# Aces



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

allied pilots are shit!!! germans had WAY better aces i mean for top allied ace to have 62 kills and top german ace to have 352 is too much and then the patriots say we were the best in the world BAH humbug


----------



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

yeah, but the best ace in the world is no use if he's surrounded by under trained rookies


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 15, 2004)

And look what the top German Ace shot down for the most part, transports and planes that were vastly inferior.


----------



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

ah, a annonumous poster, the mystery goes on..............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 16, 2004)

yes but still that was in the ned of the war


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 19, 2004)

Plus you haven't made allowances for the number of FRENCH planes they shot down!!!!!! I mean lets face it they don't really count as fighter planes do they? you have to actually FIGHT to be named a fighter right?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2004)




----------



## nutter (Feb 19, 2004)

german aces have high kill scores because most of those kills were on the eastern front against easy to kill russian planes. also germany put more empasis on getting kills while the allies believed in team work


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 19, 2004)

Yeah the Russians did suffer alot of defeats in the air but all that stuff about Germans focusing on kills and the allies in teamwork??! i will admit that the Germans had good pilots but i think it had more to do with them being ruthless b******* and having excellent planes - the planes are more responsible for the kills rather than the pilots (i'm not saying these pilots were bad i'm just saying that if you put the most fantastic pilot in the world in a crap plane hes gonna get shot down!)

If you ask me it was the planes - not the pilots - that were the real aces. After all, the Poles were brilliant Spitfire pilots but in their own outdated planes the Germans murdered them


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2004)

nice theory 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 20, 2004)

nigga please! lol just kidding srry to black dudes/chicks if there are any but i had to say that and umm lets see ok if its the planes what would happen if Erich Hartmann got in a 'stang? it would be better but i mean allied pilots were ok in stangs but germans would be waaaaaaaaaaay better in them and its the pilot sure a plane can make or break someone but what about ppl in me262's that got killed by 'stangs,spits,and thunderbolts? see it is the pilot


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

How many Germans do you know that flew in Mustangs?  (anyway you sit anyone in a plane with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it and you've got a dangerous combination  ) about the point you made about Me262s? they were actually very unstable aircraft and were prone to accidents...those that were shot down by Spitfires and Mustangs probably got shot in their fuel tanks full of fuel alot more unstable than the kind you find in ordinary piston engined aircraft and so exploded, plus German pilots (though very good) were not used to flying high-speed Jet aircraft wereas the Allies had been flying Spits and 'Tangs for years and knew how to dogfight

I stick by my point that it was the planes rather than the pilots that helped win the war


----------



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

i gotta agree with you there....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 28, 2004)

yea but i still think thats bull and mustangs can be taken down easily.... just get a couple shots in the engine and youre golden and the


> plus German pilots (though very good) were not used to flying high-speed Jet aircraft wereas the Allies had been flying Spits and 'Tangs for years and knew how to dogfight


 thats beacuse they didnt get the Schwalbe early enough and many aces stayed in piston planes


----------



## GregP (Feb 29, 2004)

Bronze whaler doesn't know much about aerial combat, does he? The planes? Give me a break. Study the subject for several years and THEN tell me its planes. If you can DO that, then you're STILL not a pilot.

The German planes were about as good as Allied planes were. At particular times, one model or another was temporarily better by a margin, but the pilots were the deciding factor in combat. Adolph Galland could have flown almost anything and would have scored well.

The Germans ran up higher scores because they flew until they either won or died while many Allied pilots roitated assignments when they had flown a certain amount of time or missions; mostly mission count.

Also, apparently several posters have not studied Hartmann's kill record. His kills were mostly against fighters, not Russian transports or bombers. He could shoot down 5 or 6 in one mission because the Russian fighter pilots were not used to watching behind themselves, and were terrified of his fighter when they saw it.

His best aptitude, however, was piloting skill. He couild fly right up to a precise point and get the kill, while most other pilots simply did not have the control of the aircraft taht he did. Barkhorn and Rall were superb pilots first and foremost, too. 

The top three aces in history stayed with the Bf 109 even after the Fw 190 was available. Their reasoning was simple. They knew the Bf 109 and its quirks, knew how it flew, where the switches were, and knew exactly what the aircraft would do in any particular circumstance, and were intimately familiar with the armament. Therefore, they eliminated an unfamiliar new aircraft as a factor in combat by sticking with the old favorite.


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 29, 2004)

Right on Gregp,

Every pilot worth their salt will tell you that the plane only counts for just so much. Hartmann, Moelders, Galland, Barkhorn, Rall, even Rudel were called _experten_ for a reason, they were bloody experts!

As well, as has already been mentioned, German pilots didn't have 60 or 120 mission limits before rotation back home. They simply flew until they died or were successful.

Kiwimac[/u]


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

I do know precisely what i'm talking about and i have studied the subject for years thankyou very much!  

Lets go through you're rather flimsy arguments...

Many different squadrons throughout the war flew many different planes - its not as though as soon as the Spitfire became available that all RAF Squadrons were armed with them - some squadrons (particularly in places far from Europe) the pilots had to fly in aircraft far inferior to their opponents (3 outdated Gloster Gladiators were left to fight ridiculus odds in both Malta and Norway when in theory this knackered old biplane should have been out of service - do you think THOSe are marginal odds??) - to suggest that most planes were only 'marginally' better than their opponents is the comment of someone suffering from serve ignorance on the subject - on MANY different occasions aircraft in combat have been SEVERLY outclassed by their opponents to use one example of many i can choose: When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour other than a handful of Curtiss hawks and some other elderly obsolete aircraft (such as the Boeing P-26 'Pursuit' a woefully inadequte plane at that time) the US navy airforce was totally outclassed in the air - hence their rapid design of the Wildcat - as i say thats one of many i could use - whenever in these great battles in the sky two opposing airforces meet - almost every time without fail the force with the better aircraft no matter how 'marginal' the difference (if you knew anything noteworthy about aircraft from this period you would know that in a dogfight even a very small difference can mean victory) would be the victor.

Obviously its true that there were some exceptional pilots both German and Allied (GermansRgenious comments that allied pilots were shit is utter crap) but these were VERY rare most pilots depended on the type of plane they were in to save their lives - i've heard that said to me by surviving pilots themselves so please be careful before accusing someone of not knowing what they are talking about

And I think you have agreed with me to a point about the FW190 and the ME109 - alot of German pilots stayed with the ME109 because on many points it was a better aircraft...its simple logic really...if the FW190 was that superior to the ME109 do you suppose for one moment that the Germans would be lining up to risk their lives against allied pilots in a plane that was outclassed? i didn't think so


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

wow, not only interestng but there were some good points in there  brilliant 8)


----------



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

wow that's allot of reading  but very interesting


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

sorry  i do tend to go on abit when i get a bee in my bonnet over something... i.e gobby Americans telling me i don't know what i'm talking about


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

hey if it werent for us u guys would heil hitlering in hell right about now


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 4, 2004)

And thats exactly the kind of stereotypical nonsense i would expect from an American


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 4, 2004)

u know u couldnt win the war by youselves =P


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

Hmmm,

I don't know the Empire was doing OK when the US finally deigned to be involved in WW2.

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

Add to the above   

Kiwimac


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

Maybe the war would have taken longer ...but it would have been won  



> The Germans ran up higher scores because they flew until they either won or died while many Allied pilots rotated assignments when they had flown a certain amount of time or missions; mostly mission count.



That is a big factor that is pointed out time and time again in books /films/documentaries etc. and is very valid as a point. 

Many of the allied pilots went to pass on their skills in Training and also toured the states and other commowealth countries for months to pass on their Knowledge. 

Bronze...i think it is a combination of both as you need the good plane ..but you need the good pilot too ...i have read in several situations like you would have too where crappy obsolete planes or planes not built for the job have outdone the frontline fighter of the enemy by skillful pilot manoevering and have had very little to do with the plane.

The 262 is not a fighter as such either...it had a total crap turning circle owing to its high speed..took a while to get up to speed and had to rely on its speed to stay immune...it was a high speed interceptor more than anything . One on one dogfighting was not its high point is what im saying


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 4, 2004)

no not really actually if the japes hadnt jumped the gun on their conquests it would have taken if you guys (yes all the commonwealth antions included) to beat hitler if you ever did


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

Aussie,

Thats why I'm so hot on the He 280. In dogfights with an FW 190 it proved to be more manouverable. It was a dogfighter's jet. Lower wing loading that the ME 262 too.

But ...

Kiwimac


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

> Thats why I'm so hot on the He 280. In dogfights with an FW 190 it proved to be more manouverable


... yes i cant believe they canned it even after it was shown to beat a Focke Wulf in dogfights ..weird huh.


German..so do you think that Germany would have beaten Russia as well?

What was Hitlers master plan after he was defeated in the sky over England ..which was done by a smaller airforce with better tactics? The Battle of Britian showed the prize he was after but there was no way he was getting it lol. Hitler had no idea on Navy tactics and indeed was scared of the English Navy(and also the use of his own) which would have pounded a non existant invading force anyway.

cheers


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 5, 2004)

I did state myself that it was PARTLY due to the pilots - there were very good pilots out there but it was undeniably down to the aircraft at the end of the day...thats only my opinion mind you, it is a point we could argue til doomsday i'm sure - we may as well agree to disagree  

As for the Americans winning the war for us - thats a load of bull - it might've taken longer and more people would have died but we would have won in the end....the Americans are always the same - they wait til the last minute to get involved and then and hog all the credit for the victory - we held the axis off for years before your country decided to get off its fat arses and help - and that was only cos the Japs got the slip on you...thats very impressive


----------



## Archer (Mar 5, 2004)

I don't know much about lend-lease or other industrial goods made in the USA, but from my understanding is that they were quite important to the Brits and Soviets. While it may not be the US military, the US industry helped the Allies, lend-lease started in early March 1941 and I'm sure other goods produced by the industry and bought by the Allies was being shipped overseas earlier.

While the Allies probably would have eventually overrun the Germans (IMO it would be most likely end up being due to the Soviet numerical superiority), the US aiding the war with its industrial strength and later military strength saved enough lives and time (and the destruction of industry, infrastructure, etc that would come with it) that the war was heavily influenced by the US participating on the Allied side, and the US was a major player in the war (note: in the war, not the start, but in the end).

The US was also the major Allied power in the Pacific theater, and without the US taking an active role it is quite possible before the Brits decided to start doing more in the Pacific,Australia would be Japanese held, they would have secured natural resources, established a training system to continue turning out top notch pilots, advanced their aircraft designs, built up their fleet, and so on to the point where the Brits and Commonwealth taking on the Japanese would take just as long, if not longer, and cost as many lives as the fighting in Europe.



> the Americans are always the same - they wait til the last minute to get involved and then and hog all the credit for the victory


First, the US now is generally at the tip of the spear, with the Brits following along, and a bunch of other nations generally led by idiots (well, all nations are led by idiots, but by bigger idiots) complaining that the US shouldn't be going into a country to change the regime when the dictator is known to have used gas _on his own population_ which alone should have quickly made the international community send a stupidly large military force in as soon as it was known to have happened to absolutely crush any opposition.
Back to the point, the US was isolationist, as they, or any other country, can be. It was the general sentiment of the nation. The US didn't really see the need (or will of its populace) to send people overseas to die.

So my point is, the US was isolationist (and if the President had declared war there could have been massive strikes, protests, violence, etc since the majority didn't want to get involved in another mess in Europe), they aren't now (generally being one of a handful of countries competent enough to be leaders - which includes the Brits of course), and therefore you are wrong.



> we held the axis off for years before your country decided to get off its fat arses and help


Just my opinion, holding the Axis off means nothing. All it means is the Axis hasn't won yet, but niether had the Allies, but that in no way means the Brits would've been able to take Europe back without help (especially industrial).

Not being American, going to US schools or anything I can't be certain, but from a few books I've read they point out that Americans in general cared more about beating the Japs because of Pearl Harbour than the Nazis in Europe (ie Europe was of secondary importance). Thus, assuming that sentiment has lived on since the war, it makes (some) sense that the US claims they won the war, because they did the majority of the fighting in the Pacific. If they view the Pacific as the primary theater of the war, they were more or less the reason that the primary part of the war was won.

Lastly, from reading your posts Whaler, it seems to me that you can't accept the fact that the Brits needed the US's help and that the US's industry and military they were extremely important to winning WWII.


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I did state myself that it was PARTLY due to the pilots - there were very good pilots out there but it was undeniably down to the aircraft at the end of the day...thats only my opinion mind you, it is a point we could argue til doomsday i'm sure - we may as well agree to disagree
> 
> As for the Americans winning the war for us - thats a load of bull - it might've taken longer and more people would have died but we would have won in the end....the Americans are always the same - they wait til the last minute to get involved and then and hog all the credit for the victory - we held the axis off for years before your country decided to get off its fat arses and help - and that was only cos the Japs got the slip on you...thats very impressive



Yes and No  

During the Battle of Britain Spitfire's and Hurricane's use American Petrol, Propeller's and Guns 8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

in the words of our history teacher "the americans were late for WWI WWII, so now they want to be early for WWIII"


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 6, 2004)

Though many points you make about American involvement are true - many are just opinion "maybe's" and "possibly's" 

The Americans as a nation were not interested in the affiars of the world - in fact even these days the Americans won't get involved in any kind of war unless they see benefit for themselves. I take it from reading your post that you beleive the war with Iraq was a justified one? thats crap - if you try to tell me that America got involved in that war for any other reason than to get all they could from Iraq and then leave (like they did in the last Gulf War) and so George Bush could finish the job his bloody dimwitted father didn't then you are severly disillusioned my friend - there is nothing noble about that war.

Although i will agree that the States did supply alot of equiptment, fuel etc to our cause during WW2 even before they became directly involved- that was only becuase the leaders could themselves see the eventual threat of war engulfing the USA and therefore it was within their best interests to help us - thought it was British pilots during the Battle of Britain that did all the hard work - no Americans in sight - i think we deserve the sole credit for that one.

America ONLY entered the war becuase of a direct assault on them - they would've quite happily sat back and watched the whole of Europe get occupied and not lift a finger! Your statement about the entire American nation being against the war is not at all convincing - most Americans decended from Europe and have alot of family there - i can't see them being keen on accepting their familys fate and doing nothing and i don't see why they would be any more keen to risk their lives for us because one military harbour was destroyed.

It is in fact true that the Germans, Italians etc declared war on America! not the other way around - in fact right when America entered the war it was only with Japan! so technically they still weren't interested in what was happening in Europe until the Nazis declared war!

My point: Americans were and still are a selfish, ignorant bunch of yahoos or as i once heard it said: "John Waynes with wet pants" they only get involved when its conveniant for them so forgive me if i don't bow down with respect and awe  

They probably killed countless allied troops with 'friendly fire' its just that it wouldn't have been so well publisised in those days.

I can accept that without American backing things would have been a hell of alot worse and many many more people would have died - but forgive me if i have enough faith in Britain (and other countries) to say that we beat the Germans once without American military aid - and we could damn well do it again - with or without American backing!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 6, 2004)

I'd like to correct myself on a point before someone else does - i stated at the beginning "Its true that Americans as a nation were against the war" then later stated that i couldn't beleive they all thought like that - i don't think all Americans were aginst the war - at the end of the day its the governent that make all the desicions - not the people (especially in the US) and anyway - another weak point of yours about the War: however unpopular you claim it would have been with the people...correct me if i'm wrong but i don't remember vietnam (yes i mentioned vietnam!  ) being very popular with the people? but Nixon still went ahead and did it anyway (another completely crooked president??! surely not??!


----------



## Archer (Mar 6, 2004)

Nixon was dumb, Roosevelt wanted to go to war before most Americans, but there was the problem of getting Congress to approve it, who could possibly have mostly been isolationist/anti-war or been representing their electorate, where the majority may be isolationist/anti-war (and all politicians would want to get reelected).

There are two things to consider IMO:
1. The US is a sovereign nation. It can choose to go to war (or not go to war), other nations can try to influence it, but its the right of all sovereign nations. If they don't want to go to war, they dont. If they do, they do. International pressure can affect the decision, but it cannot make the decision.

There may be opinions against the nation (ie annoyed at the US for not joining WW I or II earlier, France/Germany for not participating in gulf war II, but that opinions, they're inevitable.

Personally I'll make fun of the US for not joining WWII earlier and France/Germany for not being anti-Saddam, but really, the nations have their rights since they are sovereign, and while I may think they made a bad decision, its their decision to participate or not, and personally I can accept it.

The US was isolationist at the time and the majority were more worried about themselves than Europe, which makes some sense since WWII led into the depression, and the Americans were just out of the depression so they were probably more concerned about that. The US had no reason to join the war (just like France/Germany didn't have a "reason" to participate in Gulf War II), so they didn't. Japan changed that, and the sentiment of the US public.

2. Points of View are important. As a Brit, you'd most likely say Europe and the Germans/Italians was the most important theater/axis nations of the war. From what I've read about the American feelings about the war/leading up to war and shortly after, Americans would feel the Pacific was the most important part of the war.

The US was the major player in the Pacific, and probably as important as Britain in Western Europe, and no Americans were in Eastern Europe so it isn't nearly as important, the Americans may think that they did 75% of the work necessary to win the war, which is much more than half of the work. Thus, from their point of view, they did more or less win the war. From a Brit point of view, North Africa/Med/West Europe would've been a lot more important than the Pacific, so lets assume you Brits feel the US did 40% of the effort, Britain/Commonwealth did 40% of the work, and the Soviets did 20% of the work roughly. There's a big difference, and location and why the nation entered the war has a big effect on how you see the nations' contributions.

**I made up all the numbers above, for all I know the US may think they did less/more and Brits may feel the percentages are wrong, but its purely an example of how points of view could affect how various people see the outcome of the war**



> My point: Americans were and still are a selfish, ignorant bunch of yahoos or as i once heard it said: "John Waynes with wet pants" they only get involved when its conveniant for them so forgive me if i don't bow down with respect and awe
> 
> They probably killed countless allied troops with 'friendly fire' its just that it wouldn't have been so well publisised in those days.


First part, I definately agree  Same for Americans only being involved when they have something to gain. But afterall, humans are not too intelligent, many want to get power, and many who do get power abuse it. Also, a large percentage, if not a majority, of people want to get returns on their efforts. If you work hard on a school project, you want a good mark, if you work hard to start a business, you want to make money, etc.

Second part, everyone probably killed lots of allies with friendly fire. Personally I would be quite surprised if the Americans killed substantially more friendlies per infantry/tank/plane than Britain or any other Western Ally (gotta leave the Soviets out so we don't have to argue if purposefully killing friendlies is friendly fire).



> thought it was British pilots during the Battle of Britain that did all the hard work - no Americans in sight - i think we deserve the sole credit for that one


No, you Brits shouldn't get all the credit, don't forget the Commonwealth, Poles, Czechs, the few Americans, etc that were there too - they surely deserve some credit 

And offtopic (and last I'll bother with) regarding Iraq, IMO the US went about it the wrong way. But IMO the international community failed to do something about Saddam in the first war in Iraq. When you have a dictator who gases part of his populace because they don't like him, the international community should've gone in either in massive force and crushed his regime or assassinated him and then gone in to keep any warloads or the like from taking power and then go about internationally rebuilding Iraq to what it was (seeing as it used to be one of the modern, if not the most modern Middle Eastern nation, with well kept roads, education, medical facilities, etc). Since the international community failed to take action, I have no problems with a small number of nations doing it, whether or not they have the same reasons I couldn't care less, as long as they don't go in and exploit it. And no, getting large contracts, more oil supplies isn't exploiting it as long as they pay the normal price for oil and don't overcharge (actually, they should be doing more for less since the companies getting contracts probably would be doing fine without them). The last part of not exploiting from my POV is that they need to remain as long as necessary, despite any economical or international pressures, to ensure that as soon as they leave the country won't be back into turmoil. Ideally the UN/US/whoever is rebuilding Iraq will take the time, money, and manpower to rebuild Iraq into a respectable nation as has been done with Germany (originally just the West) and Japan.

And I "support" Bush, only because I don't like Gore - but that doesn't mean I don't think he looks like a monkey


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 7, 2004)

ok we really need to make these posts shorter cuz im getting lazy to read them theyre so long!


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

LOL, I thought about that, anyways, I think bronzeWhaler and I are getting close to agree to disagree for the time being (or at least I am, I don't really feel like writing so much for the next while  )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

You make some excellent, interesting points, you clearly know what you're talking about but i still beg to differ on a few points...to be honest as you said yourself its mostly based on opinion...


I agree with you that it would be foolish to claim Europe was the only important theatre during WW2 and i agree with you that America more than pulled its weight in the Pacific and it would have undoubtably fallen to the Japanese if the Americans weren't there BUT if the Americans claim that they did 75% of the work during the war - i won't accept that without accurate figures! Although i'm not anti-american (though that might be hard to beleive!) i think its a huge miscredit to everyone else who fought bloody hard in that damn war to claim that the Yanks did most of the hard work! 

One of the things that always gets me about the American campaigns during WW2 was Omaha Beach - it was a disaster and there have been so many films/documentaries etc about it but it was the Americans fault the whole thing went "FUBAR" as they made navigational errors and all their tanks sank before they reached the beach- leaving all those poor bastards to die - but its not often they publisise THAT event  

Interesting though (as a canadian i'm sure you'll agree with me) the canadians though smack bang next door to the states (you poor poor people  ) did more work in Europe than in the Pacific - and fought damn hard i must say - in fact it was a canadian division that took one of the D-day landing beaches in France (i forget which one) Gold or Juno or something - unless i'm wrong on that point?

I accept your point on the Battle of Britain - it was wrong of me to state that it was purely a British effort - but foreign pilots were in a minority - I understood there was only a few American 'volunteer' pilots present at the battle but they were all killed fairly early on (though i daresay if you read American records they will state that it was in fact the Americans who won the Battle of Britain and the Brits just sat there drinking tea and playing cricket all day!  ) 

I am going to make this my last point as i think Germansrgenious is right to a certain degree - though sometimes you need to write 3 pages to get your point across! 

I don't think its quite right to compare the Gulf war / war on terror to the second world war

They are completely different wars and i can understand why most of the world would want it at arms length - although i do agree that Saddam Hussein is a vicious, dangerous madman who should get what he deserves...i don't think that crackpot is on the same scale as Hitler
There is no world domination coming our way - Iraq wasn't going to embark on a war that will engulf the world - althought that doesn't mean its ok to torture and kill whoever he did - but as you yourself said - they could've sent in the SAS or something and "popped a cap in his ass"  there was no need for full scale invasion! it was a job that could have been done by the yanks single-handidly over here in England the overwhealming opinion of the masses was that we should'nt have got involved - i mean the Americans killed more British troops than the bloody iraqis did! there is alot of bitter feelings over here towards Americans (as i'm sure you can understand)

Thanks very much for this discussion - its nice to 'debate' with someone who so obviously knows what hes talking about 8) cheers


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Though i don't remember how we got on this topic - this is a thread about Aces!!


----------



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

wow, i'm gonna be on topic for once! was it a beaufighter or a beaufort that Bader was flying when he lost both his legs?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Neither, He was actually flying a Bristol Bulldog Biplane fighter when he crashed and lost his legs - he was showing off doing areobatics in a plane he wasn't experienced in and it went horribly wrong - his legs were so mangled in the crash he had to have them cut off - but the doctors thought he would die - but he didn't. Tough cookie 

This is a Bristol Bulldog - they have one at RAF Hendon

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/aircraft_images/main_images/bulldogmkiia.jpg


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

well i think that you have hit the nail on the head thier mate...I totally agree. Its agood thoery and one that perhaps we all need to have a look at more closely.



bronzewhaler82 said:


> Yeah the Russians did suffer alot of defeats in the air but all that stuff about Germans focusing on kills and the allies in teamwork??! i will admit that the Germans had good pilots but i think it had more to do with them being ruthless b******* and having excellent planes - the planes are more responsible for the kills rather than the pilots (i'm not saying these pilots were bad i'm just saying that if you put the most fantastic pilot in the world in a crap plane hes gonna get shot down!)
> 
> If you ask me it was the planes - not the pilots - that were the real aces. After all, the Poles were brilliant Spitfire pilots but in their own outdated planes the Germans murdered them


----------



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

> Neither, He was actually flying a Bristol Bulldog Biplane fighter when he crashed and lost his legs - he was showing off doing areobatics in a plane he wasn't experienced in and it went horribly wrong - his legs were so mangled in the crash he had to have them cut off - but the doctors thought he would die - but he didn't. Tough cookie
> 
> This is a Bristol Bulldog - they have one at RAF Hendon
> 
> http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/aircraft_images/main_images/bulldogmkiia.jpg



well they all begin with "B", easy mistake to make


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> no not really actually if the japes hadnt jumped the gun on their conquests it would have taken if you guys (yes all the commonwealth antions included) to beat hitler if you ever did



Well heres a painful one for you...during WW1 the Japanese fought WITH us against the Germans, they were our allies and yet during WW2 they fought with the Germans...know why? i only found this out myself recently but it was because the AMERICANS were interfering AGAIN in the affairs of other countries - in the late 1930s Japan was involved in border skirmishes with China and even though England supplied the Chinese with aircraft that thr Chinese gov payed us for the Americans went further and even troops were involved - the Japanese got pissed and so provoked them into launching the attacks i.e pearl harbour - the Japs only formed an alliance with the Germans because they couldn't fight the strength of the states on their own...plus Germany declared war on the states anyway....so if i was planning to wind up some americans (heaven forbid) i might go as far as to say i have very little doubt that the Japs would've settled on our side and fought the Germans again if it hadn't been for your friend and mine - yes you guessed it AMERICA! :fist:


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

By the way when i say 'border skirmishes' i mean an invasion...sorry


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 7, 2004)

well i must say that it makes interesting reading...Knowing you as i do...i will have to take your word for it but it is something i will have to learn more about. I think that you have made tyour points to all the self rightousness septics (septic tank, wank, yank: cockney slang)!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Alas my good friend, there are too many of them i fear!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 7, 2004)

Poms and Yanks and Aussies, Oh My!

Kiwimac


----------



## Archer (Mar 7, 2004)

The Japanese, Germans, and Italians made an alliance before Pearl Harbour. The US declared war on Japan, so the Germans and Italians were only living up to the terms of their alliance with Japan by declaring war on the US I believe.

Beaufighters are cool, great for anti-shipping strikes


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

I don't know about that but i have been told the reason the Japanese fought agsint us was because of the states involvement in the war with China - besides when the Japs attacked Pearl harbour it was really a seperate thing from WW2 - they only became part of the war after the Germans declared war on the yanks - the Japanese could've easily taken their frustration out on Australia if they wanted but they went for America instead - some might argue thats cos it was a jucier target but the real reason was that they were pissed at the US for sticking their oar in the war with China.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

typical US if you ask me 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 7, 2004)

Yep - very typical, they haven't changed a bit since their old and distinguished country first began all of about 200 years ago  

I was quite amazed to hear that in order for an Allied pilot (it might be the same for the Axis but i don't know) to become known as an 'Ace' he only had to shoot down 5 aircraft...i know shooting down 5 aircraft is no easy thing to do....unless they're Italian aircraft or something (sorry C.C, just a cheap joke  )
but it just doesn't seem that many...i shouldn't say 'he' really - there were alot of very good female pilots in the Russian airforce during WW2 (my god they must have been desperate - that explains why the Russians planes were built so tough they oculd ram other planes  )


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

i said it once and ill say it again i DONT care about the U.S. ! a bit but not much cuz if i did id prolly be pissed at you guys but no! i get this from me mum btw... she hates america (kinda)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

perfectly understandable!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

Yeah, Americans (on the whole) are a pretty hateable bunch


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

> unless they're Italian aircraft or something (sorry C.C, just a cheap joke )



no need to be sorry i am aware they aint the best 8) would have been better if you'd said french planes though


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

You're right - credit where its due Italian aircraft ARE a thousand times better than anything the French built!


----------



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

don't say that, the bleriot was a fantastic plane......................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

By French standards maybe...but anything that could get in the air at all was fantastic by French standards...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

> Yeah, Americans (on the whole) are a pretty hateable bunch


that is true m8 but just dont include me in there! im ed by most americans to be frank and having said this i would do much better in europe =P (hotter women, except for britain) o well i guess ill move to germany or switzerland or something when im older

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 10, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> > Yeah, Americans (on the whole) are a pretty hateable bunch
> 
> 
> that is true m8 but just dont include me in there! im ed by most americans to be frank and having said this i would do much better in europe =P (hotter women, except for britain) o well i guess ill move to germany or switzerland or something when im older
> ...



Whats wrong with British women???! German women are covered in hair mate! they look like Bears! (unless you like that kind of thing?  )


----------



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

yeah, aslong as you don't take helen you can pick anyone you want........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

yeah, leave helen alone or i might have to bomb you in the infamous vickers windsor


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

> Whats wrong with British women???!


crooked teeth and most are whiter than me (GASP!)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

my girlfriend has lovely straight teeth


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

hooray! but i meant most when i said they had crooked teeth (yellow sometimes) and the skin paleness

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

pale skin is good, tan be horrid


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 12, 2004)

well thats true but not always i like pale but not too pale

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

8)


----------



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

ohhhhhhhhh, i've just had a horrible mental picture, a Mrs. David Dickinson *shudder*


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 13, 2004)

That's frighting  

Hot Space


----------



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

i know *shudder*


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 13, 2004)

Gemans aces scored most aerial kills, busted most tanks, flak installations... Germans were\are the best pilots, so stop making excuses. Hartmann shot down 6 "`stangs" as I recall with his Bf109, and Rudel managed to crack open tanks, sink ships AND down fighters AND land to pickup his shot down comrades and all that under fire by flak and fighters AND HE DID THAT EVEN AFTER LOOSING A LEG. 

And please stop trasing the Sturmvogel, it ripped your bombers apart like paper, and was allmost unmatched at speed and MOSTLY shot down when landing, so you could basically call a sopwith camel a jet killer just because he soars around Sturmvogel`s airports.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

i think a mr david dickinson is more likely 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 13, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> > Whats wrong with British women???!
> 
> 
> crooked teeth and most are whiter than me (GASP!)
> ...



And how many times my yank friend (?) have you been to england???? I am no oil painting but i have yet to resort looking for some one with yellow teeth. And as for american women, well, considering two thirds of your population are obese i really hate to think what your females are like mate....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)




----------



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

proberly like the men *shudder*


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

Well theres so much inbreeding going on over there...mind you St Dennis in Cornwall is the incest capital of Europe (seriously it is) so anyone from cornwall should probably avoid talking about that subject...


----------



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

damn.....................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 14, 2004)

but you know he's right.....they all be bit funney up there in they clay country i tell'ee.....They all bugger their brothers sons daughters d'reckley!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

Trust you to go too far JJ1982...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

im not cornish 8) screw you lanc, youre all on your own...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 21, 2004)

> my yank friend


1. please do not call me a yank, im not


> american women


2. i prefer brazilian or european women, just not british


> two thirds of your population are obese


3. the point is, im not!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

8)


----------



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

> but you know he's right.....they all be bit funney up there in they clay country i tell'ee.....They all bugger their brothers sons daughters d'reckley!



i take offence at that............................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 21, 2004)

Don't take offence, it only encourages him!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)




----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

bronzewhaler is right i'm afraid.....i am easily encouraged. Anyway, please dont take offence....your from launceston, or lanson if you prefer. You almost be devonish...thats almost as bad...\BUGGER EIED JANNER


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

im from peckham, lots of inbreeding going on there


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

Still not as bad as St Dennis...or Cambourne...
Hey Lanc what do you call a cambourne boy in a suit???
The Defendent!

What do you call a camborne boy in a house???
A thief!

Sorry, learnt them during my brief interlude whilst living in st Austell


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

my uncles from cambourne..... oh well, screw him


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

if he's your uncle you probably already have!!!!!LOL oops sorry NOW that is over the top....sorry guys!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

If its over the top, why did you post it you flaming muppet?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

thats fine cos i aint cornish and i dont care what you say about em


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

well, i'm afraid that the lanc might.....apologies to the lanc in advance....just please dont fly past and bomb me!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

Now that would be interesting...a lancaster bombing england!

Oh the irony!!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

I think if it were a b-17 would be quite ironic!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

the americans have somewhat of a nasty habit of friendly fire...so really wouldnt be suprised should one ifnd itself off course whilst bombing the shit out of civillians in iraq and drop one on london!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

Well knowing our major immigrant problem at the moment we've probably got osama bin laden living under london bridge!

  8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

ooooh hot space....surely your not gonna stand for that eh???? You been so quick to "tell us off" surely you have something to say about this case of blatent racism and un pc comment!


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 23, 2004)

Back to subj...

Little story.  (People from America... DON`T read  )

Time - April 1945.
Location - somewhere over the Reich.
Personnel:
1) Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub (62 official Kills) on La-7.
2) American Heavy Bombers - MANY
3) 2 Bf-109
4) 2 P-51D

Kozhedub are flying and see the BIGGGG formation of unidentified aircraft. That`s Americans bombers B-17. Suddenly he saw silhouettes of 2 Bf-109`s. They try to attack American Bombers. 
Kozhedub`s La-7 diving and open fire. Bf`s came in clouds and disappearing. 
In that`s moment two escort P-51D dive from other cloud and open fire. Target - La-7. Kozhedub make the right turn and attack one "Mustang". P-51 begin smoking and came to land. After "half-loop" Kozhedub attack the wingman "Mustang" and american fighter blow up.

The end.  

p.s. Sorry for my English.  No practice...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 23, 2004)

so what youre saying is that ol' ivan attacked a stang, which attacked a stang? killing one and damaging the other?

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 23, 2004)

Ivan attacked Bf`s. Stang attack Ivan...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> ooooh hot space....surely your not gonna stand for that eh???? You been so quick to "tell us off" surely you have something to say about this case of blatent racism and un pc comment!



Traitor!!!!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

> Traitor!!!!



In case it had escaped your attention, the comment i made was more of an attack at the childish, immature jobsworth moderators who appear to have gone completley off the spectrum with thier "Easy" comments.....not an attack on you mate especially as i happened to fine the comment rather amusing!

Ps Yes i know its probably gonna get me "told off" again....but hey....i thought we fought the jerries to keep our freedom of speech! Well one of the reasons anyway!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Well since i'm over yours tonight for some beers we can go online at about 11 o'clock when all the US Moderators come online and see how much trouble we're in!!  

Bring it on Moderators!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

Just try it .....just try it hot space.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

11pm eh...... ill be here 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

uh oh...dont wanna get you in trouble CC, youll be arrested for egging me on!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> uh oh...dont wanna get you in trouble CC, youll be arrested for egging me on!



Please just drop it JJ - or you'll get chucked off the site


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

what was wrong with that????


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> Just try it .....just try it hot space.......



I'll bite ya legs off   

Hot Space


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

ok...white flag is flying high...i surrender!


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 24, 2004)

Cool 8) ............but I was only joking, M8 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

using monty python to defeat the opposition eh......


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 24, 2004)

It's the only way I know  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> childish, immature jobsworth moderators



Ya know, it's a good thing that this thread is past that remark, or I might have gotten angry


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

I think JJ1982 has learnt the error of his ways (I may live to regret that!)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

Sudden_strike said:


> Gemans aces scored most aerial kills, busted most tanks, flak installations... Germans were\are the best pilots, so stop making excuses. Hartmann shot down 6 "`stangs" as I recall with his Bf109, and Rudel managed to crack open tanks, sink ships AND down fighters AND land to pickup his shot down comrades and all that under fire by flak and fighters AND HE DID THAT EVEN AFTER LOOSING A LEG.
> 
> And please stop trasing the Sturmvogel, it ripped your bombers apart like paper, and was allmost unmatched at speed and MOSTLY shot down when landing, so you could basically call a sopwith camel a jet killer just because he soars around Sturmvogel`s airports.



Douglas Bader lost BOTH legs and he was still killing Krauts with the best of them 8)


----------



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

thank you, i was just about to make that point myself......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

and me......


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 25, 2004)

> I'll bite ya legs off


ya yellow bastard! 
well youve lost one arm! its only a flesh wound!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 25, 2004)

Bronzewhaler wrote
I think JJ1982 has learnt the error of his ways (I may live to regret that!) 
_________________
I dont think so my good english friend. I have seen the light and am now fully rehabilitated. 

On another note....I fully agree with your comment about Douglas Bader....what a man, and i am sure that you have seen my previous comment about what such a good film the story of that man would make!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 25, 2004)

ehhhhh British patriotism! aint much better than Kit Carson and others he just had fake legs! big deal! so he cant walk good but it would make no real diff in a plane because the stiff legs would get to the pedals either way! he wasnt even the best! many (EGADS!) septic tank pilots were better! rudel cannot be compared to bader for this reason: bader flew high and dealt with fighters; rudel flew low and dealt with fighters, tanks, AND flak!

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

Well, good for Rudel - its just a shame he was a German and was on the losing side after the war


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

:fist:  I'm sorry i nearly pissed my self with laughter when i saw that"!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

Don't give the pilots TOO much credit (a little is ok) thats why i've always been more interested in the aircraft than the pilots stories...it was the aircraft that did most of the hard work


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

me too 8)


----------



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

yeah, i don't care much for the man that flew, them, no disscradit, they did a hell of a job, i'm just more interested in the planes.................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Because the planes truly did most of the hard work... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2004)

a plane is no good without a pilot though..... 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Of course - i would never doubt that (Though the V1 did quite well didn't it  ) but i was saying the pilots job wasn't as great as the planes - the pilot didn't have to carry a huge bombload to a distant target being pushed right to the limit in order to get to the target and get away ASAP plus the pilot wasn't being shot full of holes by AA or other aircraft plus of course if a plane gets shot down the pilot can escape (providing he isn't dead  )..so all in all - the pilots had a limited job in the whole thing but obviously damn fine pilots made all the difference


----------



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

i wouldn't say they weren't pushed to their limits, in the BoB they would make as many as 5 of 6 hops in one day....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 14, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Don't give the pilots TOO much credit (a little is ok) thats why i've always been more interested in the aircraft than the pilots stories...it was the aircraft that did most of the hard work


 i agree (amazing isnt it?)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Bloody hell! I think i'm going to faint! Germans agreed with me!  

If you stare at this long enough it gives you a headache


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

can i say i disagree and cause a stir? 8) i think the pilots should get more credit, placing a bit of machinery above a person is just plain selfish if you ask me  even though i am more interested in the planes, saying they deserve more credit than the pilots is just wrong


----------



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

there you go, another thing we agree on.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

thanks lanc 8)


----------



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

you hear much of that these days..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

sure you do...


----------



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

my mistake, i meant to say you DON'T hear much of that these days..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

these days? you never heard much of it in those days  anyways, getting back on topic, aces then......well i have no idea what to put so that puts my plans on hold  8)


----------



## Oleanna (Apr 19, 2004)

well, its all very well having good planes, but you ned the expertise and the balls to be able to fly it in the first place. I recall reading an argument along these lines a bit earlier on in the forum....no matter how quick the plane, how heavily armed etc, if the piliot is crap then he is going to get blown out of the big blue sky because he simply cannot fly for toffee. Ironically, it will probably be an ace in a pants plane that blows him out of the sky


----------



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

i wonder how WWI pilots would fare in WWII combat.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

hmmm, interesting thought


----------



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

i think they could do quite well when they got used to the new aircraft..............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 24, 2004)

They probably would since WW1 combat was similar to WW2 air combat in quite a lot of ways, the Red Baron made sure of that. Just the planes were quite different.


----------



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

you're right, the tactics didn't change much until the midwar years...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

i think most WW1 pilots would have been put in biplanes for WW2, just cos they would be more used to them 8)


----------



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

i'm not sure, they could use their experiese in monoplanes too...............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

WW2 Biplanes would have handled quite a bit different from WW1 ones since most had a lot more powerful engines.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

> i'm not sure, they could use their experiese in monoplanes too...............



monoplanes are a lot less manoeverable than biplanes though, would have been quite an adaptation 8)


----------



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

just remember, many pilots had to change from biplanes to monoplanes with the introduction of the hurricane, they did alright...........


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

Yes, and in any case their were monoplanes in World War 1 anyway.


----------



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

they were more on the german side though..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

There are several things to consider when discussing scores. The fact that the Germans and Japanese flew until they were wounded or dead has been mentioned. You also have to remember, and Gunther Rall pointed this out in an interview once, that to score a victory you had to see a plane! There were countless Allied pilots who when through the war without seeing a single enemy plane. Meanwhile, the German lucky enough to live into '44-'45 would see a couple thousand Allied planes every time he took off!


----------



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

i nkow which i would rather see................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

and what would that be, oh knowledgable one


----------



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

no planes obviously................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Good choice. A very survivable choice.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

You choose that now, but I imagine a lot of people seeking glory would have gone for the other one, many planes.


----------



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

i think i would rather see none, after all, what's the point in being a hero if everyone you know is dead...............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Self-satisfaction? Plus the fact your whole country won't be dead, and you might even be remembered in history by name. 

You also have to remember with German aces a lot flew in the Spanish Civil War against inferior pilots and planes, then flew on the Eastern front if they survived the BoB.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

All of the top scoring Germans (except Marseille) earned their kills on the Eastern Front and the Soviet VVS was only begining to match the Western air forces at the end of the war. The scored of the Germans fighting against the Americans and the British were not nearly as high.


----------



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

not when we had planes like the spit and stang...........

(sorry to have to pick really cliche planes (i know there should be a 'lil thing above the e but i don't knw how to get that up))


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

And, in general, a better quality of pilots.


----------



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

i wouldn't say that..............


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Early war 1939-1940 I'd say the Germans and British were matched in skill. Overall spreading out through the war, I think the Western Allies had the better quality, then the Germans, then the Russians. 
If you look at the combat records, the Germans had their best scores on the East, but the Western Allies were scoring high against Germans or Japanese which aren't exactly poor pilots.


----------



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

we had better pilots in general, but the good german pilots were one hell of allot better than our best pilots............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

There's no way objective way to make a comment like that. The Germans had higher scores but we've already discussed why. By the end of the war, the average Allied pilot was better than the average German pilot because of the superior training the Allies were receiving.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Yes, because the Germans didn't really have the time to trains theres. In 1939-1940, I'd still say the Germans were the superior obviously only matched by the British.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

And probably the Japanese naval pilots. Of course that's a difficult judgement to make, but the training they went through was insane.


----------



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

the japs sure gave the americans a suprise, they didn't expect the japs to be that good.............


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Yes, plus the planes gave them a huge advantage.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

It wasn't just us they surprised. The British Hurricanes and Buffallos got their own nasty shock when they tried to engage Japanese pilots early in the war.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Yes, but we'd already had air experience against other air forces. They were the first you met....


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

So what's your excuse for your poor showing against the Japanese early on  ?


----------



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

what's yours then, you were rubbish at the start of the war...........


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

I don't remember losing any land because of losing in air power...British soil in the Pacific was lost to land forces...plus the pilots in the Pacific weren't the same as in Europe...AND...the planes sent out to the Pacific (as the equipment) was low standard because Britain didn't really care. If Spitfires were sent out the Japs would have been beaten out of the air...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Easy fellows all in fun . . .  see?

My point was that the Japanese were not the first opponents the British faced during the war and yet they still had serious trouble with them. And it's not as if the American fighters deployed in the Pacific were top-notch either.

Of course the first real success against the Japense was the AVG flying P-40s in China. They were totally outclassed in maneuverability but they used slashin, diving attacks to decimate the Japanese . . . now where have I heard that before?


----------



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

> I don't remember losing any land because of losing in air power



1) that's because of the huge distances involved.........
2) nor did the brittish..........


----------



## kiwimac (May 11, 2004)

Be nice children!

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Lanc, I am British. I was refering to the British not losing any land. 
The Americans did lose land because of air power, Wake Island anyone?


----------



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

yey, we can rub it in!!!!

and we did loose some of our colonies for a while............


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Not to air power.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Wake wasn't lost due to airpower. It was lost because there were a couple hundred Marines with no support left to face a few thousand Japanese.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

No, Wake Island was lost because the four Wildcats that were left got shot out of the air. If they were still there it would have been able to carry on, so, it lost to air power.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

You can only make that claim if you are going to say that Four Wildcats would have kept the Japanese at bay. But even if you are right, that would be Wake falling because of a LACK of airpower rather than because of it.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I meant it lost to enemy air power...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Because the Japanese had a whole carrier air wing out there!


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, I know. I'm not saying that America was poor because they lost it, I'm just saying they did. Those Wildcat pilots were very brave men.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

So it was the situation (rather than the quality of pilots) that cause the loss of Wake.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

They still lost to enemy air power though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

But wasn't your initial argument about the quality of pilots?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

No, I just said that Britain didn't lose anywhere to air power, the Americans did.


----------



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

just another example of how great we are .................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

How great we were, I would never like to compare current country standards to previous. Although, our military is still the best trained, and most well organised. The equipment does somewhat let us down though (Infantry Gear mainly), the aircraft are all good except the Tornado, and the Armour is now adequete.


----------



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

how is the tornado a bad plane?...........


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Where do I start? 

When the Tornado was first ordered it was going to be the only plane in the world with first pass first strike capablility, even the Americans were interested. For a while it was, until the F-15 and other American planes came into service. 
When the Tornado was getting tested by the RAF they realised many problems, one was the RADAR alt deflected off the under carriage giving the reading of 7ft when you were 200ft. Some of the systems on the Tornado can be affected by certain frequencies of radio. 

The Tornado has to put afterburners on to TAKE OFF! It is slow, sluggish and poorly armed. The EE Lightning beat it on everything except armament, and range. In the first Gulf War, old RAF Bucaneers (Very good, but very old aircraft) had to laser pin point the targets for the Tornados because they couldn't do it, so much for first pass first strike. 

For the price of a Tornado you can buy three fully armed, and fully fueled F-15s, when the Tornado would not be armed or fueled. The many mistakes in manufacture meant that it would be mothballed as soon as it was delivered because it basically could not fly safely. 

The plane is crap.


----------



## Erich (May 20, 2004)

Gentlemen :

After reading the many pages in this thread it has come to the conclusion that the a/c is as good as it's pilot and the determination of even a fledgling can take on an ace of note.

Friend and fellow Sturmgruppe pilot Oskar Bösch flew the Fw 190A during his career finally finishing on the Ost front meeting a Soviet Jak head-on in april of 45 for the dfensive battles for Berlin. He has told me on many an occasion of his 14th staffel and the whole gruppe being ovewrwhelmed during the fall/winter of 44-45 by US P-51's but his staffel did what they must and that was to take on the multitudes of American heavy bombers and later the P-51's if the US escorts had not 'mixed it up' before the German rear attacks. Oskar and his staffel mates all felt they could take on the P-51 on a one to one basis, but if there were two or more, which there ususally were the only tactic that would save them would be to hit the deck and then elevate back up to 500 feet, if hit by .50's, turn over on their backs and bale out ............

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

Are you saying that the plane is more important than the pilot? Because I don't think that is the case. Some of the late war Japanese planes (N1K2-J, Ki-84, Ki-100) were very comparable to the best American planes yet their pilots were regularly routed.


----------



## Erich (May 21, 2004)

no I did not stare that. The machine is nothing compared to human life.........


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

They are both as important as one another. If the pilot is of brilliant skill but is in, lets say, a B-25 Roc, he doesn't stand a chance. But a poor pilot in a brilliant plane, lets say P-51, he could get himself killed quite easily. 

The Pilot has to know what he's doing, but the plane has to be able to do it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

It depends. A pilot that knows what he is doing, in an inferior (note inferior NOT obsolete) plane will probably beat an novice pilot in a more modern aircraft. Was it the British ace Pattle that scored his early kills in a Gladiator? Good pilot, inferior plane, but stil produced success.


----------



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

but bader, a good pilot, lost both his legs in a bulldog, a bad plane, i realise he was trying to show off, but if his plane was more manourverable, he might not have crashed...............


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

He didn't just know what he was doing, he was a brilliant pilot. An average pilot couldn't achieve that.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

I agree. Bader's accident was the result of his showing off rather than any fault of the plane.


----------



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

but like i say, if the plane was more menouverable, he might not have crashed, he could have pulled up............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 29, 2004)

> Was it the British ace Pattle that scored his early kills in a Gladiator? Good pilot, inferior plane, but stil produced success.



the gladiator was possibly the best biplane of the war


----------



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

that's because there were pitifully few biplanes used in WWII...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

the russians had the U2V-S, that was a biplane with a rear gunner


----------



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

was it a biplane fighter, because many of the hawker biplanes had rear gunners.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

i think so, though it could carry a couple of bombs


----------



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

so could many of the hawker biplanes.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

hmmm, i just thought it was unorthodox to have a rear gunner in a biplane, but once again, im wrong...


----------



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

don't worry, all but brad are here to learn................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

and possibly me, im just here to annoy everyone


----------



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

and can i just say what a great job you're doing too....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

thankyou, nice to know im being appreciated 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

The was a Soviet biplane that was known as the 'ghost bomber' because it could turn off its engine and glide for a long time. It could do this and bomb the enemy in silence, at night. 
I think it was the I-15 or Pz.II. Or was the I-15 the monoplane with the manual gear?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

I-16 was the monoplane. Interestingly, I-16 production was cancelled in favor of producing more I-15s.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

It was probably the I-15 then.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

It's hard for me to say. Both the Gladiator and the I-153 (direct descendant of the I-15) had very similar peformance numbers and practially identical armament. The Gladiator had an advantage in crew comfort. Anyone have any information on the maneuverability of either fighter?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

i think the gladiator was more manoeverable, but im not sure.


----------



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

well being bi-planes they would both have been very manouverable, it's one of the advantages of two wings..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

I have to say something here...

Bronzewhaler is a complete and total moron... His mother has 5 black teeth from too much tea, his dad is his uncle and he screws sheep...

Were the fruck do u get off bashing Americans like that... I wish u were one of those friendly fire casualties, u retard... What are u, a goddamn communist???

Up until I read this topic, i thought this was a great site, with lots of interesting people and great topics for conversation...

The fact that someone here made a moron like this a moderator is simply absurd... Beyond absurd... Absoultely mind boggling...

Ashhole has no consideration for the other people that post here... Unreal...


----------



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

there's a man that doesn't mix his words, even if they are very harsh...............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Anti-Americanism does not sit very well with me... Obviously...

Being a verteran of Iraq, Somolia, Bosnia, Liberia, and Haiti, things like his statements are crap... All i got outta these situations were 2 purple hearts and a broze star... Nothing more.. Alot less tho...

Lost 6 very close friends in combat... One died in my arms... And they didnt die for the USA... They died for the freedom of others... Not for Bush, or America...


----------



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

i think i speak for us all when i say i'm very sorry to hear that.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 31, 2004)

Les . . . as a citizen of these United States I would like to express my personal gratitude to you for the service you have render to this country. As a member of humanity I would like to express gratitude for your sacrifice on behalf of others.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Thank you LG and Lanc... Just remember, War is hell, and dont let anyone tell u otherwise...

BTW, LG, i uploaded a new P-38 nose pic that is pretty cool... U might like it... Color section... Along with about 30 more pics, color an B&W...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

Somalia? You were there in '93? During the Battle of Black Sea? Seems like you've seen a lot of service, you have to understand though les, you government isn't giving your country and good name. And a lot of people are starting to dislike Americans more and more. 
Of course you'd know that, Somalia and Liberia after all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Somolia was a dreadful, hot and nasty place... Operation Restore Hope... I saw alot of service man... I got out in Oct 1995... Seven years as a SEAL is enough for a family man... My son is 17... Smartest thing i ever did, gettin out...

Funny thing is Plan, Americans dont give a rats ass what anyone thinks about us... Sad way to live life, worrying what other people think of u...


I got pissed off cause this moron was insulting me to my face with no regard for the friendly nature of this forum... Thats BS... Make a topic that says "American Suck" and ill debate it with u... No skin off my back...

Slap me in the face with a dead fish like that, and watch out... hehe...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

Really though, your government should be thinking what others think. It's a world of alliances, it always has been. No one can go it alone. 

I thought you would have either been a SEAL, Marine, Delta Force or Ranger being in Somalia. The shit hit the fan after Battle of Black Sea, I've read a lot about it. 

My dad was in the RAF for 24 years. He served in Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. He also saw a little stint in West Germany during the Cold War plus a few other postings. 5 decorations. 
If you've ever gotten a lift in a RAF Chinook, he's fixed it at some point. 

A lot of people think America sucks, I just think some Americans suck. It's the same for all countries though, I dare say a lot of Americans hate Britain.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

I agree that our government should care what other countries think... To an extent... Not caring enough to change our political views, or the will of its people...

I have as a matter of fact flew in a RAF Chinook... Traing missions with some SAS guys a couple times... Same as our Ch-47...

I was in one of ours in Somolia and was shot down by a heavy calibre weapon... Blew out the whole rear rotor assembly.. Pilot was real good and managed to get us on the ground in 1 piece... Rough landing tho...

Was a weird situation...

And I do not know a single person that hates the Brits... About 3/4 of Americans hate the Frogs tho...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

Well, my dad will have fixed that Chinook at some point. He was one of the first six electricians trained on them, and was requested throughout the RAF. The leading expert on them, inside the RAF. 
He was sent to the Falklands because they had problems with the Chinooks which no one could fix that was out there.


----------



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

wow, that's a great story 



> About 3/4 of Americans hate the Frogs tho...



i think everyone hates them................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

ty lanc...

"This one time... At band camp..."


----------



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




----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

Its a quote from the movie American Pie...


----------



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

oh i haven't seen that one, i've seen American Pie the wedding, that is so funny, especily in the gay dance off....................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2004)

I've only seen the first one.


----------



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

interesting..............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 3, 2004)

Second one for me...


I was surprised at how little T&A there was for a movie series known for having lots of both...


----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> About 3/4 of Americans hate the Frogs tho...



Please Lesofprimus, be careful when talking about French. I'm a French-speaking Canadian and I would apreciate that you don't put us in the same basket than the French from France.

I don't hate Americans. I respect what they did and I think (to a certain point) that they were right to attack Iraq. Who would be bothered to get rid of a dictator ?

Don't blame Canada for not openly back America up. Our army sucks ! We could not fight-off a militia even if we had to...

And each time you call someone "Frog", remember that in Canada, 5,000,000 out of 30,000,000 citizens are French-speakings.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Frog is not a reference to French speakers, but FRENCH CITIZENS...

Ive been to France too many goddamn times for ones own good...
Horrible palce, horrible people, horrible attitudes....

And everything is filthy.....


----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Frog is not a reference to French speakers, but FRENCH CITIZENS...
> 
> Ive been to France too many goddamn times for ones own good...
> Horrible palce, horrible people, horrible attitudes....
> ...



I agree with you on that !  France (especially Paris) is horrible.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Ive been to Paris 3x and each time it got worse...

The worst thing was overhearing some French Frog talkin chopped english, walk up to them, ask them something, and they talk back to u in French... Like they dont speak or understand...

GGRRrrrrrrrrrrrr......


----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Ive been to Paris 3x and each time it got worse...
> 
> The worst thing was overhearing some French Frog talkin chopped english, walk up to them, ask them something, and they talk back to u in French... Like they dont speak or understand...
> 
> GGRRrrrrrrrrrrrr......



Yeah, it even happen with French-Canadian. I mean, when we go there, they sometimes fake that they don't understand us because of our Canadian accent. It even happened at a TV show ! Thierry Hardisson was interviewing a female Canadian writer. At a point of the interview, he said : "There is only a thing that I dislike from you... You're Canadian accent !" What a mother f*cker !


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)




----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


>



Excuse me if I'm still a newbie, but what did you meant by ROFL ?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2004)

The French are very ignorant. I have been six times to France, and each time I've hated it more. 

Did you know the international air language is English, but in France the French Air Traffic talk to the French planes, in French. It actually caused a crash in 1995.


----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The French are very ignorant. I have been six times to France, and each time I've hated it more.
> 
> Did you know the international air language is English, but in France the French Air Traffic talk to the French planes, in French. It actually caused a crash in 1995.



I didn't know that.

It's quite the same thing here. I mean not in the Air Traffic, but in the everyday life. French don't want to learn English, so English learn French and they get the big job in every company...

... And French wonder WHY they never get the high-ranking spot.

I learned English because I love UK. I'm sure that if I had not learned English, nobody would have bothered me to do so...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

ROFL means Rolling on Floor Laughing...


----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> ROFL means Rolling on Floor Laughing...



Ha... Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)




----------



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

> I learned English because I love UK. I'm sure that if I had not learned English, nobody would have bothered me to do so...



i'm sure we're all honoured that you would take your own time to learn our language.................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Actually he's doin himself a favor, seein how common English is around the globe...


----------



## Maestro (Aug 4, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Actually he's doin himself a favor, seein how common English is around the globe...



As we say here (for the few French who learnt English) : "English is the language of money !" In other words, if you want to have money, learn to speak English.


----------



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

that's very true actually......................


----------



## jrk (Aug 19, 2005)

Sudden_strike said:



> Gemans aces scored most aerial kills, busted most tanks, flak installations... Germans were\are the best pilots, so stop making excuses. Hartmann shot down 6 "`stangs" as I recall with his Bf109, and Rudel managed to crack open tanks, sink ships AND down fighters AND land to pickup his shot down comrades and all that under fire by flak and fighters AND HE DID THAT EVEN AFTER LOOSING A LEG.
> 
> And please stop trasing the Sturmvogel, it ripped your bombers apart like paper, and was allmost unmatched at speed and MOSTLY shot down when landing, so you could basically call a sopwith camel a jet killer just because he soars around Sturmvogel`s airports.




any pilot can become an ace when theyre country decides to attack another country that virtually has no military defence be it air sea or land.its a cowardly act to do such a thing.as for germans being the best aces try fighting something that can hit back rather than a lame duck.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 19, 2005)

jrk, ur way off.... The reason German pilots, or Aces, were so profficient, is that they flew missions until they died, or were too severely injured...

What country are u referring to as a "lame duck"???

Britian? Russia? America? 

German Aces owned all those countries airforces for a period of time.... Only through thesheer # of Allied fighters, and the ability of the 8th to destroy so many fighters being built or on the ground, allowed the Allies to decimate the German fighter pilots ranks...


> any pilot can become an ace when theyre country decides to attack another country that virtually has no military defence be it air sea or land


Really??? Any pilot??? How come only 2 pilots in Vietnam made Ace? How come there are no Aces form the 2 Iraq wars???

Point is, the Germans were fine tuning fighter tactics and their aircraft in 1938-39.... The Allies werent... The Germans had many experienced leaders and Aces when WWII officially broke out... 

No one else did....

Plus they had Willie M and Kurt Tank on their side...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 26, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> jrk, ur way off.... The reason German pilots, or Aces, were so profficient, is that they flew missions until they died, or were too severely injured...
> 
> What country are u referring to as a "lame duck"???
> 
> ...



100% agree Les well put. Anyone who claims that German pilots just shot down lame ducks is not informed on the subject.


----------

