# What is Your favourite plane from world war 2?



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

Well, mines obviously the p-108 8) if ive missed out a plane you would have liked to see on the list dont hesitate to bug me about why i didnt put it on  I do realise that ive missed out a load of planes however, mainly to keep the length of the list down 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

oh fiddlesticks  i did put other but i didnt realise you could only have 10 options  sorry


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

blimey, and ive put it in the wrong forum    it really aint my day


----------



## Andrew (Feb 20, 2004)

It has to be the Mosquito .

Andrew


----------



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

lancaster, no question


----------



## Crazy (Feb 21, 2004)

Mossie

And I've moved it to the correct forum


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 21, 2004)

Sopwith Camel: Nice Wings  

Hot Space


----------



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

na, the bleriot (i think that's how it's spelt) is better IMO


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2004)

oh yeah, i left those out deliberatly cos that just wouldnt be fair to the other planes, i mean, in a straight dogfight the bleriot would anilhate something like the spitfire


----------



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

to right cheese..............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

Its not on the list but a Gloster Gladiator would definately be my all-time fav - its got the looks AND One hell of a dogfighter!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2004)

The mine is the P38  .


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 23, 2004)

what does IMO mean? and my favorite is the Schwalbe or ME-262


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 23, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses,

IMO = In My Opinion

Also note: IMHO IMNSHO = In My Humble Opinion / In My Not So Humble Opinion.

Favourite fighter has to be the FW-190.

Kiwimac


----------



## Viper (Feb 23, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> lancaster, no question


hey the lanc and 17 are tied at 7% guess wut one i voted for


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

my friend martyn says the tornado is the best and it would kick all your asses  somehow i dont think so....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

oh crap he only just told me its a modern fighter jet  im not up on modern planes ya know


----------



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

P-51?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

P-51 Mustang (American Fighter)


----------



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

i know what it was, i was just refering to another post


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Uh-huh, i believe you....


----------



## Viper (Feb 25, 2004)

the corsair and mustangs are my favorite also


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 25, 2004)

The Sopwith Camel   

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 25, 2004)

yup,a true classic lol


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 25, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

yeah gotta love the sopwith camel 8) even though it could turn 270 degrees right quicker than it could turn 90 degrees left due to the amount of torque devloped by the propeller 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

It wasn't a bad little plane, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

i know, it was good 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

Just a pity it flew in a different war


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 26, 2004)

It would of been well buggered if it was The Falklands War    

Hot Space


----------



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

cheddar cheese said:


> yeah gotta love the sopwith camel 8) even though it could turn 270 degrees right quicker than it could turn 90 degrees left due to the amount of torque devloped by the propeller 8)



ohhhhhhhhhh, i so told you about that C.C.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

maybe you did...... but can you prove it? 

and if the old sopwith did fly in the falklands then who said it would be crap? all the jets would be flying too fast to get a good shot at it 8) the heat from the jet engines might fry the canvas though


----------



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

and thay wouldn't give off much of a heat signature, making them almost invisible to heat seaking equipment


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

good point 8)


----------



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

thanks, and they wouldn't give much of a radar signature


----------



## GregP (Feb 29, 2004)

Where's the GOOD planes?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 29, 2004)

and they would be unconspicious, no-one would suspect a sopwith camel.....


----------



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

not only that, very few people would even know what it was


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 29, 2004)

But a Sopwith Camel couldn't really do anything though  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2004)

it could fly around and be irritating towards enemy battleships, pretending to be a civilian plane


----------



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

or drop a propergander leaflet or two...................


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 1, 2004)

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

Nah the Argies would just throw an air to ground missile at it and that would be its lot...is it me or is GregP really bloody annoying?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

erm, dunno 8) annoying if you ask me 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

a 'lil


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

Heres a page for you Cheddar you've probably already seen it but i found it by accident and remembered you - enjoy! 

http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/scotts/books/p108book.htm


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

I've read elsewhere too that the P-108 was similar to most Allied heavy bombers in terms of weapons, speed and other performance figures (They often compare it to the Avro Lancaster) but surprise surprise it was poor commanding and misuse of reasources by the Italian airforce (not enough bombers taking part in raids etc) that lead to the aircraft not recieving enough praise for its efforts. 

If the Italians had been better at... well, fighting the war may have had a few nastier campaigns in it than it already had


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

yup, darn italians...... oh well, i still think he p-108 was a great plane, despite it being not very wel known, or very good for that matter 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

oh yeah, thanks BTW  8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

> Nah the Argies would just throw an air to ground missile at it and that would be its lot





> An F-15E destroyed an Iraqi Hughes 500 by hitting it with a laser-guided bomb.



   o ya a hughes 500 is a helicopter


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 4, 2004)

Oh yeah Cheddar - i read somewhere the other day that Benito Mussolinis son Bruno was killed whilst flying a P-108...so it does have a huge claim to fame! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

8)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

The Italians were simply under-resourced. Where the front-line fighting untis received the resources they needed they were as good as any in WW2.

An example:



> RUSSIA
> 
> August - Russians near Serafimovich launch a counterattack against the Italians holding the Don River in the hope of holding back the advances to Stalingrad. The Italians were outnumbered yet told to stand their ground and fight to the end. They eventually beat back the Russian tanks with Molotov cocktails. The battle in Serafimovich cost the Italians 1,700 men, but captured were 1,600 Russian POW's and many small arms.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.comandosupremo.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=790&highlight=

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 5, 2004)

Did anyone hear the one about the Italian tank? two forward gears six reverse!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 5, 2004)

Seriously though in the world of crap fighters who are badly organised the top 3 have to rank as this:


1) France
2) Italy 
3) Russia

So its no surprise the Italians managed to beat the Russians....anyway because the Russians were fighting the Italians they probably expected a one sided victory for them and besides...theres nothing like the threat of death to galvonise you on to victory is there?


----------



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

or the threat of being forced to listen to an hour of "bbc parliament"


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> or the threat of being forced to listen to an hour of "bbc parliament"



Watching it is worse   

Hot Space


----------



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

you get to whatch it, poor you, we only get it as a "audio sevice"


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 6, 2004)

I would rather just read a Book if that's on   

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Mar 6, 2004)

Back to the Italians, in North Africa they were severely handicapped because they didn't have transportation for the infantry, whereas the Brits had trucks to move infantry around. So the Italians had to march forward, march to battles, and so on while the Brits could drive away and attack from the side/behind if they wanted.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Aren't we British wonderful? (no sarcasm please!   )


----------



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

Britain good, Cornwall better................ 

BTW, HAPPY ST. PIRANS DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

NEWSFLASH! Cornwall is part of Britain!


----------



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

not if you're Cornish it's not.........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Not if you're cornish and nationalist its not


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

One set of my Great-Grandparents were from Cornwall.

Anyway pics of my favourite plane follow






Focke-Wulf FW 190 D1





Focke-Wulf FW 190 A8





Focke-Wulf FW 190A4





Focke-Wulf FW 190A5





Focke-Wulf FW190 B

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Not to mention





Focke-Wulf FW 190C





Focke-Wulf FW 190C Plan View





Focke-Wulf FW 190D9 CGI

Kiwimac


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

You like FW190s? (I'll admit, they're my favourite German plane)
Here's a couple screenshots from CFS2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

cornwall, good? get a life, give me somerset anyday 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

So...whats your favourite plane Kiwi....gimmie a clue..just any small clue...


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Kiwimac


----------



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

well, it's obviously the storch isn't it...................


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 8, 2004)

Nope! Its the Lavochin LA-5! 

Whaddya mean you don't believe me?

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

get away, anyone can see its the avro 679 manchester


----------



## Zamex (Mar 12, 2004)

Fw 190 definitely. But it is missing in poll.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

yeah sorry  look, the p-108 is tied with the lancaster, that must mean it was just as good


----------



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

ironic isn't ti, i'm the only voter for the lanc. and C.C. is the only voter for the 108


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

nope, i voted for the b-17


----------



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

well that begs the question, who the hell voted for the P-108????????????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

erm, probably that hot space dude, he was always a dodgy character.....


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 13, 2004)

Nope, I voted for the Mossie 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

8) i voted for p-108 obviously, i mean, the b-17, im not that stupid.... 8)


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 14, 2004)

with such enourmously long messages like this, you all should be in a chat room.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

sarcasm


----------



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

leave the spam to the masters please suddedn_strike..................


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 14, 2004)

I would love to Spam, but I'm off to get something to eat   

Hot Space


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> yeah sorry  look, the p-108 is tied with the lancaster, that must mean it was just as good



The P-108 has been compared to the Lancaster before now - the experts say they would've been similar had it not been for the Italians incompetance of command - thankgod for Italian stupidity I say! phew! - I note they're aren't any Italians in this forum - shame really - it would be nice for someone to argue for them rather than against them...fancy the job C.C??


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

On another note the DH Mosquito is tied with the Mustang - but the Mosquito was a better plane!


----------



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

i agree.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

leave the p-108 alone  i think i deerve an award for being te ONLY person on the site that aint embarassed to like crap planes


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 20, 2004)

hey i like the lancaster and im not embarrassed (please think about the true meaning)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

:lol  i like the manchester too 8)


----------



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

awwwwwwww, he likes me


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

8)


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 21, 2004)

La -7 RuleZZZ!!!  
2 SHVAK`s x 20mm. Good surprise for German aircraft...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 21, 2004)

they also have a version with three SHVAK's

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 21, 2004)

Yeah...
And was a version with three B-20 (20 mm, 130 ammo/cannon)...
Version with three NS-23 cannon (23 mm).
This cannon later uses in MiG-15...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 21, 2004)

all true mate and nice signature pic! (although i personally prefer Ivan's white La-7)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 21, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

hey, vegafox stole my flag


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

Damn flag thieves!


Quick Moderators! throw the thief out!!

8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)




----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

Tieving lil bastards!


----------



## Crazy (Mar 22, 2004)

Flag theives!? Where are the fiends? I shall apprehend them!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 22, 2004)

GODDAMNIT MATES!!!! ITS TEA LEAF!!!!!!!!!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Crazy (Mar 22, 2004)




----------



## Crazy (Mar 22, 2004)

ahhh, I see now!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 22, 2004)

Zdrasvuytiye~!

Der Fuhrer returns from his enforced holiday in Keineflugzeugland!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

que??????


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 22, 2004)

Sorry, but it`s MY FLAG. With this FLAG WE win the War...


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

lo siento.....no hablo bullshit!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> GODDAMNIT MATES!!!! ITS TEA LEAF!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Reichsmarschall Batista



Actually its 'A' tea leaf

as in 'its a thief!'

not 'its thief!'


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> lo siento.....no hablo bullshit!



You're spanish is terrible JJ - please stop!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

i'm sorry bronze, wasnt aware that you knew any to be able to make a comment! PUTA CONNURE!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

> not 'its thief!'


actually i meant "it is tea leaf not thief" and not "it is a tea leaf or a thief" so there! =P

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> i'm sorry bronze, wasnt aware that you knew any to be able to make a comment! PUTA CONNURE!



I don't know anything aout Spanish but other people who've heard your spanish have and they say your spanish is for shit!

And if you call me one of those again i'll hurt you  ...and yes i do know what it means 8)


----------



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

i want you to know i don't approve of your siggy crazy...............


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

ooh why not
?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Well...could it be because he doesn't like B-17s?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

no, cos he gets scared whenever he sees it cos he know he might ave t slag it off  we tend to make jokes about the ju-87 alot now though 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

To be honest I think the Ju87 is more deserving of our wrath 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

it is 8) bloody stuka....


----------



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

can you believe they actually tought it was invincible.....................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 28, 2004)

Really?  

Its amazing how Propaganda can rot the brain


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

yup 8) bloody propaganda.....

(you see a pattern developing here)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

The Stuka did well when no enemy aircraft were in the air, or no AA was on the ground..really it was crap. Goes to show when it did so well against the Spanish, Polish, French and Belgians..when it came across normal people it failed horribly, the British I mean. It even destroyed the Soviets at first.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

> It even destroyed the Soviets at first.



i thought soviets were indestructible


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

How did you come to that conclusion? Since their airforce was wiped away and their tank force went from 28,800 to 1506 from June 1941 to July 1942.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

it was a joke  i have an obsession with russians and communism


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

The Soviet flag kind of gives it away.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

plan_D said:


> How did you come to that conclusion? Since their airforce was wiped away and their tank force went from 28,800 to 1506 from June 1941 to July 1942.



Their tank force was amazing though (better than their airforce)
The Russian T-34 is widely beleived to be the best tank to ever come out of WW2 - it knocked the socks off anything German and even modern tanks were designed using the revolutionary ideas the Russians used to build them - the Russian tank force during WW2 was truly something to be very very worried about...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

I think you should read my reply in 'What are tanks?' to that.

In 1941 Russias tanks certainly were not good, going from a force of 28,800 to 1506 surely shows it. Their production was their greatness and the German tanks were still better on paper. The reasons the Germans lost was not because of their inferior tanks, it was because of their inferior numbers.
German tanks were the best of the war, if you are want to average it out. Early war, 1939 - 1940 Britain were the best, only because of the Matilda, 1941-1942 Russia were the best, 1943 onwards Germany were the best. All the way through Germany were only slightly surpassed. 

The Panzer IVG always matched the T-34 of any variant, and the Panther walked all over the T-34 in combat until it was overrun by many T-34s. In one battle 7 Panthers met 70 T-34s and in the 20 minute conflict destroyed 28 T-34s without a single loss. 

The Panzer V 'Panther' was the best tank of the war. And that was designed to combat the T-34, so there's something you can say about the T-34. 

You do realise the T-34 would have never existed if not for the American Christie tank system, by good 'ole New Jersey man Walther Chrisite. So, this was not a Russian invention. And in fact it was the JS-3 that pioneered modern tanks and this was based off the KV more than the T-34.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 2, 2004)

If this German tank was so hot mate then WHY are modern tank designs based around the T-34 and not a German tank? The truth is that the German tank was based around the design of the T-34! the Nazis saw it on the battlefield and thought "oh shit" and designed their tank in a hurry - see this quote and the site i got it from it clearly proves my point - the T-34 was the best  

"The T-34 came as a sad surprise to the Germans when they encountered them in quantity in July 1941. (Even if the T-34 engaged the Germans for the first time on June 22nd at Gorki). When the Germans engaged them they noticed that all their tanks had suddenly become obsolete and undergunned, for they were not a match to the T-34 either in speed, hitting power or protection. This immediately led to the Germans speeding up the developement of the heavy Tiger tank and the designwork of a tank with a similar design as the T-34, later to be known as the PzKpfw. V Panther, which owed its appearance and features directly to the T-34." 

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1695/Text/t34.html

Oh and while you're at it you may as well take a look at another site - perhaps this will convince you..?

http://www.iwm.org.uk/duxford/land4.htm

This American may have designed it but the Russians took the idea and perfected it - the T-34 was a russian design based on an american concept 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

the T-34 looked better then any german tanks..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

yup, sure did 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

and i think the T-34 looks more like modern tanks than the King Tiger..............


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

Welcome back Lancaster! We missed you!  

the reason modern tanks look similar to the T-34 and not the King Tiger was because modern tank designs are based around the T-34 (yes it really was that good) and not the King Tiger (although and excellent Tank it was outclassed by the T-34 -same as British and US tanks too - just as well we were on the Russians side! 8) )


----------



## plan_D (Apr 4, 2004)

The King Tiger was out-classed? Are you on drugs? The King Tiger had the greatest armour and armament of the war for any tank. It's 88mm cannon had the same penertration as the 122mm on the IS-2 because of German refining causing higher velocity. 
The T-34 was seriously out-classed late in the war, you should learn a little more, study the penertration and armour values yourself, you'll soon see. The number of Soviet tanks was the winning factor, look at the ratio of tank losses on the Eastern Front. The King Tiger didn't serve well on the Eastern Front because it was easily swamped by numbers and being 68 tonnes it was too heavy for the poor roads and soft ground. 
It was designed for the West, and it served very well in the West. The roads in the West could support the King Tiger, and it served unbelievebly well. Lack of supplies and inferior numbers were it's only downfall. You seem to have a severe disliking of German tanks, when in all reality they were the best of the war and nothing could match them one on one. :grab:


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

plan_D - have you been to the bovington tank museum?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 4, 2004)

Can't say I have...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

you should go - its really good and someone with a knowledge of tanks such as yourselfs woud enjoy it 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 4, 2004)

Got in abit late here, but I can see that my choice of Mosquito is on Top, [sigh], with Mustang a close second - Marvellous those Merlins, eh?! - Amazing design, plywood balsa, firepower like a cruiser ! - There's still a good number of Mustangs about , and I'd say over the next decade or so, there will be Mosquitos again !!!!....[SIGH]


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The King Tiger was out-classed? Are you on drugs? The King Tiger had the greatest armour and armament of the war for any tank. It's 88mm cannon had the same penertration as the 122mm on the IS-2 because of German refining causing higher velocity.
> The T-34 was seriously out-classed late in the war, you should learn a little more, study the penertration and armour values yourself, you'll soon see. The number of Soviet tanks was the winning factor, look at the ratio of tank losses on the Eastern Front. The King Tiger didn't serve well on the Eastern Front because it was easily swamped by numbers and being 68 tonnes it was too heavy for the poor roads and soft ground.
> It was designed for the West, and it served very well in the West. The roads in the West could support the King Tiger, and it served unbelievebly well. Lack of supplies and inferior numbers were it's only downfall. You seem to have a severe disliking of German tanks, when in all reality they were the best of the war and nothing could match them one on one. :grab:



Nope, not on drugs - if you read my post on the previous page (doesn't seem as though you actually bothered) you would see that I DID do my research and authorities (who I daresay know more than you or I) claim the T-34 was the best...because it was \/ 

The sites state (and not just the site - the Imperial War Museaum in London and Duxford both say exactly the same thing) German tanks were not only outnumbered but OUTCLASSED during the war by the T-34 - they didn't know what to do - except inspect a captured T-34 and design a tank around the ideas used in the T-34...presumably the result was this 'King Tiger' thing you keep going on about - how can you claim this Nazi tank was better?? and even if it WAS better in armament and gun usuage - it wasn't as manouvorable as the T-34 because of its sheer size and (by your own admittance) it was useless on soft boggy ground and damaged roads...the frozen russian winter was too much for this German design...but these were obstacles which the T-34 didn't find a problem at all therefore limiting your tank to hard ground and roads in the west - which the T-34 could also be used on!!  The Tiger was complex to produce and repair but the T-34 was both simple to build and repair (part of the reason the Russians had so many)
The Tiger was also slow (whereas the T-34 was fast) and it was technically unreliable - a piece of advice for the future - try not to only look up the plus-sides and ignore the down-sides...because as i've proved here - it only had one of two things going for it. 
And you still think the Tiger was better? please don't make me laugh! 
 \/

The only way the King Tiger could win one on one was if the T-34 had broken down, was out of ammo and its crew were dead at the controls


----------



## plan_D (Apr 4, 2004)

A King Tiger one on one with anything in the war would win. You ask any historian that and he'll say it to be true. The King Tiger was unbeaten in range, firepower, armour and accuracy. I don't ignore the downsides, the fact is from a T-34 going head to head with a King Tiger, the King Tiger would knock it out before the T-34 crew could even see the King Tiger. 
The optics on the T-34 were poor they struggled to see their enemy let alone hit them. You always say T-34, which kind of T-34? There was more than one variant. The Tiger was easily superior to the T-34, they just out-numbered. If the Tiger was out-classed how come more Soviet Tanks were lost than German ones? 

The Panther was my favourite tank and in some respects was superior to the Tiger, and two Panthers could be produced in the same time as a Tiger. The T-34 was good, there is no denying it but it certainly wasn't the best tank one on one. 
The reason historians mark it above the rest is because it is so simple and they could add improvments without breaks in the production line. 

The Panther, Tiger and King Tiger were all superior. Look at the numbers at Kursk, Germany lost that battle, the Soviet Union won but look at the kill ratio on tanks. If German tanks were out-classed why is the kill ratio far in their favour? 

One example I've mentioned which as obviously not gone in, 7 Panthers met 70 T-34/76s in the 20 minute conflict 28 T-34s were destroyed without a single loss to the Panther. The Soviets were amazed by the Panther, that is why the new T-34/85s were rushed to be designed. 

The Panther was not designed off the T-34, it was designed to combat it. At first it was similar to the T-34 in design, the Germans realised the rugged design of the T-34 was somewhat ingenius but the Panther was soon improved and performed far better than the T-34. If you are going to go on about how the Panther was designed to beat the T-34 I could go into a big list of tanks designed to combat other tanks. 

The Panther was designed to combat the T-34/76, the T-34/85 was designed to combat the Panther, the IS-2 was designed to combat the Tiger, the Pershing was designed to combat the Tiger, the Comet was designed to combat the Tiger, the Ferdinand was designed to combat the KV-1. So on and so on. 

And on the King Tiger, it wasn't designed off the T-34 in any way shape or form. You don't research enough if that's what you come up with. 

I've read plenty of books that praise the T-34, and I do to. It was a great tank, and it certainly saved the Soviet Union. The ease of build, rugged design, powerful weaponary and armour not to mention its manuverabilty and reliability might it a tank to be reckoned with but it was out gunned and out classed by the Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers. The Pz. IV Ausf G was a comparable match to the T-34/76. 

The T-34/76 and T-34/85 saw action in Korea against the American Shermans M4A3 and M4A3 (76W) and in every encounter the Shermans came out on top. 

If the T-34 was the best there would have been no reason for the IS-2, KV-85 or IS-3. The IS-3 was easily the best tank built in the war, but it never saw service. Modern tanks are not based off the T-34, the designs in Soviet Russia in the 50s were based off the T-34, it went from T-34 to T-44 then to T-54/55. These were running along side the IS-3. Modern Russian tanks like the T-90 are no longer based off such a design. And the M1 Abrams and Challenger series are certainly not based off the T-34.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 4, 2004)

ok bronze you may know about planes but NOT tanks!!! plan_D knows what hes talking about!! and in fact the 88mm KwK 43 L/71 on PzKpfw VI Königstiger had MORE penetration than the 122mm M1943 (D-25) L/43 gun on the IS-2 (JS-2 is same tank, just depends if you say Iosef Stalin or Josef Stalin)!!!! ok, the figures are as follows: from 547yd (500m) the German gun had a 7in (182mm) penetration value, but the IS-2 had a 5.5in (140mm) penetration value!!! oh, and plan_D there is one problem in one of your posts... the Königstiger was beaten in range and numbers and thats all!!! and how does a Panther owe its looks to a T-34??? a Panther has the normal mid-set turret unlike (crappy) russian tanks which have the turret at the front also, the Panther had more armor than T-34, the Panther's minimum thickness was 0.6in (20mm), with the maximum being 4.7in (120mm) while the (crappy) T-34 had 0.7in (18mm) minimum and 2.4in (60mm) maximum! and while we're at it, the Königstiger ALSO had armor supremacy over its rival! minimum for Königstiger is 1.6in (40mm) and 7.3in (185mm) maximum, while the IS-2 had 0.8in (19mm) minimum and 5.2in (132mm) maximum, which i may add, is barely more than the Panther!!! so bronze, get you facts straight and admit the truth... the russians only real advantage was numbers in everything, VVS (although the Yak-3's were VERY good as were La-7's) , tank force, infantry, supplies, etc. ,etc. so not only were German tanks better than (crappy) russian tanks (notice how i only capitalize German) in almost every way excepting speed and range (German tanks were bigger and ran on petrol which gets less mpg than diesel which explains the rnage deficiency, and were bigger than russian tanks, which explains the speed deficiency)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

from what little i have read i would say that the T-34 would win in a head to head with a tiger, as long as it wasn't spotted and shot at from long range, as it was very fast and could get around to the tigers weaker behind, and as the tigers turret was slow to turn, it could be possible for it to do it without getting shot......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

I won't continue this argument that has appeared from wherever - in my opinion (and clearly that of the rest of the informed world - except plan_d and Germans..  ) the T-34 (whichever model performed the best) was the best - you keep going on about the range of this brilliant gun on the King Tiger etc but aside from the fact that it had a big gun, it was slow, unmanouvorable and you had to have the exact right type of terrain for it to be any good - in that it would have been great on a nice straight road but take it anywhere else and it was shite

you also ignore my comments about how difficult it was to build in numbers and repair etc...quite frankly i'll believe what the EXPERTS tell me and not from some unknown source...(where are your links that prove all this you're saying? - we've only got your word so far  )

I've been to countless military museums and they all say the same thing and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise

I've read all this stuff about this battle when the T-34s suffered heavy losses? so bloody what? plenty of battles in history have been lost when they should have been won - unless you were there you can't possibly make a comment about how that battle was won or lost - besides even with a tank as amazing as the T-34 doesn't mean you'll win the battle - alot of russian commanders where stupid - as with this battle you keep mentioning how do you have a clue (without being there) how the russians suffered such heavy defeats...ever considered that it might have been a cokup by whichever general was in charge and not the fault of the russians - perhaps (having such a big gun the german tanks could've had the advantage on the open battlefield but in secluded forests etc...the big hulk of metal would've been blown away by the smaller more nimble T-34

it seems to me that you think the Krauts had the best tanks simply because they had bigger guns on them...you have alot to learn mate


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

Bronze,

Actually I disagree with you . Tank warfare (any warfare really) is first and foremost about *getting the enemy before he gets you* and if you can do that before the bugger can see you, more power to you.

The latter German PkW were excellent and far superior to the Russian / British / US ones. Their biggest problem was that they could not produce enough of them or of the diesel to fuel them.

There needs to be a distinction made, ISTM, between a tank that was easy to mass-produce (T-34 + variants) and tanks that were technically superior (German PkWs.)

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

you ALWAYS disagree with me!   

I really have run out of enthusiasm for this topic  - i'm here to talk about warplanes - Plan_d is correct - I'm correct - who cares? we've both got our opinions and lets stick to them - i don't know enough about tanks to make a huge effort debating this(unlike Plan-D apparently  )...but that doesn't mean i don't know enough to say i'm right 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> i'm here to talk about warplanes



ys, me too, ive been a bit lost with all this tank talk


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 6, 2004)

I'm certainly no authority on tanks, - or aircraft, but I read to learn and find your gentlemen's forum very interesting and varied...The thing about the tanks and WWII that strikes me, the Germans did have exceptional mechanical technical ability, and since they started the War and overun such vast territory, by the time they got into Russia they had acquired significant tactical skill - Like Air Aces, they had Tank Aces too, and what little I've read indicates they Knew their stuff - Both in North Africa and Russia, the re-supply lines eventually stuffed the Germans, and they were also out-numbered eventually - Outa these conflicts it was recognised that the German tanks, the Tiger and Panther, were exceptional weapons with heavy armour and firepower, the tank losses per se reflect that - the tactics they used were born out of years of front-line 'tooth nail' fighting. The Russian ' Josef Stalin' rounded-turret did help but it was also an enormous 'morale-booster' for their troops, and by then they had plenty- I don't think the Germans ever recovered from Napoleon's mistake of fighting the Russian winter, that they repeated- They fought on but the loss of morale and crimes of the Einsatzgruppen haunted them, and all the firepower armour couldn't change the fact that their High Command let them down as well...[ that's my two cents worth...]


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> and find your gentlemen's forum very interesting and varied



ha, were not toffs if thats what youre impyling


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 6, 2004)

No such thing! You'd get a bit pissed if I referred to you in less polite terms - I simply believe treat those as you like to be treated...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2004)

You can stop going on about the King Tiger anyway because I never liked it, the Panther was still superior to the T-34 of any variant. You have enough given knowledge that has probably been forced down your throat to think the T-34 was better. I've read books praising the T-34 all the way through with great foundation but it won't convince me that they are superior to the late German tanks. 

The Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger could see, shoot and kill the T-34 before the T-34 in open field. In dense forest the Tigers and Panthers would still be at the advantage because the T-34s would have to get close, you can't hide a 30 tonne tank charging through the forest. 

The only disadvantage in battle for the Tiger was its slow moving gun, this could easily be solved by turning the whole tank since it was 1:1 (width:length) meaning it was very manuverable on the spot and could turn the whole tank faster than the gun. And face its frontal armour to its enemy. 

I could easily defend the T-34, and I could defend it much better than you. But if you want to praise Soviet tanks to their fullest praise the IS-2 and IS-3 because they were good, and they could finally match the Germans one on one. 

On your "you don't know unless you were there", look at Kursk, the Germans were attacking across soft, unstable ground at dug in Soviet positions with inferior numbers this is two disadvantages straight away. Still, they managed to get across and push through the lines all the way to the back until the Soviet reserves plugged the holes and pushed them back. With the loss ratio in their favour. 

Actually late war, Soviet commanders were very good they had the right tactics to beat the Germans, and mostly it was at their own game in the name of 'Deep Battle' which resembled the German blitzkreig. 

Another battle took place with 8 Tigers, and 15 IS-2s that were in a recently captured village. The Tiger commander (A very good one, an ace) told his unit to stay and only him and one other Tiger would go over because of the road, it was too thin. The leader fired at the first IS-2 at 900m and ripped its turret off, the second Tiger then fired at another and punched a hole through its rear before charging in, and ordering his others to follow. This is another example of Soviet inferiority, the Germans captured the village, this was due to radio contact between tanks that the Soviets did not have. If they had contact they would have known where the Germans would have come from and might have stood a chance. 

And another thing, although I can praise the T-34 which I have done previously, the T-34/76 had a cramped two man turret which meant the Commander was the gunner, this was ridiculous as the gunning was a full time job in itself. Trying to aim and fire the gun while giving flag signals to other tanks in the unit (if the lead tank) would have been impossible. Yes, I did say flag signals they didn't have radios, not all of them anyway. 
Even some tanks in Stalingrad didn't have optics, the gunner had to simply guess by looking down the barrel. 

When I find a decent link I'll give it to you, until then you'll just have to trust me passing on what I've read in countless books.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 6, 2004)

The book in particular that I read about all this was called ' Panzer Aces' if I recall, which like most folk, 'coloured' my view of the conflict a little - It's hard not to respect the professionalism of those men when in reading about it all, it's wasn't a case of 'tradesmen blaming tools' that they lost - They were exceptional tacticians, taking each conflict as it came, in the circumstances they came upon it....It's worth a read - One can allow the glory of winning the war to pump-up the prestige of their tank...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 6, 2004)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/profiles.htm 

That is done by a German, and he is the nephew of a Panzer Ace in World War 2. Very good site, and all you would need to know about German tanks. It even has a section on captured T-34s, and quotes from Heinz Guderian and other leads on Panzer warfare. 

http://www.battlefield.ru/map.html

This is Russian, very good, obviously a lot of praise for the T-34, not very well written but they are Russian after all. 

www.wwiivehicles.com

This is a collection of all the tanks, not all have pictures but a very good site for people like you who think they know and might be interested in learning more.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 7, 2004)

Many thanks for those , I'll check them out - I'm always keen to learn more...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

plan_D said:


> You have enough given knowledge that has probably been forced down your throat.



Y'know its funny...thats exactly what i was thinking about you...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 7, 2004)

How could you come to that conclusion when I'm going against common thought. Where as you are just repeating what is said by others. 

On one final note, the three main principles for a good tank in World War 2, brought to light by both German and Soviet tank experts; firepower, armour and manuverability. 

The Panther beat the T-34/76 on firepower and armour. It was slightly defeated on manuverability. 

The Tiger beat the T-34/76 on firepower and armour. Beaten on manuverability. 

The King Tiger beat the T-34/76 on firepower and armour. Beaten on manuverability. 

2 to 1 on every occasion. 

Another thing...between 1941 and 1945 the Soviet Union lost 83,500 AFVs on the Eastern Front. The Germans lost 25,584 on all fronts. This should clearly show German supremacy not only in weapons but in skill. 

Between 1941 and 1945 Germany produced 23,759 tanks, while the Soviet Union produced 72,231 this shows that numbers were the winning factor. Also shows how quickly the Soviet Union could produce weapons compared to their refined and complicated enemies which were being bombed day and night by Allied bomber streams.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Yes wonderful...what a great bunch the Germans were...shame they lost the war really eh?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2004)

German technology was far superior to the rest of the worlds, it was inferior numbers that lost them the war.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)




----------



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

> ha, were not toffs if thats what youre impyling



speak for yourself.......................


----------



## ahanswurst (Apr 11, 2004)

The 88 mm cannon on the larger German tanks fired a 22 lb shell 3000+ feet/second and point of aim was 5000 feet. It was very flat shooting and a better round then any of the allies tank cannons . The USA started putting 90 mm cannons on their tank destroyers later in the war . But all in all the 88 mm was the best cannon of WW2. The Russians 76 mm cannon was a good round but it bounced off of the armor of the larger German tanks. What the Russians tanks lacked in firepower they made up by making more tanks then the Germans could stop. There were stories of tank battles of where there were T-34's all over the place burning and shot up. But the Russians had more tanks and they just kept on coming in waves.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

i agree, the 88 was a hell of a gun, for a while it was the only anti-tank gun they had that could take out allied tanks...................


----------



## plan_D (Apr 11, 2004)

Unfortunate the '88' has been classed as just that, the '88'. The different German 88mm guns were all very good, very, very good. It wasn't until the 122mm cannon on the IS-2 was brought to bear that they could match the Tiger one on one, and even then the optics on the Tiger were superior. 

All the German guns were good, refined and very powerful. The 75mm cannon on the Panther had more penertration at certain degrees than the 88mm on the Tiger, you want the precise gun names, I can give them, but at the moment, I'd tired.


----------



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

the british 76 was very efective when mounted in a sherman..........


----------



## brad (Apr 12, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> lancaster, no question


 to right


----------



## brad (Apr 12, 2004)

Viper said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > lancaster, no question
> ...


 brobs b17 my fave is the lanc


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Can we please get back on the aircraft topic guys? 

theres a thread called "What is a tank" if you want to discuss the merits of WW2 tanks further...cheers 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2004)

yes that would be nice 8)


----------



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

thanks brad, it's nice to have someone with an love for fine planes (the plane in question is the lancaster before you say anything C.C.), what's you opinion on the B-17?


----------



## brad (Apr 14, 2004)

my opinon on the b17 is it was crap


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

> (the plane in question is the lancaster before you say anything C.C.)



im not stupid, i know you wouldnt say the b-17 was good if your life depended on it 

and no the b-17 wasnt crap 8)


----------



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

it had a crap payload, and remember, by the end of the war, the mossie could carry the same pay load higher, faster and further on half the engines...............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

since when is 4,000lb the same/higher payload than 8,000 lb???


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Lanc is correct Germans...The Mossie could carry a payload equal to a B-17 bomber...its a fact


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

> it had a crap payload, and remember, by the end of the war, the mossie could carry the same pay load higher, faster and further on half the engines...............



that doesnt exactly promote the lancaster seen as the b-17 was better


----------



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

no, a mossie couldn't carry a grandslam to allmost any part of germany could it?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 16, 2004)

No, it is correct with some alterations. The Mosquito could carry the same as a B-17, if the B-17 was on a long run, and the Mosquito was on a short run. 

If the Mosquito was carrying the same as the B-17, the B-17 would carry it further. And the B-17 could carry more, if they were going to same distance.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Ah...so if the B-17 and the Mosquito could carry the same payload over a short and long distance then surely the Lancs ability to carry a smaller payload over a longer distance means the Mosquitos longer distance carrying a larger payload would be equal to that of the B-17 flying with a heavier payload? 

Is that correct? 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 16, 2004)

Lets put this in simple terms shall we...The larger the payload the less distance you fly, the shorter the distance the more you can carry. 

The B-17 could carry a larger maximum payload altogether than the Mosquito. And it could carry the maximum payload of a Mosquito (8,000 lbs?) further than the Mosquito. 

The truth in the Mosquito being able to carry as much as the B-17 is, if the B-17 is flying a further distance than the Mosquito with the same payload.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

hmmmmmm, im confused  8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

i realise that and the B-17 normally carried a 6000lb payload, not 8000lb


----------



## plan_D (Apr 17, 2004)

Like you must realise then the distance of the mission dictates the amount the aircraft will be carrying, since the heavier the craft the more fuel it will be using therefore restricting it to a shorter distance.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 17, 2004)

that and although the mossie could carry 8000lb, the biggest bomb it could carry weighed 4000lb so technically, those are theoretical figures...


----------



## Crazy (Apr 17, 2004)

In other words, the Mossie could theoretically carry 8,000 lbs. extra weight, but could only handle at most a 4,000 lb. bomb, due to drag and bomb size. And in kind, the B-17 could probably carry more than 8,000 lbs, but it's bomb bay wasn't large enough to hold more, and it wasn't equipped to carry bombs externally (AFAIK), Plus, you wouldn't take a full bomb load on every mission, 6,000 lbs. is more reasonable. Get's the job done almost as well as 8,000 lbs of bombs, and saves on fuel efficiency

Following suit, the Lanc could probably theoretically carry more than it's max bombload, but the figures were most likely closer due to the large bomb-bay


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 18, 2004)

> and it wasn't equipped to carry bombs externally


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 18, 2004)

That's either KG200 at work , or postwar testing of doodlebugs....As for the Mosquito vs B17, the former took 4,000lb cookies to Berlin because they could carry more fuel, with a range of external tank sizes fitted to the wings. This was the B.XVI that had bulged bomb doors to accomadate the 4000lb'er - They also flew at twice the speed of the big bombers and had a very low attrition-rate compared to the others, which all-in-all must qualify the Mosquito as the Best all-round Bomber of the War - How different things may have been if they had made more, earlier. - But now that we've established the Mosquito as the Best all-rounder [ and yes, it could did carry torpedos too, rockets were just better,] I notice no-one has really given the B.29 a thumbs-up?! I feel they were the ultimate development in Bombers, from WWII.- Sure, they didn't operate in the ETO, and they had a troubled beginning, but they did some major damage before they slung the nukes in them, and I feel their design lead to greater things, like the B.52 which is still in service today... :BIG:


----------



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

> That's either KG200 at work , or postwar testing of doodlebugs....



I've seen that pic before and it is an american plane, and they are american doodlebugs, the americans got their hands on a couple of them and copied the design exactily, but they were never used operationally..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

> I've seen that pic before and it is an american plane



looks like a b-17 to me?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 18, 2004)

That's because it is one. Thanks for pointing the obvious out on the American V-1 copy, I think the star on the V-1s wing gives it away.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

> That's because it is one



alright dont be cocky, for all the lanc knows it could be a p-38, hes not used to seeing b-17's in one piece


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 18, 2004)

Certainly there's alot to be said for the B.17, but fundamentally it remained the same throughout the War, the G model being the most developed variant for it's push into Germany. One wonders how things would have been if it joined the Lancasters doing night-runs, or alternatively, if the Lancasters did the daylight bombing- They didn't have the firepower but no doubt they would have changed that. The daylight raids they did after D-Day were easier because the Allies had established Air-Superiority more or less, and that came about largely because of the B.17 / 24's escorts, particuarly the Mustang. Where they altered the Lancaster design to accomodate the Tallboy Grand Slams and weight-saved by deleting guns, the B.17 had no such changes. In this respect the Lancaster became a legend - The B.17 gave of it's ETO experiences to help in the development of the B.29, which was the ultimate Bomber of WWII with remote controlled turrets, range, bombload and remarkable speed, 375 mph @ 25,000 ft [ 450 in the jetstream].- But it's always the weight / range factor for any bomber, isn't it ? I feel the B.17's contribution was big , especially when it lead to the B.29's later success. Lancaster development eventually lead to the Shackleton which served many countries for many years postwar, in the Maritime role.-[ But the Mosquito was so totally unique it is ALWAYS my favourite....]


----------



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

> I feel the B.17's contribution was big



not as big as the lancasters, we could have won without the B-17, but not without the lancaster.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

hmmmmm, i doubt it, wellingtons could have been up to the job, despite a 4,500lb payload. And theres always the halifax too 8)


----------



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

na, couldn't have done it without the lancaster.........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

no i think we could


----------



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

no way..................


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 23, 2004)

Still the FW 190 IMNSHO!

Kiwimac


----------



## TimT1 (Apr 23, 2004)

My favorite is the Corsair. It is a beautiful looking aircraft. It's fast, well-armed, versatile, and they didn't nickname her "Whistling Death" or "The Sweetheart of Okinawa" for nothing.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 23, 2004)

they didnt call the La-5FN "The White Rose Of Stalingrad" for no reason either... (but then again, that was the pilot, Lilya (Lily) something, not the plane....) but ive never heard of "The Sweetheart Of Okinawa", does it have to do with the infantry support it provided to those (crazy-ass) marines? anyway, going with the subject, i like the Beaufighter's nickname, "The Whispering Death", named for the distinctive sound the engines and their sleeve-valves made and of course the death that ensued from being a Beau's enemy... btw, my favorite plane has gotta be the Me-262 A-1/a for many reasons, looks being one.... (wow a post that was on topic and had extra substance... we can all do it if we try and want to, including c.c and lanc....)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2004)

Well you are stretching it a bit there. 

I have to say my favourite plane would be the Mosquito, I'm just amazed by some of things it could achieve and I've just read the career of Charles Patterson who flew Mosquitos after Blenheims on North Sea patrols. Some of the things he did are quite amazing, and it shows the Mosquito to be brilliant because it could withstand such feats.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2004)

On that B-17 carrying the V-1s; it was a B-17G, and it was assigned to the USN used as a launch platform for JB-2 Loon guided missile. JB-2 was the US designation of captured German V-1s.


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Right On , Plan_D , about the Mosquito , and although the Lancaster did the weights , Mosquitos target-marking greatly assisted their aim . As far as Prop aircraft went , they were totally Unique ! - This chap Patterson , what's the book called ? Sounds like one I'd like to read...


----------



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

i still think it's the lancaster, i mean could you imagine a B-17 doing the dambusters raid?


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Dambusting B.17's!!   I thought it was cheeky they were trying-out V1's AFTER the War - AND two of 'em at once !!! - Interesting that they had more B.24's in the ETO overall - The RAF liked the Liberator's range for Coastal Command and Atlantic Convoy escort too. I have to stay with the Mosquito first, Spitfire as second because unless they'd won the BoB, the Lancaster might not have evolved, but definately Lancaster third - Y'see, the Mosquito really complemented the Lancaster; it checked the target-weather first, then target-marked and spoof-raided for them, then hunted the enemy nightfighters, and after the Lancaster crews had got back, had eggs bacon breakfast and some sleep , there was the target-photo results...Hey, it was almost a marriage, mostly run on Merlins...


----------



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

> Spitfire as second because unless they'd won the BoB



a common misconseption, the hurricane did more to win the BoB than the spit, but only 'cos there were more of them...................


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 24, 2004)

Touche! You're quite right !!- It's a shame it's not on the list! -29 to 19 Sqn.'s/July 1940...Golly, they HAVE been over-shadowed by the Spit !- But as there wasn't any Lancasters then, the hardy Hurricane, another in the Merlin Family of Fighters Bombers , should definately be included....another Legend that did really bear the brunt of the War initially, and went on to fly in virtually every Front ...I wonder why it never really got as progressively developed as the Spit was....


----------



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

because in terms of performance the spit easily beat the hurricane, so they put all their effert in developing the better fighter..................

that's another thing, you quite rightly point out that lancasters weren't around during the BoB but for some reason there's one in the BBMF?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

I know, it's strange but then there's a Dakota as well.


----------



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

true, and some spit. marks that weren't around at the time, well, that's us brits..............


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 25, 2004)

Still the FW 190 

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Apr 26, 2004)

The incorrect mark Spitfire isn't that bad because to most people it's just a Spitfire. I think they should put the 'Sally B' B-17, any of the P-51Ds and the only P-47 in Britain with the BoBMF and call it the Western Allied Memorial Flight. It'd be good to see, a Lancaster, Hurricane and Spitfire with B-17, Mustang, Thunderbolt and Dakota stacked behind.


----------



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

i don't think they should, the BoB was a truely commonwealth victory, and desereves it's own tibute, i think they should keep them separate..............


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 26, 2004)

Yeah, the BBMF is kinda sacred, but I do like the idea of the WAMF - There's so much more Airshow activity in Britain, I only get to read about it down here - We have some variety here, but our only Lancaster is a static display...


----------



## TimT1 (Apr 27, 2004)

Referring to the Corsair being called the "Sweetheart of Okinawa", yes, it was the Marines that nicknamed it that, because of the invaluable ground support it provided, which it did in the Korean conflict also.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2004)

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean permanently even just once for the photo opportunity, the BBMF is sacred, I would never want it permanently violated...


----------



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

i wouldn't want it viotaed atall


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

me and the lanc are going to a BBMF in july, we get to miss school


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 27, 2004)

I guess I'll get to see the photos of it down here in one of the magazines.. However, the Prez of our Fighter Pilots Assn. down here, was apparently a Corsair pilot ; Nicholas Trudgian, the Aviation Artist, did a painting of his work attacking Japs , but the President wrote a book of his exploits and I've just got my hands on it - Should be a good read....


----------



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

I realise Australia has a rich aviation heritidge, but what's NZ's like?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

A note on the B-17, the F and the G models were equipped to carry two 4000lb bombs under the wings but that was only on short range missions and rarely used. 

A note on aircraft nicknames, no plane had a cooler nickname than Der Gabelschwanz Teuful, the Fork-Tailed Devil!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

i think stringbag is a pretty great nickname myself


----------



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

don't forget wimpy, a name to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy .............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Nothing strikes fear like the sight of a fat man eating a hamburger!


----------



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

you must see allot of that in america? (sorry, cheap shot)

but you would think that the brits could come up with something a bit more fearsome.....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 2, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you must see allot of that in america? (sorry, cheap shot)


right-o old chap! that was a marvelous joke! and yes as far as that goes, i do see them a lot in fast food places.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

The Brits did a better job naming planes that the Americans did for the most part. Did you know that the USAAF originally wanted to call the P-38 the Atlanta?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

then your username would be atlanta guy, forcing us to think you were camp


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

So I am definitely glad we at least handed a couple of the planes over to the Brits


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

i wonder if there's ever gonna be a boeing 666 or 888?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Very doubtful.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

or an Avro Cornwall...


----------



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

that would be sooooo cool, a nime with power and conviction..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

it would be equipped with 2 .303 pitchforks under each wing, but me montrously loud as it would be diesel, it would have a power take off at the back and a milking parlour in the bomb bay


----------



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

bit stereotypical don't you think? bloody funny though 

and you could atleast have 2x303 pitchforks in each of 3 diesil power operated milk churns.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

and the rear turret would be a scoop from a jcb, useful for knocking planes out the sky


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

<Monty Python moment>

Alright, stop that, just too silly.


----------



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

no it's not, we could pull it off, i have the knowlege of aircraft, C.C. is a good designer...........


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Sure...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

i have the knowledge, and C.C. is a good designer, why not?


----------



## kiwimac (May 11, 2004)

Because there are _some things _ human-beings were never _meant_ to do!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

yes, thanks lanc, because of that praise i will agree that you have the knowledge  i will start the blue prints tonight, it shall be a fighter bomber yes?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 11, 2004)

Yes, the cows in the wheat bays will drop *AHEM* anti-personnel bombs and we've already mentioned the Browning Pitchforks...
JaBo seems to be a great task for this plane-thing!

JaBo=Jager Bomber


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

you want in germans?


----------



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

what's he gonna do?

(i'm not saying you would be useless, it's just the distance in volved)

could some one give us some specifications that they would want from the Avro Cornwall?

another thing, today i say some thing worriying, a De Havilland Devon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

he probably has good ideas


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Working for Avro AND De Hallivand now?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

no, his spelling error changed the meaning of the sentence completely, what he meant was he saw a picture of a de havilland devon in his flypass magazine 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Really now!?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

yup, ooo look theres one now 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

yup, ooo look theres one now 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Great description


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

yup, i spent all night thinking of that


----------



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

you see, and to think you didn't belive us..................

agly aint it..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

agly? oh ugly, yes it was 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

It just looks like someone hit it on the head and its got a nasty lump.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



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

do planes really do that  ...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)

yes, they have feelings too!


----------



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

so the B-17 goes to bed at night and cries because everyone takes the piss because it's crap.................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I don't know about that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

everyones getting nostalgic! the lancs started bashing the b-17 again and ive been relentlessly spamming


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

And I...well I never changed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

"boring!" (joke)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I'm already perfect, no need for change.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

the lanc would argue that point, he thinks hes perfect  me? i go for the modest approach, i wait for people to call me perfect, ive been waiting a while though


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

It's much easier to call yourself perfect, or you'll be waiting forever. Maybe that should tell me something....


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)




----------



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

> i





> think





> hes perfect



that's sooo sweet of oyu, does your girlfriend know you flirt with other people?.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

if youre paraphrasing me there then thats pathetic


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

It's funny though.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

thanks 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Well, it was funny.


----------



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

> if youre paraphrasing me there then thats pathetic



damn, he's on to me ..............


----------



## Flying Tiger (May 24, 2004)

Well, my favorite aircraft from WWII is the P40 Warhawk. This plane soldiered on years after if was obsolete, and it beat the best the Japanese and Germans could throw at it. It was with us from '41 to '45, and while it wasnt the best machine built at the time, it answered the call, and it shot down many a plane during its career. Most of all, I like it cause its just a cool fighter. It couldnt match the FW190, BF109, the Japs nimble fighters, etc., but she still brought em down none the less. It had its drawbacks, but it did its job pretty good in my book.

God Bless


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

nice choice 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

The P-40 was successful provided the pilot was aware of its limitations. In the Pacific it had no chance in a dogfight with anything the Japanese had (except maybe the Nick). Against the Germans, it's lack of a supercharged engine was a serious disadvantage since it was almost always starting below the 109s and 190s. That being said, it managed to "hold the line" very admirely, much like the Wildcat, until better planes arrived.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

His praise for it was very well done as well, none of this it was better than them, when it quite clearly wasn't. I don't know what my favourite plane was they were, mostly, all good in some respect.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 24, 2004)

including the roc?


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

Flying Tiger, nice to see you on. As for the P-40, Lightening guy said it, the P-40 just needed to be understood by the man flying. Yes it had its falts they all did, but you do not give the credit to the cews as they started to understand how best to fight.

As for the favorate, well you all should know but the B-24 did not even make the list!


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2004)

would you fellas be interested in some pics of former P-40 ace that came from my little town. he was shot down and killed in the Pacific/China early in the war. A member of the well-know Flying tigers. Our very small airfield was named after him several years ago - 1998 - and it was a true blessing to have three of the former aces of the FT's appear for the dedication. the deceased pilots name was Johnny Hampshire and given credit for 18 victories...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

Hey, don't feel bad MP-Willow, neither did the P-38.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Who made the poll, it does lack planes that really should be on there.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

*rolls eyes*


----------



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

thought as much..................

and what i don't get is how the B-17 has 3 more vetes than the lancaster...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

The fact that the P-108 was listed should have been a dead give away.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

I didn't notice the P-108. Why C.C do you love the P-38 so much, but it's not on there?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

i made this poll a long time ago, i didnt know about it then


----------



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

and he's very easily influenced, he'll belive anything anyone but me tells him, and after lightning guy's love of the P-38, he's folowed................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

Maybe, but I know why I like the P-38 and it WAS a great plane afterwall.


----------



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

but he doesn't, he knows very little about the plane, but becasue you've said it was a good plane, he just agrees................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 26, 2004)

lanc, i was a fan of the P-38 before lightning guy was even on the site, so please do your research


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

It was a great plane. C.C how did you know about the P.108 but not about the P-38 when the P-38 is one of the most famous planes of World War 2 (And with good reason).


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

An excellent question by Plan_D.


----------



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

actually he didn't know about the P-38 before, and even now when i question him about it he can't come up with a good defence of the P-38, so C.C., i suggest YOU do your research...........


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

did I mention this excellent web-addy ?

http://www.p38assn.org

Kühl materials guys and sometimes you even get to chat with a couple of ex-pilots

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Yeah. That one is on my favorites list. And so is this one . . . 
http://p-38online.com/


----------



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

any sites on the mossie??


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

LG so you know the name fork tailed devil is one of fiction !


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

again, lanc is in the wrong. i had known about the the P-38 for MONTHS i repeat MONTHS before lightning guy was here. i did know about the p-38 about the same time as the P.108, but i took more of an interest towards the 108 8) simple 8)


----------



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

you used to like the mossie though.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 28, 2004)

no i didnt.


----------



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

you did............


----------



## Gemhorse (May 29, 2004)

Absolutely, totally, irreconcilably, the De Havilland DH98 Mosquito, is my favourite...soon to be rebuilt and flying again.... - Lanc., check-out 'www.mossie.org' for Mosquitos.....


----------



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

thanks, I'll do that..................

and for me the mossie was second best................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

yup, second best to the P-38 8) and i never used to like the mossie, and i think i would know so stop being awkward.


----------



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

no, it's second best after the lancaster............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

even though the P.108 isnt my fave plane anymore i still see it as "my plane" 8) the P-38 is LG's.


----------



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

ohoh, what's mine??


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

What's my plane? 

LG must be proud of 'his' P-38...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

I've actually done some sketch work of what "my" P-38 would have looked like and yes I am quite proud of it. I'm even considering doing a model of it.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

That's amazing...really.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

i dunno plan_D, you dont really seem to bang on about any plane in particular.... spit XIV maybe?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

i wonder what GrG's is??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

109 K-4, probably


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

I'll have the Spitfire in general, obviously the Spitfire Mk. XIV the best. I'm good with that. 

I'd say GrGs would be the Bf-190K-4 as well...Erichs has to be the Me-262A-1a...or maybe the 2a...or 2b...I don't know anymore...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

and brads?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 1, 2004)

Any plane with wings...we'll give him the Manchester since he loves it so much.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)




----------



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

does that me mean and brad have to work together??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

hell yeah


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 1, 2004)

Me-262 A-1/a for me.


----------



## rcristi (Jun 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Well, mines obviously the p-108 8) if ive missed out a plane you would have liked to see on the list dont hesitate to bug me about why i didnt put it on  I do realise that ive missed out a load of planes however, mainly to keep the length of the list down 8)



Can you explain why you're so enloved with Piaggio P108? I cannot see anything out of ordinary in that craft.

I voted for the aircraft of the aces. guess which?

Cheers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

the Bf-109?  i just love the P.108  nothing out of the oridinary? you do know they equipped one with a 102mm cannon?


----------

