, I would be treated alot better than what the Japanese would do...


I agree with P38 Pilot on that one


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2006)

But, if I did fly in the pacific, it would be with the Flying Tigers!


----------



## Le Stuka (Dec 4, 2006)

I voted Africa because of it's importance towards Naval Aviation. Swordfish, Martlets, Seafires, Spitfires, Hurri-bombers, Blenheims, Stukas! And plenty of ground targets too, imagine being in a Stuka or Hurricane Mk IIC or D with bombs, rockets and cannons against a column of vehicles or tanks.  I would have voted for Europe, but Africa has too much GA appeal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2006)

If you want ground attack appeal you should have taken Europe on the Eastern Front.


----------



## facecurtian (Dec 4, 2006)

The Pacific.
I'm an Army brat and dad was stationed in Hawaii when I was a little guy.
I remember us going to Battle Ship row listening to dad tell of the attack there in 41. The Pacific has held my interest ever since.


----------



## Treize (Dec 5, 2006)

I voted Pacific. Family is German, might have ended up shooting down a relative. 

Plus I always wanted to shoot down a Zero. 8)


----------



## skydriver (Dec 22, 2006)

I voted Pacific, but could really go anywhere. 

Give me a Corsair or a Mustang and I will go where ever you need me. 

Definatly wishful thinking on my part, as I was born in 1962.


----------

