# Which side would you fly for?.......



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

Which side wld you rather fly for, going on the planes used? 8)

i would fly for the allies, they have the hurricane, spit, tempest, gladiator and the P-38 8) flying for the axis would have been interesting though...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 5, 2004)

The British easily had the best aircraft of any nation- including the states (and no-one will convince me otherwise ) 

They had the:

Spitfire
Hurricane
Mosquito
Gladiator
Firefly
Barracuda
Wellington
Lancaster
Halifax
Corsair (joke 8) )
Swordfish

No nation had an airforce like ours (at this point i need a smiley waving a British flag but there are none  )

although i'm sure i missed loads thats just a few that spring to mind


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

and the meteor 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Apr 5, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> The British easily had the best aircraft of any nation- including the states (and no-one will convince me otherwise )
> 
> They had the:
> 
> ...



It should be noted that the German fighter pilots were polled after the war as to which air force had been their toughest opponents in the air. The RAF was the overwhelming choice for first, with the USA second.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

I would fly for the Germans / Italians. Interesting planes and such a variety!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

corpcasselbury said:


> It should be noted that the German fighter pilots were polled after the war as to which air force had been their toughest opponents in the air. The RAF was the overwhelming choice for first, with the USA second.



thankyou! you see? even an American is sporting enough to agree with me! that our airforce was better! (what a guy!  )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> I would fly for the Germans / Italians.



of course you would! *cough* traitor! *cough*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> I would fly for the Germans / Italians. Interesting planes and such a variety!



i wish id have voted axis now  i wanted to


----------



## nutter (Apr 6, 2004)

well its got to be the allies i would have loved to fly a spitfire


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

i chose allies mainly because of the hurricane, P-38, Tempest, Meteor and the Wellington 8)


----------



## Crazy (Apr 6, 2004)

Currently I'd like to fly for the RAF. Cool planes (except that damnable Lancaster) It would be an exotic experience for me. Defending the homeland by fighting off wave after wave of German planes in the Battle of Britain, advancing boldly into France over the brave British troops in D-Day, advancing menacingly into Southern Germany, cursing High Command for ordering us to stop just short of Berlin, ignoring orders and attacking a fuel depot with my spitfire in central Berlin, only to have my engine shot through and catch fire, crash-landing in front of Hitler's secret bunker, but smelling roast chicken nearby and forgetting der Fuhrer entirely, I fight through hordes of SS soldiers to reach a messhouse, where i confiscate all the chicken from a terrified cook, and make my way to a nearby airbase, where I hotwire and hijack a Ta-152 and fly back to my airfield. I'm celebrated as a hero in Britain for stealing the Fuhrer's own chicken, one of the most highly sought-after prizes of the war. Now knighted Sir Crazy, I travel the world with my companion, an illustrious writer by the name of 'Asparagus' Robert Whitney the XXXVII. 



Ahhh, to be an RAF pilot


----------



## Rafe35 (Apr 6, 2004)

I would fly for the Allies which of US Marines Corp and flying a F4U-1D or early model F4U-4


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

Crazy said:


> Currently I'd like to fly for the RAF. Cool planes (except that damnable Lancaster) It would be an exotic experience for me. Defending the homeland by fighting off wave after wave of German planes in the Battle of Britain, advancing boldly into France over the brave British troops in D-Day, advancing menacingly into Southern Germany, cursing High Command for ordering us to stop just short of Berlin, ignoring orders and attacking a fuel depot with my spitfire in central Berlin, only to have my engine shot through and catch fire, crash-landing in front of Hitler's secret bunker, but smelling roast chicken nearby and forgetting der Fuhrer entirely, I fight through hordes of SS soldiers to reach a messhouse, where i confiscate all the chicken from a terrified cook, and make my way to a nearby airbase, where I hotwire and hijack a Ta-152 and fly back to my airfield. I'm celebrated as a hero in Britain for stealing the Fuhrer's own chicken, one of the most highly sought-after prizes of the war. Now knighted Sir Crazy, I travel the world with my companion, an illustrious writer by the name of 'Asparagus' Robert Whitney the XXXVII.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, to be an RAF pilot



Er...ok


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

I think we guys should go on some sort of crusade to find some German and Japanese people for this site - everyone seems to be from England, NZ, Australia or the US - there don't seem to be many (or any) from any of the Axis nations...seems a bit unfair really - we need some real Axis nations plus i for one would be really interesed to see what they have to say about the whole thing.... 


what the hell are these emiticons doing?

 

Is it what i think.....?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 7, 2004)

WEll all why not vote for the axiss?

Early in the war they did have it all! Fighters, bombers the best pilots! As for the RAF yes they were great fliers, but only because they had American steel, pilots, and production to back them up. And Hitler got it into his head to bomb London flat rather then finish of the RAF Properly before the great Invasion.


As for the Moderator's thought to get some Axis members to speak up, I am all for it! We are seeming to forget that, and well we are a little jaded at times.


----------



## Crazy (Apr 7, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> Crazy said:
> 
> 
> > Currently I'd like to fly for the RAF. Cool planes (except that damnable Lancaster) It would be an exotic experience for me. Defending the homeland by fighting off wave after wave of German planes in the Battle of Britain, advancing boldly into France over the brave British troops in D-Day, advancing menacingly into Southern Germany, cursing High Command for ordering us to stop just short of Berlin, ignoring orders and attacking a fuel depot with my spitfire in central Berlin, only to have my engine shot through and catch fire, crash-landing in front of Hitler's secret bunker, but smelling roast chicken nearby and forgetting der Fuhrer entirely, I fight through hordes of SS soldiers to reach a messhouse, where i confiscate all the chicken from a terrified cook, and make my way to a nearby airbase, where I hotwire and hijack a Ta-152 and fly back to my airfield. I'm celebrated as a hero in Britain for stealing the Fuhrer's own chicken, one of the most highly sought-after prizes of the war. Now knighted Sir Crazy, I travel the world with my companion, an illustrious writer by the name of 'Asparagus' Robert Whitney the XXXVII.
> ...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 7, 2004)

American pilots? I'm sorry I forgot that the 7 Americans in the Battle of Britain saved Britain from certain destruction by the Luftwaffe. Maybe I got it all wrong, the R.A.F were poor only due to America were they made to look good...


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 7, 2004)

Ach zo Crazy, I der Fuhrer von Spam vill get you before you get ze chickens!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

> Currently I'd like to fly for the RAF. Cool planes (except that damnable Lancaster) It would be an exotic experience for me. Defending the homeland by fighting off wave after wave of German planes in the Battle of Britain, advancing boldly into France over the brave British troops in D-Day, advancing menacingly into Southern Germany, cursing High Command for ordering us to stop just short of Berlin, ignoring orders and attacking a fuel depot with my spitfire in central Berlin, only to have my engine shot through and catch fire, crash-landing in front of Hitler's secret bunker, but smelling roast chicken nearby and forgetting der Fuhrer entirely, I fight through hordes of SS soldiers to reach a messhouse, where i confiscate all the chicken from a terrified cook, and make my way to a nearby airbase, where I hotwire and hijack a Ta-152 and fly back to my airfield. I'm celebrated as a hero in Britain for stealing the Fuhrer's own chicken, one of the most highly sought-after prizes of the war. Now knighted Sir Crazy, I travel the world with my companion, an illustrious writer by the name of 'Asparagus' Robert Whitney the XXXVII.



bit over the top crzy  funny though, would make a good film 8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 8, 2004)

Yeah , Mosquito Nightfighter/Intruder for me , but there were many facets of the Airwar that fascinate me , on both the Allied Axis sides...but also both the major Allies had aircraft and duties that I like. - It's hard to say they were a ' Lucky ' generation , but what a 'Battle-Royal' it was , at an age of Technology that accelerated from a desperation almost , to keep constantly coming-up with new stuff to out-perform the enemy. - I think a chap like Capt. Eric [Winkle] Brown had an awesome War , from start till after it was over ; first fighting with the Fleet Air Arm , then Test Pilot flying captured enemy aircraft from Jan. 1944 onwards...he got to try-out the bloody lot ! - IMHO the idea of other Axis-country participants would be really good for the Site. I find it hard to support anything but Allied, but some German aircraft were bloody good; - Fw190, Ju88, Ar234, come to mind as ones I favour.  AND I can dig where Crazy's comin' from...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> As for the RAF yes they were great fliers, but only because they had American steel, pilots, and production to back them up. And Hitler got it into his head to bomb London flat rather then finish of the RAF Properly before the great Invasion



I know what you're thinking....are the Brits going to retaliate with a full-frontal bombardment of 'you're talking crap' or are we going to ignore your absurd remark for the utter tosh that it so obviously is....to be honest i can't decide myself in all this excitement...but bearing in mind that this site is packed full of Brits who are highly informed and very verbal and blunt when it comes to defending our homelands vast, proud history...you have to ask yourself a question....'Do I feel lucky?'...well do ya PUNK?!?!


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 8, 2004)

As for feeling Lucky Yes! That is an American Film Icon that takes no crap and loves to dish it out!! But to be real I do understand that this site has lots of Brits and I respect the passion of defending the homeland. But (here it comes all) If the Americans did not start sending you aid how long would the British been able to keep it all up? As for the pilot remark it was not for the battle of Britten as much as the Eagle squadrens that were the Yank volunteers who got some great battle skills and were able to help you all out.

So now you know where I am comming from. If you all still think I am full of crap and totally missimformed then you have that right. Our crazzy Duchman president (FDR) could have staid out of it all together, but for the Japs! Think on that!!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 8, 2004)

These nationalistic arguments are stupid. We don't engage in them at IL2skins!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 8, 2004)

1. GREAT SIGGY plan_D!!!
2. i would fly for das reich und fuhrer but if i had to go with allied, id go with the plane you are all forgetting!!!! THE BEAUFIGHTER!!! id attack shipping like a maniac!! and sink those kraut ships with no remorse! (see how neutral i can be? although i am rather partial to defending Europa since i am, after all, part Aryan (yes bitches, i am!) but beaus are tempting!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> As for feeling Lucky Yes! That is an American Film Icon that takes no crap and loves to dish it out!! But to be real I do understand that this site has lots of Brits and I respect the passion of defending the homeland. But (here it comes all) If the Americans did not start sending you aid how long would the British been able to keep it all up? As for the pilot remark it was not for the battle of Britten as much as the Eagle squadrens that were the Yank volunteers who got some great battle skills and were able to help you all out.
> 
> So now you know where I am comming from. If you all still think I am full of crap and totally missimformed then you have that right. Our crazzy Duchman president (FDR) could have staid out of it all together, but for the Japs! Think on that!!



Ok - fair points...but i can't help but get the impression that you're trying (in typical American fashion) to steal the British 'thunder' as it were  So i'm afraid i have no choice but to 're-educate' you  

The Battle of Britain was (in my humble opinion) a truly defining moment in Modern British History, there has never been a repeat performance (thankgod) when we as an entire nation had joined together to defeat a monsterous enemy that some believed couldn't be stopped  

"The RAF saved Great Britain" - they should have that engraved in stone and placed all over the country to remind people of what they achived...it was the skill of the pilots and the truly amazing aircraft they flew that saved us from the Nazis...as for outside help it is indeed true that we had some pilots from abroad- France, Belgium, Poland, US, Czech etc etc (sorry if i missed any out  ) but they were in a vast minority compared to the British pilots and the majority of them (especially the pilots from the US) were killed very early on in the Battle and although i wouldn't dream of pissing on what the foreign pilots did for us it has to be said that the British did more of the fighting than any other nation during the Battle of Britain (except of course the Germans  )

As for American aid - yes we recieved equipment and supplies from the Yanks and yes without them times would've been a damn-sight more difficult (perhaps nearly impossible who knows?  ) 
but i firmly beleive in answer to your question

*"How long would the British have been able to keep it all up...?"* 

Until every last one of us was dead...you can believe that - Britain would rather die on its feet than its knees...as Winston Churchill once said

"We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender"

and you can bet your life he meant every word of it...a truly great man 

America could've stayed out of that war and to be quite frank it bloody well would've if it wasn't for the Japanese and I have NEVER beleived that without America we would've lost the war...I don't care if 1000 people tell me otherwise - i'll never believe it - America did little during the war to earn my respect and to be honest (no offence to you as i'm sure you're a nice chap - if a little mis-informed  ) America didn't (and still doesn't) give a flying shit what the rest of the world does as long as it doesn't bother them...as soon as it does America will flex its mighty muscles and charge headlong into war again killing anything that moves (friendly fire my arse  ) 

In short (in case the point was lost amidst my ranting) Britain and the RAF won the Battle of Britain and for anyone to say otherwise (especially if they say America won it for us) is in for a very rude shock...because they couldn't be more wrong if they tried

RULE BRITTANIA


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 9, 2004)

Bronze, that was very nice, and well said. i am sorry to have people think that as a Yank I would try to disrepect the fire and Pride of the British people or the RAF. Please remember that I have been educated in a system that is overy jaded and controled to push America and even to stress history to be very strong armed about it. You are right that the American government dose not care about the feelings of other nations and will when it so chooses reach out and take or try to, what it wants. 

I started reading and writing on this site because I was interested in the RAF bomber comand and the Halifax, that is unharelded in American history and overshadowed by the Lanc. mach as the B-24 (A truely misunderstood craft!) was over shadowed by the B-17. I wanted to know, and still do, more about other nations involvment in the war. 

You say that Britania would be defended to the last man, woman, and child. That sounds very similar to the reports I have read of the Japanese preparing for the home Island invasion. I do have one question for you and would like your opinion on it, that of the way that the american people changed from staying out of the war to moving all the production of a nation to war needs? Also, with the British production taking a lot of hits how much was produced in Canada?

I have truely liked reading your letter and for helping to re-educate me. Please I hope we can continue this discussion of the war and its great aircraft.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2004)

Bronzewhaler, you post venom like that and you are a *moderator* here? Your ideas are fine but your hatred overwhelms them.

Sorry, Crazy, tried out your site but I can see that there's nothing for me here.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 9, 2004)

Vigilante,

Bronze's comments, while perhaps a little strongly put, are (unfortunately) accurate. The UK the Commonwealth made no bones about what they would do to survive, the US was during the early years of the war, at most, a concerned by-stander until Pearl Harbour.

I don't, for a moment, think that BW "hates" Americans, after all thats MY JOB, and we're very big on demarckation here at ww2aircraft.net 

Lighten up, stick up for your country and, unless he's being a moderator, IGNORE BROZEWHALER, we all do! 

Kiwimac


----------



## brad (Apr 10, 2004)

Rafe35 said:


> I would fly for the Allies which of US Marines Corp and flying a F4U-1D or early model F4U-4


 well dugh your from the us :BIG:


----------



## brad (Apr 10, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> 1. GREAT SIGGY plan_D!!!
> 2. i would fly for das reich und fuhrer but if i had to go with allied, id go with the plane you are all forgetting!!!! THE BEAUFIGHTER!!! id attack shipping like a maniac!! and sink those kraut ships with no remorse! (see how neutral i can be? although i am rather partial to defending Europa since i am, after all, part Aryan (yes bitches, i am!) but beaus are tempting!!


 yes you would fly for the germans but you said you would fly the beaufighter but you put up a picture of a messerschmitt where is the sense in that


----------



## brad (Apr 10, 2004)

plan_D said:


> American pilots? I'm sorry I forgot that the 7 Americans in the Battle of Britain saved Britain from certain destruction by the Luftwaffe. Maybe I got it all wrong, the R.A.F were poor only due to America were they made to look good...


 you only wish that


----------



## brad (Apr 10, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Ach zo Crazy, I der Fuhrer von Spam vill get you before you get ze chickens!
> 
> FVS Kiwimac


say it in engilish next time


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

Vigilante said:


> Sorry, Crazy, tried out your site but I can see that there's nothing for me here.



The server went down with a major failure, but will be back up again fairly soon  See my post on it in the CS forum


And brad, that ME-109 piccy is his signature, has nothing to do with the post 



Frankly, the nation-bashing is ridiculous. The RAF certainly could have held it's own against the Luftwaffe, but would have been very hard-pressed without the American lend-lease planes. As for being 'a concerned by-stander', we had a policy of keeping ourselves out of foreign affairs, which I don't agree with, but can understand. America, being so seperated from the rest of the world, had nothing to fear for the longest time from the Third Reich. When Japan finally launched an assault at us, we were thrown into war which we couldn't have won alone (RAF and VVS to the rescue). But yet, could Britain have invaded Fortress Europe alone? Or for that matter, beaten off Germany in the BoB and, if not, staved off Operation Sealion? The point here is that without one, the other certainly would have perished in war with Germany, but since there was support even before America entered the war, the Allies won the war hands down. So you Brits, leave America alone, because without us, you would have perished. And you American's, leave Britain alone, because without 'em, we would have had a very, VERY rough time winning our own battles. Near impossible, perhaps  


There, now I've said my piece. Now, feel free to punch holes in it, as I know some will


----------



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

well, i'm part german if that helps, and i would fly for the RAF, purly because of the lancaster......................


----------



## Crazy (Apr 10, 2004)

Yeah, I'm (part) German as well, and I would fly for GERMANY in a heart-beat. Fly for the Third Reich? Not a chance. The planes would have been interesting, but the purpose would drive me away...


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 10, 2004)

Kiwimac, thank for the thoughts. We are all ready to stand up for our own side, but as a Yank I want to learn more. The US attitude was a little better in 1942, but by 1945 we were really just hitting our stride as far as production and war effort go.

I think to fly with Japan would have been nice! Over the pacific though it would have been dicey and only early in the war. Or how about to be able to fly with Doolittle's Raiders


----------



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

na, i hate the B-25, it's ugly........................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 11, 2004)

brad said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > 1. GREAT SIGGY plan_D!!!
> ...


 i prefer the _Luftwaffe_ is all. and i said the Beau is *TEMPTING*, not my definite choice


----------



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

what about a camtured beau?


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 12, 2004)

The Allies so I could fly a Spit XIV 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## brad (Apr 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> brad said:
> 
> 
> > GermansRGeniuses said:
> ...


 the beau fighter is british dough :fist:


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 12, 2004)

Lanc: The B-25 is just as ugly as the Lanc, and well it could do more jobs! I really do like it only after the B-24 8) that you nice brits lambed Liberator!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 12, 2004)

brad said:


> GermansRGeniuses said:
> 
> 
> > brad said:
> ...


 really? i didnt know that!!! thanks for the info!


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

I'd fly for the R.A.F so I could fly the Mossie, and rip up the ground in Tempests and Typhoons..


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Vigilante said:


> Bronzewhaler, you post venom like that and you are a *moderator* here? Your ideas are fine but your hatred overwhelms them.
> 
> Sorry, Crazy, tried out your site but I can see that there's nothing for me here.



'Hatred' is a strong word mate - i don't 'hate' Americans...i just get tired sometimes by alot of Americans putting the Brits down..it happens alot and i get fed up - The only point i was arguing was the American involvement in the B of B - i wouldn't say the Americans didn't have an important part in the war...just not as far as military assistance during the B of B - i'm proud of my country and most of my posts are passionate...if people think i'm over-the-top then thats fine...i won't say sorry cos thats just my style...i think you need to lighten up a bit mate and stop taking your country so very seriously....there are plenty of Americans on this site that are keen to learn and are greatly respected by me, but you yanks can't expect to go around making statements like the kind i responded to and get away with it...not on this site


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

brad said:


> plan_D said:
> 
> 
> > American pilots? I'm sorry I forgot that the 7 Americans in the Battle of Britain saved Britain from certain destruction by the Luftwaffe. Maybe I got it all wrong, the R.A.F were poor only due to America were they made to look good...
> ...



No, Plan_D has a point - the American fighter pilots didn't help THAT much - they were all killed very early on...


----------



## plan_D (Apr 12, 2004)

You honestly think that 7 pilots would make all the difference? My gratitude to them personally but not to the nation they came from. I am thankful of America for other reasons, not Battle of Britain.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 13, 2004)

I agree...though 'thankful' isn't the right word for me...I respect America for SOME of the things it did for us


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2004)

It is absurd for anyone to say that America had anything to do with the great British victory in the Battle of Britain. That was yours and yours alone. I admire the courage and determination that Britain showed against seemingly hopeless odds, and I believe wholeheartedly that Britain single-handedly saved civilization in 1940. You were absolutely right about this, and the earlier poster who claimed otherwise was justly shown to have been misinformed, bigoted, or both.

You right to be proud of your country, Bronzewhaler - it is one of the greatest nations that has ever existed on this earth. And I can understand your irritation when foolish people make disparaging remarks about Britain, or fail to recognize its great achievements.

But I'm proud of my country, too, and I know hatred when I hear it expressed. Although you now claim that you were merely responding to a point regarding American involvement in the Battle of Britain, that is quite simply untrue. Your original statement that "America did little during the war to earn my respect" is much too far-sweeping for that, and directly contradicts your current claim that you "wouldn't say the Americans didn't have an important part in the war...just not as far as military assistance during the B of B."

You justify your disrespect for _my_ country's role in the war by citing _your_ passionate love of _your _own homeland, while at the same time advising me to "lighten up a bit mate and stop taking your country so very seriously." This is so patently inconsistent that it is laughable. We either can be ardent and serious or we can "lighten up," but elementary fairness requires that the same standards should apply to us both.

Finally, although you may not believe it, I _am_ one of those "Americans on this site that are keen to learn." I have been a student of military history for almost fifty years, and I do not expect greatly to add to a lifetime accumulation of knowledge by reading casual posts on this website. Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in what life is like for people in countries other than my own, and in their hopes, dreams, beliefs, and aspirations. That is what I came here to learn about, while incidently discussing matters of common interest regarding aviation history. My sense is that you, Bronzewhaler, come not to learn but to verbally joust with others so as to display your prowess in the art of argument. Fortunately, unlike yourself, I have the ability to distinguish between a countryman and his country, and your childish disparagement of my country does nothing to diminish my profound respect for your own.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 13, 2004)

Great speech, I'm glad it wasn't directed at me. Still, the 7 Americans deserve the British nations respect, but America helped us with many other things. 
I find the main irritation of most British is that mention of the British on the ground is lost soon after 1942 when the Americans got involved on the ground. 

Hey, Hollywood how about a movie about the 6th Airborne on D-Day, uh!?!


----------



## Archer (Apr 14, 2004)

Hollywood is American, so it makes (some) sense that they focus on the US primarily. Hmm...maybe some Brits should make a movie about the 6th Airborne on D-Day


----------



## brad (Apr 14, 2004)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> brad said:
> 
> 
> > plan_D said:
> ...



not much of one  8) 8) 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 14, 2004)

Not much of one? You're a joke, you think 7 pilots made a difference..hahahahaha


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

Vigilante said:


> It is absurd for anyone to say that America had anything to do with the great British victory in the Battle of Britain. That was yours and yours alone. I admire the courage and determination that Britain showed against seemingly hopeless odds, and I believe wholeheartedly that Britain single-handedly saved civilization in 1940. You were absolutely right about this, and the earlier poster who claimed otherwise was justly shown to have been misinformed, bigoted, or both.
> 
> You right to be proud of your country, Bronzewhaler - it is one of the greatest nations that has ever existed on this earth. And I can understand your irritation when foolish people make disparaging remarks about Britain, or fail to recognize its great achievements.
> 
> ...



Wow, a wonderful post that I can REALLY get my teeth into...i love posts like this  

Right...

Firstly as I say I don't HATE the US whatever you happen to think...whatever your judgement on my post is you cannot say you can see hatred in me...you have never met me, you don't know me, or clearly very much about English culture and you certainly cannot pass judgement on me...based on a post i put up when i was pissed off at some american plonkers sweeping statement - i don't HATE anyone

Let me tell you something about the English- we don't respond well to having our country bashed...though we like to piss and moan about our country, namely: the bad weather we seem to get 365 days a year, that bastard Blair who marches us nearer everyday to oblivion by following that moron Bush (yes George 'Dubyah' Bush is a moron  ), our poor pay, pension schemes, too many immigrants (the nations fav at the moment  ) anything like that we absolutely can't stand it when other people (especially people who clearly know next-to-nothing about us) criticise us and our history - particularly our part in the war which i beleived was our finest hour...the hour we British truly proved to the world that to fuck with us is to exercise in futility...Yes i DO like to argue but i happen to think conflict (verbal or otherwise) is a vital part of learning...how can you know if you are truly right, if no-one challanges you?

I'm very glad to hear that you have so much admiration and respect for my country, and i'm sorry if i seemed Anti-American to you but i'm not...if you believe me thats fine, but if you don't then thats also fine. no sweat off my nose - you do need to lighten up and so do I but as someone who is clearly just as proud of his country as i am of mine you know it isn't easy - especially when prats wind us up ( i know you think i'm a prat but I don't expect any less from an irate American who feels his country has been attacked-Look at Bushes reaction to '9-11' hes trying to conquer the world now  )

As for my willingness to learn..once again don't judge me - just because i like to challange people who like to think they know it all - i am most certainly here to learn...and one thing mate...this country excells at having disrespect for America (particularly at the moment) on the whole we think you are a nation of lawyer-breeding, dangerous, raving egomaniacs and your current leader is a time-bomb  

Just for the record I acknowledge the sacrifice America made for the war effort but anyone who tells me America did it for any other reason than to cover its own arse  ...they're wrong

god bless america


----------



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

it's typical isn't it, we finally do something good, and the americam try and take credi for it.........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Its something Americans do well....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

sure is 

hey do you know we own a harrier?


----------



## brad (Apr 15, 2004)

brad said:


> bronzewhaler82 said:
> 
> 
> > brad said:
> ...


 sos i read wrong


----------



## Gemhorse (Apr 16, 2004)

When you refer to ' Britain', you should include ' the Commonwealth '. -The contribution made by these Men of different Nations was profound , and the American ' Eagle ' Sqn. was really a tradition started in WWI , some of which I read about in 74 ' Tiger ' Sqn.'s history, which spanned both War's.- Plus the Czech , Polish , Dutch etc. Sqn.'s, ALL of who were in there ' mixing-it ' early-on , in the BoB....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 16, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> sure is
> 
> hey do you know we own a harrier?


 ah yes! (he told me people, he DOES have one! a Harrier 80 to be exact  8)  )


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Gemhorse said:


> When you refer to ' Britain', you should include ' the Commonwealth '. -The contribution made by these Men of different Nations was profound , and the American ' Eagle ' Sqn. was really a tradition started in WWI , some of which I read about in 74 ' Tiger ' Sqn.'s history, which spanned both War's.- Plus the Czech , Polish , Dutch etc. Sqn.'s, ALL of who were in there ' mixing-it ' early-on , in the BoB....



Sorry - you're right  - I'd like to thank the Commenwealth pilots too - the Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis and the European pilots too: Poles, Czechs, Dutch, French (  ) Belgian, Finns, Norweigens - sorry if i missed anyone out (i'm sure I did  )

I still think we would've won it without them though


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > sure is
> ...



no its a harrier 48, ill post some pics here later


----------



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

whopdey doo...................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 16, 2004)

> Dutch



woo, go Nederlands! (im Dutch)


> harrier 48


sorry for the mixup


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Germans...I for one am still a little confused about your heritage...are you a Dutch-Brazilian living in the USA? 

where were you born?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 16, 2004)

born in US and my parents are Brazilian and my dads dad is Dutch but yes, i live in the us


----------



## Padbol (Apr 16, 2004)

Axis for the Ju87 and le Bf110 I love these planes  

And for .... the Me323 "Gigant"


----------



## plan_D (Apr 16, 2004)

A taste for crap then...just joking...wait, no I'm not....


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 17, 2004)

I wanted to thank Vigilante, for that great letter and the reply from the Brits. We are all here to talk and I hope learn a little more. The war was won with the blood of the fighting men and the sarafice of the people at home. I think that is at times forgotten.

As for national pride, yes we all have it. 

I agree with The quote that America, is a lawer-breading nation that infact has more then engineers and can come up with a way to try and blame a hamberger for making people fat. well I digress. With out the help of all and the great sacrafice of the Eastern front it might have all been lost. I am not sure how long the Brits could have held out, all alone. But I am shure they would have intill the last man and woman. Hell the Queen never left!! I bet she would have stayed even underocupation  
Or maybe SAS would have sent her to Canada, that is a what if!


----------



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

the SAS was in africa during the war ( i say during, it was only formed mid-war), and even then they weren't that elete a unit.................


----------



## brad (Apr 18, 2004)

what tea bag


----------



## plan_D (Apr 18, 2004)

1942 they were formed and not that elite? 
They did some really amazing things in the desert, and later on. June 1942, a SAS group was involved in landing on the shore of France and dismantle a Radar bringing it back to Britian (Operation Biting). They were a very good unit, and very well motivated. 

Driving onto an airfield with 8 Jeeps and shooting up the planes with .30 cals, then planting bombs on them or smashing them up seems like something elite to me.


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 19, 2004)

Thanks all. I thought the special ops was a little older, my bad. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

> A taste for crap then...just joking...wait, no I'm not....



 (pssst, hes french, that explains everything)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 19, 2004)

damn you cc! i was gonna say that (or something along the lines of it) when i was done reading the page!!!


----------



## plan_D (Apr 20, 2004)

The Marines and Commandos are a lot older (Yes I know the Marines are the Commandos but they weren't always) just the SAS was formed in 1942.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 20, 2004)

> damn you cc! i was gonna say that (or something along the lines of it) when i was done reading the page!!!



the best man won  no wait, he didnt


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 21, 2004)

I know we have talked about this in another topic, but in regards to this bit of what side to fly on I ask: if you were shot down in the airspace of the oposite side who would that be?

For me it would have to be the anything other then an USAAF airman in the pacific. After the Dolittle raid the Japs were not that happy, and latter after the B-29s started bombing Japan things just got worse. But the Japs treatment of POWs was just plain bad.


----------



## TimT1 (Apr 22, 2004)

I'd fly for the allies because they have a great selection of good aircraft. Most of the aircraft in that category that I would like to fly depends on the country. For example:
US:*
F4U Corsair
P-38 Lightning
P-51 Mustang
F4F Wildcat
P-47 Thunderbolt
Britain:
Spitfire
Hurricane
Typhoon
*


----------



## plan_D (Apr 23, 2004)

And you missed the Mosquito off the British list because?


----------



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

and the lancaster because?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 24, 2004)

WElcome to this little world of ours TimT1 
As a word to you we all have at least one aircraft that we are very passionate for, infact you left mine off you little short list, B-24! 8)

But that is fine, most people do, but the B-17 was off as well so that is just great! So you are a fighter lover, and a Pacific Theature at that?  I hope so maybe we can talk some.


----------



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

that's a really bad chat up line.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 24, 2004)

When you say "Chat up line", what are you asking about?8)


----------



## GLS (Apr 24, 2004)

Politics aside, I'd choose to fly allied aircraft. I'll admit to wanting to fly different planes in different times and or theaters of the war. Not to mention different missions.

I'd love to fly a Hurricane or Spitfire durring the Battle of Britan. I can think of no finer point defense fighter than a SpitfireXII. For long range fighter escort , in europe, I'd take the P-47D or P-51D, in the pacific I' choose the P-38J or the P-47D. For operating off a carrier I'll go with the F6F-2 Hellcat, or maybe the F8F-1 Bearcat. Althought the Bearcat really never saw any combat in WWII.

There is ofcourse the Mosquito. In my oppinion the finest multi-role twin-engined aircraft of the war. The only thing to come close to the Mossie would be the Douglas A-26 Invader but again the A-26 barely saw service in the war.

Bomber wise I'll go for the ultimate. The B-29. But for europe I'll take the B-26 for a medium bomber and the B-24 for the heavy. Of the British offerings I've always liked the Shorts Stirling and the Halifax.

Of the palnes that the Soviet Union had to offer I'd go with IL-2 Stormovik for first choice with either the the Lagg-3 or the Pe-2 coming in as next choices.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2004)

A good choice a planes there, with the Soviets, Pe-2, Li-2 (Gunship), Il-2, Pe-8 and Yak-9U for me.


----------



## Thunderchief (Apr 26, 2004)

Deffinitely for the Allies - on a P-47


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 26, 2004)

GLS, great pic for the bombers well the B-24 and Halifax!! I have never been able to warm up to the Short Stirling. But I am a fan of the B-24 and that is a small list. What makes you like it? The range, bombload, or the flexible airfram! It is sort of like the Halifax but longer range, payload and better guns!! 8)


----------



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

GLS, i think you managed to metion every plane but the greatest of the war, the lancaster, how was the stir;ling better than the lancaster?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

he didnt say it was better, he said he liked it 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 28, 2004)

For the A-26 fans, I do not think they came into the war that late. Introduced in the ETO in November of 1944, they would have been able to help in the end game. Yes that was not a great operational life like say the B-24 of the Spit. But the A-26 had a great and proud history and the airframe stayed in use until the 1960s and after.  

Lanc, I might have to a gree that i am not shure how the Stirling was better then the Lanc, but the post was as C.C said "he liked it". That said the Stirling had a good payload, but poor range as I can find out.


----------



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

it had a good payload but 'cos of the design of the bomb bay, it couldn't carry differing loads..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

the sterling could cover 2000 miles couldnt it?


----------



## MP-Willow (Apr 30, 2004)

I might be wrong thanks all, I should be reading more. But there is somthing that just rubs me the wrong way about the Stirling. The wings angle was very high and landing that must of been hard. Any info on that?


----------



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

> the sterling could cover 2000 miles couldnt it?



not with a full payload.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

> might have to a gree that i am not shure how the Stirling was better then the Lanc



IMO the only way it was better was in the looks department 8)


----------



## KometLover (May 2, 2004)

Yes, the Brits had the Spitfire, Gladiator and all the others, but the Germans were the first to develope a Jet propelled Interceptor fighter... This would be the main reason I would say Axis. The Me262 and the Komet Me163 are the only reasons I would have chosen the Axis. This was a very diffucult decision, but the jetplanes just did it for me... Preferences, I guess


----------



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

you mean you don't like the meteor!!!!!

and C.C., the stirling was ugly..................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 2, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> you mean you don't like the meteor!!!!!
> 
> and C.C., the stirling was ugly..................


 hey, the meteor sucked. end of story.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

you said it germans 8) and lanc, you really do have very strange ideas about style


----------



## brad (May 3, 2004)

meteor good


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 3, 2004)

no no, meteor bad, you want real jet? try me-262 or he-162


----------



## MP-Willow (May 3, 2004)

Well all Hello to the new member KometLover. I cannot say i agree with you on the comet, bybe the 262. But yes the RAF jet was not up to the Germans. That said the USAAF was not even as good as the Brits.

How can the Stirling be anyless ugly then the Lancaster?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The British jet engines were, if the Germans got with the British in designing a jet it would have been amazing...wait a minute...








+






=


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

plan_D, the way i interpret that message is as follows: the british and the germans developed a jet and the russians put it in service...


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I shouldn't assume you would all look at them properly, it was the Ta 183 plus a Rolls Royce 'Nene' engine creates a Mig-15. Of course they moved the tail plane down and extended the fuselage to accomadate the engine but it was a German designer that encouraged those changes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

ah 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (May 4, 2004)

A pritty interesting thought! I always had the idea the Russians (Soviets) developed the Mig from the Captured German airframes and plans. I need to admit I have not read about the engine program.  

Ok I am trying to get a photo with my quote, but it would seem I missed?


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Yes, most of the American and Soviet planes came from German designs and British engines.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 5, 2004)

ok thanks 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2004)

Happy to help.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

8)


----------



## MP-Willow (May 7, 2004)

You all are welcome. Now if I could find some cool B-24 quotes. So off to google, some nice surching!


----------



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

how do you get a B-24 quote??????


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

quotes about the b-24... comprehend?


----------



## brad (May 10, 2004)

allias


----------



## MP-Willow (May 10, 2004)

Yes about B-24s or from crews. Say a ball gunner 
I have a few, but I am always looking for good quotes. Brad the big smiles are a little disturbing.


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

I hope you get a good B-24 sig, I like mine . 
Yes, the smiles are a little disturbing, and mildly annoying.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 12, 2004)

plan_D thanks. I am looking. Though I really do like what I have. i have some more of her quotes. I was reading yesterday about Pearl Harbor and picked one up from a chaplin. it might find its way here some time. 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I'll be looking forward to it..


----------



## Maestro (May 12, 2004)

I have a cool pic of a B-24 that has crash-landed.

Enjoy ! 8)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 12, 2004)

Yes, that is a good pic. But just to be awkward, it didn't crash land; on takeoff there was a problem with the brakes which went on as the plane was reachong max. ground speed for takeoff. Six crewmembers died instantly during the accident.


----------



## Maestro (May 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Yes, that is a good pic. But just to be awkward, it didn't crash land; on takeoff there was a problem with the brakes which went on as the plane was reachong max. ground speed for takeoff. Six crewmembers died instantly during the accident.



Oh... I didn't know. Where did you read that ?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 12, 2004)

A book. If I remember correctly, Time-Life Books Air War Over Europe.
if not, then Janes' Air War With The Luftwaffe


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Yeah, the plane is too intact for that to have been a high-speed collision. Great pic nonetheless. Kudos!


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Yes, it was a very good picture. I've seen this picture of two 109s on top of one another, the bottom one is right way, the other upside down. 
I'll try and find it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2004)

it might not have crashed, it may have been an early prototype for a V-STOL


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

What that Liberator, or the two 109s I mentioned?


----------



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

i think he means the B-24 ................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

yes i do


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

I was hoping for you to say the 109s, now that would have been funny.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 15, 2004)




----------



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

the germans had some pretty strange ideas..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

All of the countries had strange ideas. The Navy expirement with freezing bats equipped with a small incendiary bomb. They were dropped from high altitude, thawed on the way down, and then nest in the belferries of Japanese buildings where the bomb would explore. At least that was the idea.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 15, 2004)

Thanks! I like a lot of different quotes and to colect them. Though I have been a little ocupied with stuff so my comp time is not as much.


----------



## brad (May 15, 2004)

cool pic bet them engins never got used again


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 16, 2004)

If you are talking about that B-24 pic you might be surprised. P&W radials were just about the toughest engines around. I doubt they were ever reused, but I wouldn't be shocked if they were.


----------



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

the reast of the plane looks pretty intact...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

yes, it does 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

My guess, knowing how American mechanics were masters of ingenuity and scrounging, is that the plane was probably canabilized for parts. Even if the engines themselves couldn't be saved, I would bet parts from the engines were.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

American mechanics weren't masters at it, everyone did it. It's what you do to a damaged plane.


----------



## bader (May 17, 2004)

i would fly with the allies in mosquitos doing night fighter missions. Also I believe when America entered the war and got going they had the best air force of all


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

No. The main reasons the Americans had that air force was because of the British. And even then the RAF was on par with the USAAF.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

In quality, they probably were, but not quantity. I know that was because of the disparity in industrial base and the fact that American industry wasn't touched by the war but I thought I would make the point.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 17, 2004)

Bader, nice to see you hear and welcome!

That, B-24 pic is a nice one, really interesting. Yes all ground crews were very gifted at keeping planes in the air.

The japs even flew captured or crippled aircraft to report on the bomber formations.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I gift that is needed to be in the ground crew, these people weren't dumb.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I know of a few American crew chiefs who were decorated for their plane flying so many missions without an abort. Did the British do the same thing?


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

No, the British reward their people for going above and beyond the call of duty. What you described would be a pat on the back for doing a job well done, but their job nevertheless. 

I don't know how you'd take this, but the American military hands out medals for no reason.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I consider that recognizing people for doing a job far better than their peers. Having a combat plane fly 76 combat missions (I believe that is the number I saw) was an impressive number. And it's not like he got the CMH for it. I think it was only a Bronze Star. 

That being said America has given out medals where they weren't deserved (and withheld them where they were) but I think all countries have done that. I saw something on TV yesterday where a cook was decorated for carrying hot chow up to the line while the men on the line were not. That was a mistake! In the cause of decorating ground crews who were exceptional in their work, I think it was well deserved.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 18, 2004)

Why not decorate a well deserving crew or plane cheif 8) Most of the time the airforce would have not been able to fly at all because of the attrition rates. 

C.C, is that a Pe-2?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

That's actually a Breda Ba. 88 MP-Willow.


----------



## bader (May 19, 2004)

The allies no doubt


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

bader, if you want that photo as your signature, just type:






minus the spaces 8)


----------



## MP-Willow (May 19, 2004)

Thanks for the help. It looked a little like the Pe-2, but I made a few compairisions and well now I know better.

C.C. you seem to like the Italian aircraft that did not do that well. Save the SM.79 and 81 two nice transport/bomber I also like!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

breda 88 is easier to remember cos of the huge engines 8) yup, i dont really care how good or bad a plane is, it doesnt affect how much i like it or not 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Well in Britain we don't reward people for doing their job. If you keep an aircraft flying for 76 missions, that's your job. That's what you're supposed to do, you're doing it well, and that's what is expected. 
If an aircraft technician was working on an aircraft and the base came under attack then the person got on a MG and defended the place, he would be rewarded because defending the base isn't his job but he did it. That deserves a medal. Even then he might get in trouble for leaving his post because getting that aircraft in the air is his priority.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

So if a fighter pilot served a meal did he get a medal?
And why were any British pilots decorated at all? Wasn't shooting down planes or bombing targets simply doing their job?


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Now you're just being silly, and I doubt a RAF pilot ever served a meal anyway.  
No, you can still be brave in a plane. For example they could get jumped by 10 enemy planes while their was only 3 of them and shoot down all their enemy even though they had a perfect oppurtunity to escape. Or doing daring raids, like Amiens. 
Pilots are expected to bomb and shoot down planes, doing this is not rewarded. Doing this in extreme conditions, or with all the odds against you, is rewarded.

Just face it, Americans get handed medals for nothing. Not all the time, but a lot of the time.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

So the pilot that does his job well (another way of saying "in extreme circumstances" gets a medal and the ground chief who does his job well gets a "Jolly good show ol' chap!"? People who do their job exceptionally well (regardless of what it is) deserve some form of recognition. And without the crew chief the planes don't fly or take off and then turn back because of mechanical trouble without accomplishing anything.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 21, 2004)

Interesting point. But with that should the crews who preped the B-25s to fly off the USS Hornet get credit? It was a first of its kind?


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

No, doing your job well is different from in extreme circumstances. If that chief mechanic got a bunch of planes up while under fire, he'd get rewarded.
Getting planes up is their job, doing that in extreme conditions would be rewarded, doing it 76 times would not.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 22, 2004)

so if that 76 times was done with only marginal spare parts and resuplies then you still would say it is just his job? 

I can see your point, but even just a citation saying good job should be given. I understand not handing out a lot of Silver stars or DSC or such, but a reward I think should be given.

So now that is me thought. As an American you see we like rewards.


----------



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

Guy Gibson got his VC for his actions during the dam busters raid, he selflessly flew along side the attacking bomber after he'd dropped his upkeep to draw away the flak, he could have been killed, that deserves a medal..................


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2004)

Yes, that would deserve a reward. The Dambusters thing I mean. 

With minimal supplies, still no reward. If he made equipment, or improvised to get the planes flying then that's a medal. They do get pats on the back, but medals aren't handed out willy-nilly here, like they are in America.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 24, 2004)

I would not say it is Willy-nilly


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

As I mentioned, it was only the Bronze Star. That's pretty far down the totem poll. But hey, the way Brits toot their own horns apparently they don't need medals.


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2004)

depends what country I was living in and serving with. USA the P-51 later marks. RAF Mossie XXX at night. Germany, anyones guess and I suppose since having two relatives serve in the Luftwaffe as pilots it would be the TA 152 or Me 262A-1a.

War sucks and have heard way too many war stories from bomber crew vets to get interested in serving in an Allied bomber of any sort no matter which country if I had the choice.

Remember that in 44-45 Luftwaffe crews were not serving der Führer but were protecting their homeland from overall destruction............from the RAF, US and Soviet might.

something to consider  

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

I've heard a lot of bomber crew men say they would have hated to fly fighters. I'm not sure what they were thinking . . . but that's what some of them said.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

What's that supposed to mean LG? The British soldier gets rewarded for acts of gallantry, bravery and going above the call of duty. Who are these Brits that 'toot their own horns'? 
They don't NEED medals, they are getting paid to do a job. And if they do the job, they keep their pay. If they do more than what is expected of them, then they get a medal. Or can't you understand that? 
Not willy-nilly? Why would you give a medal to someone for being injured? I tripped over a injured my knee in battle, give me a purple heart.


----------



## brad (May 25, 2004)

> Guy Gibson


isnt he the one that tried to blow up that plase in londed


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

no, thats guy fawkes  i can see it now though:

remember remember the 5th of november, lancaster, upkeeps and dams 

guy gibson was involved in the dambusters raid brad


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

Purple Hearts are for those wounded in combat.
And as far as the Brits who toot their own horns, it appears several of them are on this forem.


----------



## MP-Willow (May 26, 2004)

We seem to be getting a little personal here.

I have read that the bomber crews cannot understand how the rifleman would want to march and sog day in and day out while under all that fire. But they cannot understand how a bobmer would willingly fly info black clowds of flak. It all come to your perspective.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I saw a thing once about a guy in the infantry who was going to swap with a bomber crewman until he learned that the guy was a ball-turret gunner!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2004)

hey i dont toot my own horn, i hope you've noticed that 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

I know what a Purple Heart is for, and you actually believe getting injured in combat deserves a medal?


----------



## brad (May 27, 2004)

tanks for reminding me
it wasnt guy gibson


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I don't think every injury is deserving of one, but many are. If a guy loses an arm or a leg serving his country he deserves some time of recognition and symbol from his country of the appreciation.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I don't think every injury is deserving of one, but many are. If a guy loses an arm or a leg serving his country he deserves some time of recognition and symbol from his country of the appreciation.



This time, I agree with LG. Many wounds deserve a medal. Many of the survivors of the Dieppe raid in the Essex Scottish regiment got wounded... But 12 of them were able to enter the city and hold a part of it untill the HQ called them back. No other regiment (even the British commandos) were able to do so. Think about it : 12 soldiers against a whole German division... They were able to hold them off ! (And the Essex Scottish regiment is a Canadian one.) I don't know if they got one, but those guys deserved a medal.


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

I believe injury should be given recognition, not a medal. Dieppe raid was majority Canadian, so they were probably in a good situation to do it. And I doubt it was a whole division, but even then they deserve a medal but that's not because of their injury. 
And that's not really fair saying the British Commandos couldn't, it's more of the Commandos didn't. 

Yes, the names can get confusing but I've never heard of the Essex Scottish, the name itself is confusing since Essex is in South England. Anywho, the 75th Indian in Burma had British, Ghurka and Indians in it, so it does get confusing.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I believe injury should be given recognition, not a medal. Dieppe raid was majority Canadian, so they were probably in a good situation to do it. And I doubt it was a whole division, but even then they deserve a medal but that's not because of their injury.
> And that's not really fair saying the British Commandos couldn't, it's more of the Commandos didn't.
> 
> Yes, the names can get confusing but I've never heard of the Essex Scottish, the name itself is confusing since Essex is in South England. Anywho, the 75th Indian in Burma had British, Ghurka and Indians in it, so it does get confusing.



To say the truth, Plan_D, Essex Scottish was a Canadian regiment from Ontario. It was renamed "Essex and Kent Scottish" after the war. "Kent" came from the name of a soldier that fought at Dieppe.

Yes, the Dieppe raid was _mostly _Canadian, but it had Brittish commandos in it. Here is a short resume on how the raid was made:

A short moment before the main force arrive, two groups of commandos landed on the far sides of the beaches to destroy the costal cannons. Both ewere able to accomplish their mission but one of those groups suffered heavy losses.

Then the main force arrived... It was composed of three waves. The first wave was the Essex Scottish regiment. They were charged of taking the city. If they were successful, the second wave (composed of British commandos) and the third wave (composed of tanks) would land on the beaches and help the Canadians.

But sh*t has hit the fan... When the 12 soldiers from the Essex Scottish entered the city, they sent a message to the HQ in London (the message was "relayed" to the HQ by an Allied ship). The soldiers sent the message : "12 Essex Scottish soldiers has entered the city." But, due to an unknown event, the HQ received a message telling that the city was under Canadian control !

So they sent the second and third waves in. British commandos got shot as rabbits and tanks were destroyed as soon as they landed on the beach. It was a disaster !

That's the story of the Dieppe raid.

I found some interresting URLs about the Essex Scottish regiment.
 http://bcoy1cpb.pacdat.net/essex_scottish.htm
 http://www.ciaccess.com/~59army/ekscot.html


----------



## plan_D (May 28, 2004)

I know about the Dieppe raid, and most of those on the invasion got ripped apart by artillery, something the Commandos couldn't avoid. Still it was unfair saying that the Commandos couldn't if they had of gone in first, who knows they might have done the same as the Canadians. 
There were also 50 U.S Marines in that invasion. 

The British Commandos have a lot to their name in World War 2, they were one of the greatest fighting units of the war. The Chindits in my opinion were the greatest fighting unit though.


----------



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

> The Chindits in my opinion were the greatest fighting unit though.



is this just restricted to ground forces??


----------



## brad (May 29, 2004)

> Lightning Guy wrote:
> I don't think every injury is deserving of one, but many are. If a guy loses an arm or a leg serving his country he deserves some time of recognition and symbol from his country of the appreciation.
> 
> 
> This time, I agree with LG. Many wounds deserve a medal. Many of the survivors of the Dieppe raid in the Essex Scottish regiment got wounded... But 12 of them were able to enter the city and hold a part of it untill the HQ called them back. No other regiment (even the British commandos) were able to do so. Think about it : 12 soldiers against a whole German division... They were able to hold them off ! (And the Essex Scottish regiment is a Canadian one.) I don't know if they got one, but those guys deserved a medal.


i aggre with lg to but i think they then should have been given time away or a different job in the forcese


----------



## MP-Willow (May 29, 2004)

If you are all talking medels and commondations, this is Memorial Weekend in US and we are dedicating our first National Monument, In Washington. It was only 60 years in the making, but this is going to be a very moving monument.

One of the photos that I have seen that really moved me was a Vet laying a single red rose over the name of Terawa. I hope you all look into the Memorial.


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

I am having the TV programs taped today but will take 6-6-04 off to pay tribute to the fallen.


----------



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

does your boss know about that??


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

what boss ? It is me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8)


----------



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

oh, in that case, do you know you're taking the time off??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 29, 2004)

Lanc, that joke is bollocks...


----------



## Maestro (May 29, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I know about the Dieppe raid, and most of those on the invasion got ripped apart by artillery, something the Commandos couldn't avoid. Still it was unfair saying that the Commandos couldn't if they had of gone in first, who knows they might have done the same as the Canadians.
> There were also 50 U.S Marines in that invasion.
> 
> The British Commandos have a lot to their name in World War 2, they were one of the greatest fighting units of the war. The Chindits in my opinion were the greatest fighting unit though.



Plan_D, I never said British commandos were useless or that they haven't done their job. I know what they did and I respect them...

All I have said is that they were not able to enter the city of Dieppe while 12 men from the Essex Scottish were able to. May be it was only a "lucky shot", but they did it !


----------



## plan_D (May 29, 2004)

They sure did, and that deserves a medal. 

And no Lanc, it's not restricted to ground units. I'll be interested to hear your verdict on the matter, a Lanc squadron I imagine.


----------



## brad (Jun 2, 2004)

> Lanc, that joke is bollocks...


i aggre


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

He will probably go with No. 617 squadron. I imagine that could be argued rather well.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2004)

It certainly could, I imagine every unit in the war could be argued for. I'm interested in which unit your vote would go for? 

Mine goes to the Prince of Wales own West Yorkshire~75th Indian Division~8th Army.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Well, my favorite was the 475th FG because of there success with the P-38. In Europe I liked the 56th FG because of there success and killer nickname, The Wolfpack.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 4, 2004)

Now now MP-Willow we all know that if britain had fallen the entire World would have been doomed... 8)  

I would have personally flown for germany, I like the planes they had.


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 4, 2004)

they had OK planes but i would have flown for the Allies! 
 (Axis)  (Allies)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 4, 2004)

its tricky for me, i would have gone allies to though 8)

luca servitto, are you from italy?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 4, 2004)

No, C.C. I don't think he is. It may just be that how Italian his name sounds and the flag he put may be a coincidence...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

ok dont be sarky, i just wanna find out if he is or not cos thats means people will stop bashing the italians


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2004)

I won't. 

Anyway, who do you all think was the greatest fighting unit, LG and I have given are suggestions.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2004)

I won't. 

Anyway, who do you all think was the greatest fighting unit, LG and I have given our suggestions.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2004)

no idea, i have no idea about that sorta thing!


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 5, 2004)

Stuka-99 Yes the world would be in great hurt and the US might have only declaired war on Japan, think of that? I might not have been that, but if England fell if would have been a lot harder to convince the American people to fight Germany and Japan. But we would probable would have tried to fight the both of them. 

That gets us to the topic a little better, still the allies in my B-24 or mybe a F6F flying off a carrier to liberate the south of France!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

If you want to pilot and F6F why not the Pacific where you could be involved in the great carrier battles? I imagine it might have been enjoyable to fly in the Marianas Turkey Shoot. And a 19-1 kill ratio is pretty good life insurance.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 6, 2004)

I personally would have loved to fly a Me-262 hehehe poor allies wouldn't be able to catch me


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2004)

you're positive about that ? the turning radius of the Me 262 A was terrible and the P-51 could cut the a/c off. Obviously on the flat out that was another matter.............

E ~


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 6, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> luca servitto, are you from italy?



As a matter of fact..... I am! 

So shove that up yor hole GermansRGeniuses


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 6, 2004)

luca servitto said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > luca servitto, are you from italy?
> ...



Hey mates, it was all in good fun. I have nothing against Italy.
In fact, I'm planning on living there sometime in the future as it's a)in Europe, b)kind of like a civilized version of Brazil, and c)it's a beautiful place.


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2004)

Luca what is your avatar ? looks like a green bell pepper

yes ?

Erich ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

And you have to land sometime Stuka. Good luck making your way through whole Allied squadrons trying to do that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> luca servitto said:
> 
> 
> > cheddar cheese said:
> ...



live there? i wouldnt, maybe a holiday though 8) too hot for me 8)

luca, do you take pride in your country? cos there are a few people on this site who seem to be a bit negative toward the italians and i would like to nab them  im not anti-italian btw, i love italy and i love the italians 8)




and according to the lanc a gloster meteor F.3 could catch a 262


----------



## luca servitto (Jun 7, 2004)

Erich said:


> Luca what is your avatar ? looks like a green bell pepper
> 
> yes ?
> 
> Erich ~



Its a pear from Frutini( the drink) 

Actually C.C i do live there AND take pride in my country(obviously)


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2004)

Luca thanks that was my other choice, but never seeing a green pear though. Kühl avatar......... fun ~


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

good  i think i might put a P.108 as my siggy again and a lovely italian flag by it, or ill put some other italian plane


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2004)

there it is  i wont put the italian flag, certain patriotic brits will start to dislike me


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 7, 2004)

For the Me-262 fans, the USAAC had flights that had nothing better to do then wait for the plans to start the takeoff roll. Then it did not matter after the main airfields were bombed, but they did operate off the autoboun and hid the planes inder the trees when grounded. 

AS for the F6F flying I could say the PTO ues it would have been great to have my ace statis almost handed to me. But I chust thoutht that France would be nice as well. But for that and France maybe the Bulge would be better?

Or Fly for the RAF in the early Hurricane as I try to defend the BEF.


----------



## Stuka-99 (Jun 11, 2004)

Viva Italia no Luca?


----------



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

we've figured that out i think.................


----------



## Erich (Jun 13, 2004)

actually the Me 262 bases were placed on the autobahn because they were NOT grounded but because there forward bases had been over-run or bombed out. they actually did quite well flying off and onto several different obsolete highway systems and this provided the firmness they could not achieve instead of grass fields.

E ~


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 13, 2004)

Wow, no reply yet...


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 14, 2004)

Ok so they can fly off the road, but they were still game on takeoff and landing. But with the cover of Fw 190s that helped. 

The Dora could also be the Bf 109D


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 14, 2004)

I don't think anyone would wanna take a Bf-109D into combat in 1945.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2004)

Unless you wanted to go back in time and confuse us.


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2004)

MP-Willow:

Actually the Doras didn't do too much as a help mate for the Kommando Nowotny boyz nor the JV 44 Galland Circus


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

Thanks as always Erich you help sort out the information I seem to find that at times is I think written with a slight against the German aircraft.

Why not fly with Canada!! Coastal patrol or pilot training?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

Pilot training, keep out of the war. The smartest idea of the bunch.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

If you had been alive during the time you would have felt differently. Everyone wanted to be in the action, at least before they saw any.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 16, 2004)

In the action yes, but so was the trainning. Also the Great Lakes fleet of Naval training. If I was able at first I might want to fly combat. But also the warbonds and USO tours were key for morale. So we have a few options. Combat is the one so tempting to draw you in and then you find out how horrid it can be.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

Correction, all the Canadians wanted to see action. Very brave bunch, the Canadians. And great fighters. 
Still, looking back, 55,000,000 dead, staying out would have been smart. Not for me though, being British, I think defending my own nation would come first. You never know, you might survive.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Well I was refering to the excitement factor and the vast majority of the pilots I have heard comment on this have all agreed that it was exciting, that it was (in a way) fun, and that it was worthwhile. Many of the pilots would kick and scream to stay in combat.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 18, 2004)

LG- I agree from the men I have taked to and the more I read they really wanted to fly even if they were hurt. There were some who washed out, but that is the case with all combat. But still the rifleman think they are crazy to fly thru all that flak and fighters. 

In my mind it is just as important to be on the homefrount to help win the war! With the training that crews got at home that were a little bit prepaired. Also my Grandfather was working in the Ship yards building destroyers for the Atlantic. I am trying to get more information on that. 8)


----------



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

> the rifleman think they are crazy to fly thru all that flak and fighters



what, as they were running past machine guns and bombardment???


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 20, 2004)

Hey, I've heard a story about a paratrooper who was eager to trade spots with a B-17 gunner . . . until he heard the guy flew in the ball!

Training was immensely important and the ability of the Allies to rotate experienced pilots into training commands did wonders for pilot ability towards the end of the war. Still, the pilots typically didn't want to leave combat.


----------



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

probery because they were better armoured than the rst of their crew.................


----------



## David m Card (Jun 21, 2004)

R.C.A.F all the way!!!! They were and are very well mannerd


----------



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

that's because they're brittish, we were true Gents back then..................


----------



## David m Card (Jun 22, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that's because they're brittish, we were true Gents back then..................


Canadians are not Brittish.Yes of course you were and still are true gents.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 22, 2004)

Would you want to leave your buddies who are still flying. Bober pilots would be leaving the crews they flew with for so long thru all that hell. 

The curse of the ball  At lest you know when the stuff is comming up.


----------



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

not allot you can do about it though is there..........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 24, 2004)

now that you are all ready to go to war, just remember how you got there. ferry over the atlantic or risk the ride in a convoy! They were both bad. Why not stay home help train. You know some men were told they could not join because the skills they had were more important at home.

Now that we have a Canadian with us could you help me to understand if the RCAF flew on it's own or was part of the RAF?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

Speaking of ferrying. You know there was only one type of fighter that actually ferried across the Atlantic during the war . . .


----------



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

the canadains used the lancaster Mk.X quite a bit didn't they??


----------



## Maestro (Jun 24, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Now that we have a Canadian with us could you help me to understand if the RCAF flew on it's own or was part of the RAF?



RCAF was not part of the RAF. I think they were under British command during WW II (like Canadian troops were under the command of General Dempsey on D-Day), but they were independant of the RAF.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 24, 2004)

As I understand it, Canadian pilots were generally assigned to their own squadrons and groups but were under the operational command of the RAF.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 25, 2004)

Lightening yes I read about the P-38s lost in Greenlad! What a marketing name that was 

Ok here is a bit for you all to read, it is an artical that helps to get the trueth about the French Airforce during the Battle of France. It is written by a USAF officer, retiered, and has good data. So the link is:www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html I know a lot of you reading this are not on the French side, but this talks of how the Army and government really tied the hands of te Airforce.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 25, 2004)

Operation Bolero ferrying the P-38s across the Atlantic was a phenomenal success. Out of 171 planes that attempted the journey, only 7 were lost and 6 of those on one mission! Pretty impressive for a single-seat fighter flying through some really rough weather.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 28, 2004)

So I read! I am not shure I would have been up for that, what a lot of hours of nothing?


----------



## Maestro (Jun 28, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> As I understand it, Canadian pilots were generally assigned to their own squadrons and groups but were under the operational command of the RAF.



That's exactly what I meant, mate.


----------



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

> what a lot of hours of nothing



i'm sure you could make up some fun games, spot the fish, count the waves, yellow plane.............................


----------



## Dan (Jun 28, 2004)

well i surely would be on the allied side but i'm not sure this is true but i heard that most of the Caniadans got hanger work like mecanic and stuff
only the really really good canadians got to fly in the squadrons


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 28, 2004)

Combat flying was alot of time spent doing nothing. In the Pacific, P-38 pilots often took along books to read or would write letters home. Over Europe, I have heard several pilots describe their missions as long hours of boredom interspersed with moments of sheer terror.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 29, 2004)

Lightening Guy -that is what friends have said to me and what I was thinking of when I wrote last. 

Lanc, I was talking of the Ferry missions from Maine to England. But combat could be the same.  Tarror and Bordome are companions in war. War as one friend said is Hurry up and wait.


----------



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

> Lanc, I was talking of the Ferry missions from Maine to England



what makes you think I wasn't??


----------



## MP-Willow (Jun 30, 2004)

ok sorry it wounded you were talking of combat. 

You could come up with some games but stil all that time in a little seat. The P-38 is not that big.


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 30, 2004)

Wales  

Hot Space


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 30, 2004)

I found it interesting when I was reading the tactics manual written by Maj. Tommy MacGuire that he emphasized the importance of making sure you were comfortable in that seat. Nine hour missions were common in the Pacific and that is a long time to sit in a bucket seat.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 30, 2004)

Beards.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 30, 2004)

CaseyJay the cat. :BIG:


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 30, 2004)

Power to the Pussies 8) 

Hot Space


----------



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

> i'm sure you could make up some fun games, spot the fish, count the waves, yellow plane





> You could come up with some games but stil all that time in a little seat. The P-38 is not that big



how much room do those games need??


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 1, 2004)

I'm surprised no one has reacted to what is only a sample of Hs's spam power and return...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 2, 2004)

I think he was talking about merely being cramped in a single-seat plane for 9-10 hours.


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

i would have flown for the allied because (one of many reasons) they had the spitfire: the only downside to the spitfire was the max ammo which meant that you had to concerve ammo instead of plug away


----------



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

but that was true of any fighter.....................


----------



## Dan (Jul 2, 2004)

no i mean that the Spitfire that i think 4 machine guns and 2 cannons that fired pretty fast so they usually had to extend the ammount of ammo that was loaded into the Spitfire


----------



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

it depends what mark you're talking about...........................


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 2, 2004)

the spit Mk Ve wing was god to go with guns and rounds. It was not that much less then other fighters.

Lanc, so you sit for 9 or 10 hours in a little seat, that you are flying over nothing but water. The games would have to be mind gimes excersises to keep you alert. It is like driving cross country in the US there are places that you can just zone out because there is nothing!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2004)

The Mk. VIII and Mk. XVIII being the best Spitfires.


----------



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

i thought you thought the XIV was the best??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 5, 2004)

No I've been reading more and the Mk. XVIII was the best Griffon engined and the Mk.VIII was the best Merlin engined. The Mk.XIV and Mk.XVIII were the best overall.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 5, 2004)

plan_D said:


> No I've been reading more and the Mk. XVIII was the best Griffon engined and the Mk.VIII was the best Merlin engined. The Mk.XIV and Mk.XVIII were the best overall.



I'm sorry to say that Plan_D but you're wrong about the Mk. VIII. Every info I have say that the Mk. VIII was surpassed by the Mk. IX. Even if the Mk. IX came out before the Mk. VIII. (That's a long story, but I already talked about it a while back.)

But I agree with you concerning the Mk. XIV and Mk. XVIII.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 5, 2004)

My vote is the Mk. IX and then the XIV. The Mk. IX just seemed to have most of the bugs worked out and the arms in the Universal wing were pritty good. Question how common was a guns fit of 2x20mm cannon and 2x.50 mg?


----------



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

i've never evn heard of that armourment on a spit before.......................


----------



## Maestro (Jul 5, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've never evn heard of that armourment on a spit before.......................



Me neither. I heard about Spitfires with 8x303, or 2x20mm and 4x303, or 4x20mm (yes, the Mk. IX had a variant with four 20mm cannons). But I never heard of a Spitfire armed with .50 cal.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 6, 2004)

ok thanks all. I am trying to understand why they would not have replace some of the .303s with the .50? Or was it because of the thin wing? Again sorry, if I find any refferance to it I will let you all know.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 6, 2004)

MK. IX's had two Hispanos and two Browning MG's.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 6, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> MK. IX's had two Hispanos and two Browning MG's.



I don't realy understand your post, GRG... Are you saying that the Mk. IX had a variant with 2x20mm and 2x.50cal ?

Or are you saying that it had 2x20mm and 2x303 ? (In this case you're wrong, it had 2x20mm and 4x303.)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 6, 2004)

Several different marks of Spit could carry the E wing with 2 .50cals and 2 20mm but I don't think the fit was that common. And the ammo load probably wasn't extremely impressive either.


----------



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

the spit's wing was a bit thin for .50 ammo....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 7, 2004)

I want to say I have seen the figure of 250rpg somewhere but I'm not positive about that.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 8, 2004)

Thanks one of the chalenges of reading about the Spitfire, and for that matter it seams a good bit of RAF fighters is the different wing types that could hold different arms. I am always learning. Were the .303 rounds effective? The rifle round seems light against fighters and armor?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 9, 2004)

The Spitfire Mk. IX was a mere stop gap, it was just a Mk. V with a new Merlin 61 engine. The Mk. VIII was the definitive Fighter and the E wing carried two 20mm and two .50cal. 
The only reason the IX seems to be seen as better is because of its larger production run, which continued until 1945. It wasn't better. Some pilots say the VIII was the best overall. 

'A' Wing eight .30 cal. 
'B' Wing two 20mm and four .30cal
'C' Wing four 20mm. 
'E' Wing two 20mm and two .50cal.


----------



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

you really need to make up your mind as to which spit you think was the best..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 9, 2004)

The .303 wasn't especially effective. The round lacks the hitting power to punch through armor and the holes it produced were small enough to be plugged by self-sealing tanks. It's advantages were it's lightweight and high rate of fire. It was alright early in the war, but as fighters became better armored it was clearly outclassed.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

I like the Spitfire in general, Lanc. The best war variant was the Mk. XVIII. I was just saying some pilots thought the VIII was the best. LG, the Spit had the choice of four armaments, the B and E wings were the majority wings, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 10, 2004)

I think the B wing was far and away the most common. I've seen several Spits with the 4 20mm, but they are all later models. I don't think I've ever seen a Spit with the E wing.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2004)

They were mostly used on the VIII. I've seen quite a few C winged Spitfires. The B wing was the most used without a doubt.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 12, 2004)

If the IX was to be the stop gap why was the prduction run to 1945 after the XIV and others were its better? I have not read much on the VIII, so that must be added to the list.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

Because it was good enough to carry on production, plus the fact we had plenty of V airframes and Merlin 60s to go in them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

You will find alot of times governments don't want to interrupt production of a proven weapon. The Spit. IX was still a very good fighter and (I'm guessing) the RAF was looking for more fighters period. Also, the availability of the Griffon may have played a role. But those are just guesses.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

The main reason was the abundance of V airframes, but the VIII was still the best Merlin engined Spitfire in many peoples opinions. The pilots that flew them hold them in high regard, but then again so do many IX pilots. 
The Mk.XVIII was still the best war variant though.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 12, 2004)

In my mind, the Mk. IX (my favorite plane) was the best Merlin engined Spitfire. After all, it was used untill the end of British decolonisation wars...

I think the Mk. VIII didn't. But that's a guess.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 12, 2004)

I don't know the full service of the VIII but I know it saw dedicated service over the jungles of Burma. It could certainly beat a Zero into submission, even at its own game. There were only around 1,300 VIIIs built, if I remember correctly. This shouldn't give the idea of an inferior plane. Remember the VIII was a new airframe while the IX was just the old V airframe with a Merlin 61 engine. 
There's no denying the IX was a good plane, but the VIII, in a lot of peoples opinions, was the greatest Merlin engined Spitfire.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jul 12, 2004)

plan_D said:


> They were mostly used on the VIII. I've seen quite a few C winged Spitfires. The B wing was the most used without a doubt.



'Coupla Mk.Vb Spits in Nord Afrika had the "C" wing with 2 Hispanos in each wing.





In response to lanc's "the spit's wing's a bit thin for .50 ammo" comment, are 20mm rounds thinner, then?


----------



## Maestro (Jul 12, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> In response to lanc's "the spit's wing's a bit thin for .50 ammo" comment, are 20mm rounds thinner, then?



You're right GRG, let's calculate...

1 inch = 2.54 cm (so approx. 2.5) = 25mm

25/2 = 12.5mm

So .50cal are smaller.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 12, 2004)

The .50cals were carried right next to the 20mms weren't they? If they were carried further out the wing might have been prohibitively thin but I don't think that was the case.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jul 17, 2004)

Some numbers on guns thanks. The Spitfire was just a very good design to be pushed and pulled in all the different directions. That also says a lot for the Merlin engines.


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 13, 2004)

Allies. Some of the things the Axis done were sickening.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 13, 2004)

Read the history of the Soviet Union lately?


----------



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

..................


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 14, 2004)

I realise the Soviets were far from perfect.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 14, 2004)

Aint that the truth.....

Although the Communists did some horiffic things in WW2, the Germans have em beat hands down in the atrocities department...


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 14, 2004)

I agree, you cant get much worse than the Holocaust and if you could I wouldn't like to know.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

Well, some of the things the Japanese did were pretty horrific. But I would not have wanted to have been a German lady in Berlin in May of 1945. The Soviet soldiers raped just about every German female they could lay their hands on. As a result of the abuse, countless women were killed.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

And of course Stalin's purges outdid Hitler's holocaust by about a 3 to 1 margin.


----------



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

but many of the russian atrosities were against "combatants" the holocaust was against "non-combatants" which makes it worse............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 14, 2004)

I'm not disputing that. But if your reason for flying for the Allies (which included the Soviet Union) is because they were more humane . . . you might wanna take a long look at some of the things the Soviets did. Even if they were targetting combatants they were still detestable.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 14, 2004)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes indeed....


I'd still fly German, the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with Hitler's "Ethnic Cleansing," so it's guilt-free.


That and the fact that, contrary to popular belief, the Holocaust was VERY secret, the Western Front knew almost nothing about it during it's peak of horror, which was approximately 1942-1943.

The knowledge started coming in around mid-1944.


----------



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

BTW LG i haven't given that as my opinion, i was just helping out some other people with their argument.................


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 15, 2004)

GrG, the west knew of what was going on in the camps. They were on the way to the nice juicey bits of barring plants and other phat targets.

Pilots in all wars have had more or less guilt free fighting. I beleive that most of the German Army and Airforce were professionals. It was the SS that was bad.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 15, 2004)

Actually, I meant about the atrocities...


Auschwitz is kinda big not to notice from the air...


----------



## Stuka-99 (Aug 15, 2004)

I dont know but lancaster is a communist supporter by the looks of it I mean come on the soviets were less orthodox in the means of tactics and warfare and in treating prisoners. I mean one of the reasons the russians werent prepared for Operation "Barbarossa" was cus Stalin killed of his own generals, leaders like that dont deserve to win a war....

PS:Any one ever played Hearts of Iron????


----------



## Maestro (Aug 16, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> GrG, the west knew of what was going on in the camps. They were on the way to the nice juicey bits of barring plants and other phat targets.
> 
> Pilots in all wars have had more or less guilt free fighting. I beleive that most of the German Army and Airforce were professionals. It was the SS that was bad.



... And the SS were in charge of every camp within the Rieich.


----------



## NightHawk (Aug 16, 2004)

war makes you do hurrifec things. if you want to or not.
"only the dead have seen the end of war" plato


----------



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

stuka, i am not communist, and you better get rid of the pic in your siggy, incase you didn't notice, there's a rather large copywrite symbol on it.................


----------



## Stuka-99 (Aug 16, 2004)

Lanc dont get me wrong I dindt say you were a commy I assumed that because you always stick out for them. Didnt mean to offend anyone.


----------



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

> lancaster is a communist





> I dindt say you were a commy


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 17, 2004)

Lanc, I do not see the copywright?

But Stuka nice pic


----------



## Sagaris (Aug 18, 2004)

The copyrighted picture was on his previous signature, he has since changed it.


----------



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

it was impossible to miss on his last one....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 21, 2004)

yup, a big 'C' plastered across it...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 21, 2004)

Why the hell are u responding over a month late to a dead topic???? Youve done that in several posts...


----------



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

he does it because he has to find ways to post.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 22, 2004)

and because i have nowt better to do with my time


----------



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

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 24, 2004)

tis 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Well you got your wish you wanted some German or Italian people to the site. Well okay I am German/American so I guess that does not count. I would have to fly for the Germans. I know it was a losing battle and I would not have done it in support of Hitler or anything like that but I disagree that the British or the Americans had better aircraft. The Luftwaffe was just amazing yes it was destroyed in the end but the aircraft were just amazing. The Me-109, FW-190, Me-262, Ar-234, Me-163, the list is endless and aircraft like the Ju-88 might not have been the fastest but they were so diverse. You could adapt them for any role. The German engineers were geniuses with there designs and came up with so many great aircraft. Many aircraft that never even made into full production the Gotha Ho-229, can anyone argue that it would have the best thing in the air had it made into production? If Hitler had used the Luftwaffe correctly in the beginning years of the war it would have been hard to top it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

I have to agree with u 98% on what u said....



> but I disagree that the British or the Americans had better aircraft.



I think that the airpower game was a give and take.. The Allies would make a new variant of the Spit to beat the -109, the Germans would counter.. Back and forth it went... At certain times the Allied planes were better, certain times the Luftwaffe aircraft dominated.....

Definatly agree with u on the -229....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

You are correct with it going back and forth with the varients. I think more varients of fighters of the same kind came out in WW2 than any other time period. It probably was because it was cheaper and easier to just upgrade and existing type that was alrady proven rather than switch over and over. Plus the assembaly lines were already running for those types.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

Exactly.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Not to say that either side had great other designs thought it is just that each side had its main aircraft. The Germans had the Me-109, the Brits had the spitfire, the Americans had the P-51. It was like there signature aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

And the French had the Dewoitine D.520


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

And each had its own good charactistics and bad characteristics.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

Yup. All planes have them though...


----------



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

same with bombers really, each country had their principal bomber, us brits the lancaster, the americans the B-17 (even though the B-24 was better and built in bigger numbers) and the germans the He-111............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Yeap the same for bombers. The funny thing is that none of Germanys large long range heavy bombers really got off the ground. Hitler was so obsessed with bomber aircraft though that he never dropped the programs in favor of developing better fighters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

The way Hitler got to power may have been clever, but when he was in power it really became clear he was thick...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

He needed to let his Generals and Feldmarschals like Rommel run the war. If Rommel did not have his hands tied behind his back the whole war I think he could have done more damage than he did.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I think that flying for the Germans might have been really fun actually. You had great aircraft but there is nothing more romantic than fighting a loosing battle. I mean I know it sucks to lose but the whole last stand thing even though it must have been disheartening it is kind of like The Alamo and battles like that. It was heroic.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

I would have loved to fly German planes, for that reason but also because I think they had a more diverse range of aircraft. The Brits didnt really have a lot in comparison with the Germans when you think about it, The list of well known British planes is actually curiously short.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah the Germans put a lot of planes out of different types and made different varients of the same planes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Heres a German plane i'd have liked to fly:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I think to fly around in the Fw-189 just for fun in a non hostile environment would be fun mostly because of the great view you would have from the cockpit. But this recon aircraft was such an easy target to shoot down I dont think it would be too much fun.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Didnt they also make a ground-attack Fw-189 too though?

And I always thought the 189 was a tough aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes there may have been one but it sill was not that great of an aircraft.

Type: Three seat reconaissance and close support
Manufacturer: Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmbH; built under Focke-Wulf control by SNCASO with outer wings by Breguet
First flight: July 1938
First delivery: September 1940
Final delivery: August 1944

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Model: Argus As 410A-1
Type: 12 cylinder inverted-vee air-cooled
Number: Two Horsepower: 465 hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Span: 60 ft. 4½ in. (18.4m)
Length: 39 ft. 4½in. (12m)
Height: 10 ft. 2 in. (3.1m)
Weights:
Empty: 5,930 lb. (2690 kg)
Loaded: 8,708 lb. (3950 kg)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance:
Maximum speed: 217mph (350km/h)
Climb to 13,120ft (4000m): 8 min 20 sec
Ceiling: 23,950ft (7300m)
Range: 416 miles (670km)
Armament:
(A-2)
One 7.92mm MG 17 machine gun in each wing root
Twin 7.92mm MG 81 manually aimed in dorsal position and (usually) twin MG 81 in rear cone with limited field of fire
Underwing racks for four 50kg bombs

As you can see it was quite slow too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Wow. Still, its a plane I like.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah I bet it was fun to fly around in for fun. The view from that mostly glass cockpit must have been great.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Yup, I suppose it was mainly glass because it was a recon plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Pretty much that is what it was designed for but it also says that it was a close support aircraft but I doubt it was used that much for that purpose.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

What's meant by a close support aircraft?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

A close support aircraft is an aircraft that gives close support to ground troops typically infantry. They directly help the ground troops attacking enemy positions and giving the ground commander recon of the ground positions.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Ah right, thanks 8)


----------



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

you may alos have heard it called "battlefield support", however close air support and battlefield support are very different to ground attack.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Indeed...


----------



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

very much so..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

I agree...

We're going off on one again


----------



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

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)




----------



## Karaya_1 (Dec 1, 2004)

I would choose the GERMAN side....don't ask me why....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

Theres no need to, their planes were more interesting


----------



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

allies, i prefer British planes, wouldn't mind flying the P-47 though.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

Id like to fly any plane, it'd be a great experience. Obviously a P-38 is at the very top of my wishlist though.


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 3, 2004)

i wanto fly 4 the RAF cuz the tempest is superb as a all-round fighter w/ 4 20MMs


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

The Tempest is a cool plane 8) Mk.V for me!


----------



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

rather be in a spit Mk.XXII, pure power......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Rather be in a Me-410...


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 8, 2004)

I choose axis just to be in a fw 190 (or even a bf109 but still prefer the fw)
I'd choose the axis only for a spitfire ride or a swordfish which in my opinion is lovely.


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 8, 2004)

On a second thought I 'd prefered the soviet union La-7 IL-2 etc 
But it is not an option (why?)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

It is an option, theyre our allies


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 9, 2004)

Usually we separate allies - axis - soviet sorry m8


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

The Russians were fighting with us during WW2.

Then something bad happened (Dont know what) and they were our enemies all of a sudden, which resulted in the Cold War.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 9, 2004)

Stalin's true nature and ambitions became quite apparent to everyone, that's what happened.
Churchill saw it from the beginning and knew damn well that the Soviets would be a problem, once the Germans had been defeated.


----------



## rebel8303 (Dec 9, 2004)

It is said that Stalin would have started the WWII but Hitler just started it first...
Hard times weren't they?


----------



## Darkstalker (Dec 11, 2004)

I'll fly for the axis, specially with the Luftwaffe. I think the germans had some of the best planes specially fighters ever built during the war like the Me 109, FW 190 and the Me 262. Even they were overwhelmed by the Allies many of those planes were able to fight and stand against those aircrafts.
Many german ace's shot down a lot of enemy planes with the Me 109-F that were becoming old against the P-47, P-51 and the newest versions of Spitfires.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

I wouldnt say the 262 was one of the best fighters, planes like the 190D and Ta-152H would have beem much better for the germans at the end of the war.


----------



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

i think their best hope was to produce tons of FW-190s.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Yep, and Ta-152's. They would have given them a bettter chance than the 262. But the 262 was a great plane.


----------



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

not the plane to save them though................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Nope. The Ho-229 on the other hand...


----------



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

nope, all they needed was a bomber interceptor, and a fighter to take on the 'stangs....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Like I said, the Ho-229.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Feb 27, 2005)

Well...

I would fly for the Luftwaffe... very interesting planes, fought everywhere (from Polar Sea to Africa Sahara...). Besides that, they had nice uniforms and decorations. Don´t you think? 

Douglas.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

dude the allies flew everywhere as well, who do you think the luftwaffe were flying against??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

Allies and Luftwaffe are different things...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

They flew military aircraft, they wore uniforms, they killed each other. Don't see many differences there


----------



## rebel8303 (Mar 2, 2005)

Nope many differences anyway... First of all they flew different military aircraft (the most important) and secondly they were different they wore different uniforms and they killed each others in different ways... Come on dude we've beeen talking on this for about 20 pages don't question the question!!! I feel so bad now...


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 2, 2005)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> I think we guys should go on some sort of crusade to find some German and Japanese people for this site - everyone seems to be from England, NZ, Australia or the US - there don't seem to be many (or any) from any of the Axis nations...seems a bit unfair really - we need some real Axis nations plus i for one would be really interesed to see what they have to say about the whole thing....
> 
> 
> what the hell are these emiticons doing?
> ...


 Mein gott! it iz!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 2, 2005)

Lucky smilies!


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 2, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I wouldnt say the 262 was one of the best fighters, planes like the 190D and Ta-152H would have beem much better for the germans at the end of the war.


 ermm... why? I mean the whole point of having a jet that is superior to everything else is... to use it! Otherwise they would have produced lots of fw 190s like you said. And me 109 k s for that matter


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 2, 2005)

rebel8303 said:


> I choose axis just to be in a fw 190 (or even a bf109 but still prefer the fw)
> I'd choose the axis only for a spitfire ride or a swordfish which in my opinion is lovely.


 we DO have a representative of the axis here  he's there! Look! the messerschmitt man! here1!! aaaaaaaa


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 2, 2005)

Crazy said:


> Currently I'd like to fly for the RAF. Cool planes (except that damnable Lancaster) It would be an exotic experience for me. Defending the homeland by fighting off wave after wave of German planes in the Battle of Britain, advancing boldly into France over the brave British troops in D-Day, advancing menacingly into Southern Germany, cursing High Command for ordering us to stop just short of Berlin, ignoring orders and attacking a fuel depot with my spitfire in central Berlin, only to have my engine shot through and catch fire, crash-landing in front of Hitler's secret bunker, but smelling roast chicken nearby and forgetting der Fuhrer entirely, I fight through hordes of SS soldiers to reach a messhouse, where i confiscate all the chicken from a terrified cook, and make my way to a nearby airbase, where I hotwire and hijack a Ta-152 and fly back to my airfield. I'm celebrated as a hero in Britain for stealing the Fuhrer's own chicken, one of the most highly sought-after prizes of the war. Now knighted Sir Crazy, I travel the world with my companion, an illustrious writer by the name of 'Asparagus' Robert Whitney the XXXVII.
> You're...crazy!  I love you!!!1  I'm coming with you. You even like pink floyd
> 
> 
> Ahhh, to be an RAF pilot


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 2, 2005)

plan_D said:


> American pilots? I'm sorry I forgot that the 7 Americans in the Battle of Britain saved Britain from certain destruction by the Luftwaffe. Maybe I got it all wrong, the R.A.F were poor only due to America were they made to look good...


 You too


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2005)

Chocks away! said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldnt say the 262 was one of the best fighters, planes like the 190D and Ta-152H would have beem much better for the germans at the end of the war.
> ...



Well for instance, the resourses used to produce 1000 262's could have made 2000 190D's....And having double the number of well-developed Doras is far better than half the numbers of under developed 262's...


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

I would have piloted for the British(a Spitfire hopefuly), or for my own country after joining the Allies


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 23, 2005)

Me? Id wanna fly an Fw-190A-8 for the Germans  (On the Western Front)


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 23, 2005)

I'd fly for the Allies - for the British - in (hopefully) a Spitfire, Mossie or maybe a Typhoon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

yup RAF for me too...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 24, 2005)

Just give me an RAF Liberator and those U-Boats wouldn't know what hit them!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2005)

Rather have a USAAF Lib'...


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 5, 2005)

There's no difference except the paint scheme and markings


----------



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

well the crew in the RAF lib would be far better then in the USAAF lib.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

No they wouldnt


----------



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

yes they would..............


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 7, 2005)

Yes they would, they would have had more experience- 3 years means an awful lot when it comes to specialist positions (eg maritime recce, night fighting etc)


----------



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

and we'll have keved up our planes with go faster roundels and neon leigh-lights..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 7, 2005)

Lower the undercarriage and fit bigger rims...


----------



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

man i so wanna kev up an airfix model of a plane..........


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 28, 2005)

I would have flown for the allies. Because i am a American and thats what americans do! Besides, we had some great fighters!

P38L Lightning
P51D Mustang
P47 Thunerbolt
P40 Warhawk

Here are some naval fighters i might have flown if i had the chance.

F4F Wildcat
F4U Corsair
F7F Bearcat


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

The P-40 wasn't a great fighter and the Bearcat was the F8F. The Tigercat was the F7F. 

And I give to the gents, a R.A.F Liberator.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I would have flown for the Axis not because I like Nazis or anything but because I would have loved to have had a chance to fly the 109, 190D, 152H, 262, and maybe even some of the other crazy designs they were coming up with.


----------



## MR T (Jun 28, 2005)

i pity the fool thatflies for the axis


----------



## MR T (Jun 28, 2005)

i pity the foool how flies for the axis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

Why is that?

Oh and by the way can I be Murdock form the A-Team?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would have flown for the Axis not because I like Nazis or anything but because I would have loved to have had a chance to fly the 109, 190D, 152H, 262, and maybe even some of the other crazy designs they were coming up with.



I agree 8) I would love to have flown a Komet as well, even if I did get killed by it, what an experience it would be!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

It must have been quite a rush.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 29, 2005)

Hell yeah, to fly the best part of 600mph and with such a high climb rate in 1945 must a great experience. Maybe, just maybe, I could be one of the lucky ones who survived them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

And there goes the great Ace Cheddar Cheese screaming into the skies in a Me-163. He Climbs, He Climbs......OH MY God He disintegrate!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Shredded cheddar cheese!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

More like melted!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Melted and crispy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

A CC Fondue!


----------



## evangilder (Jun 30, 2005)

Mmmm, Cheese and rocket fuel. Just don't have a smoke after that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

Probably not a really good idea.


----------



## nosredna (Feb 28, 2007)

americans are asses they think they drive the world ecconomy. In reality the states did little in the war until pearle harbour. I myself am canadian and a proud member of the commonwealth. Go G-B!!!!!


----------



## bigZ (Feb 28, 2007)

How about flying for one of the neutral countries?

Get to sample the wares of both sides without the risk.


----------



## Erich (Feb 28, 2007)

nos your tone was and is exceptionally rude. I'll have you know that your ass is bigger than mine ........... 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 1, 2007)

nosredna said:


> americans are asses they think they drive the world ecconomy.


And ur an expert??? That anti-American sh!t dont fly here pal, so either change ur attitude or feel the wrath of the nunchucks...

One and only warning...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

nosredna said:


> americans are asses they think they drive the world ecconomy. In reality the states did little in the war until pearle harbour. I myself am canadian and a proud member of the commonwealth. Go G-B!!!!!




And for that my friend you just recieved 9 out of 10 infraction points. One more and you are gone!

That was rude and uncalled for. If you wish to post here I recommend you change your attitude!

I was going to ban your ass until I saw another moderator decided to let you have a warning.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

nosredna said:


> americans are asses they think they drive the world ecconomy. In reality the states did little in the war until pearle harbour. I myself am canadian and a proud member of the commonwealth. Go G-B!!!!!



Oh and I do wish to break this down a bit for you too. I am guessing you are a 13 year old snot nosed kid whose parents dont teach any manners and respect.

_"In reality the states did little in the war until pearle harbour."_

That is because they were not in the war before Dec. 7, 1941.

However the contributions of the US before then were large...

Ever heard of the Lend Lease? Ever heard about the supplies that went to the British and allies to keep them going and fighting? I think you need to learn about WW2 history instead of running your mouth off.


----------



## str8jax (Mar 1, 2007)

Thanks adler considering my dad was in the merchant marines and helped take supplies to europe before the u.s entered wwII then joined the army air corp. All the allies played important parts in WWII and all should be respected and remembered. I would like to fly a p47, spitfire, Captured fw190d9 and b17. I think a 109 would be fun also and maybe a he111. Oh ys a p38 would be cool to.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

I too would love to fly a He-111, sit in the glass cockpit it had. I would rather fly one for fun though and not in combat. Too easy to shoot down. I believe the last flying one crashed a few years ago.


----------



## str8jax (Mar 1, 2007)

I would rather fly not in combat as well I dont like being shot at


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 1, 2007)

It is not healthy that is for sure.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Mar 3, 2007)

nosredna said:


> americans are asses they think they drive the world ecconomy. In reality the states did little in the war until pearle harbour. I myself am canadian and a proud member of the commonwealth. Go G-B!!!!!



Just read this post......!!
Dont forget the Americans who came over to England to fly and fight with the RAF BEFORE 1941.They didnt have to but they did.And a lot of them stayed and died.
I dont care when the U.S. entered the war....I' m just glad they did.....
.....RESPECT.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 4, 2007)

Nice reply crashgate.... One of the things we dont tolerate round here is cultural/national slamming, except on the French of course...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2007)

I dont mind bashing that is made with educated reasons. But that was just plane stupid up there.

I dont think he will post again. Like I said a 13 year old snot nosed kid whos parents have never tought manners and respect. He will come online read the posts that we have said to him and then he will cry and go to another forum and say the same things. Ignorant...


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

I'd fly for the Axis,they have ZEROS!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I'd fly for the Axis,they have ZEROS!!!


wow, imagine that! I bet you would of been a Kamikaze too!


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

I'd LOVE to be a KAMIKAZE!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> You talkin' bout me?



Yes I am, and BTW, shrink your siggy or I will remove it....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

You are just being silly now, and I have allready told you to downsize your siggy once!


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I'd LOVE to be a KAMIKAZE!



You do that, I'll sun myself on a beach in the Pacific with a PBY near by...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are just being silly now, and I have allready told you to downsize your siggy once!


I removed it....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)

Gnomey said:


> You do that, I'll sun myself on a beach in the Pacific with a PBY near by...


BTW - could you pass the suntan oil....


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> BTW - could you pass the suntan oil....



Sure. Looks at those ladies over there *motions down the beach*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 11, 2007)




----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2007)

I'd fly for the Allies. But, I'd steal a FW 190D though.....


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 12, 2007)

ohka345 said:


> I'd LOVE to be a KAMIKAZE!


And I think you'd be outstanding in the job but unfortunately Osama cannot be contacted


----------



## Jared (Mar 12, 2007)

I voted for Axis. ^^ Just a change I think


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 17, 2007)

Here's another idea to this.... I don't know if this has already been mention in one way or another.... But here goes.
If you have decided for which side you would fly for, WHAT would you fly?
Fighter, bomber, recon, divebomber.....etc. etc?


----------



## Bullockracing (Mar 17, 2007)

Axis - I want to be Hartman's wingman... After the years of Russian confinement, I'd emerge a rejoin the German Air Force and fly the 86 and maybe the lawn-dart 104!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2007)

Bullockracing said:


> Axis - I want to be Hartman's wingman... After the years of Russian confinement, I'd emerge a rejoin the German Air Force and fly the 86 and maybe the lawn-dart 104!!!



Hartmanns 86:


----------



## Treize (Mar 18, 2007)

Hmm... tough choice really. Depended on which front and at which point in the war. Love the 109 series, love the P-38 and P-51...

Probably have to go with Axis though. That Gustav is calling too strongly.


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 18, 2007)

Definetly the Allies. One reason...TYPHOON!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2007)

Bf-109G-6


----------



## Marcel (Mar 18, 2007)

Fokker GI of course, too bad there weren't more than 21 of them.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 18, 2007)

This is WHO u'd fly for, not what u would fly...


----------



## Desert Fox (Mar 19, 2007)

I think that the planes either side had at their disposal certainly helps you in making you decision though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> This is WHO u'd fly for, not what u would fly...



Everyone knows that Les. He asked now that you have chosen what country you would fly for, what aircraft would you want to fly.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2007)

A different thread perhaps???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

Sounds fine to me.


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 27, 2007)

Seriously I would fly for allies for two reasons, number one - Fantastic planes, absoloutly beautiful, great engine, firepower and very reliable to use.
And number two - I wouldnt stab the world in the back and send myself to death or for most axis hell. And as bronzewhaler82 said "*cough* traitor! *cough*"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> Seriously I would fly for allies for two reasons, number one - Fantastic planes, absoloutly beautiful, great engine, firepower and very reliable to use.



Axis had great aircraft as well.



HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> And number two - I wouldnt stab the world in the back and send myself to death or for most axis hell. And as bronzewhaler82 said "*cough* traitor! *cough*"


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 28, 2007)

Yeah pshhh sure great and thats y they lost ww2


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 28, 2007)

i dont know what ya mean by those eyes, but ya wanna watch ya tongue around me lad, or ill cut it out!


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 28, 2007)

Them's fightin word's!


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 28, 2007)

i've had enough of stuck up bastards, i didnt go to 'nam for this ****!


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 28, 2007)

WTF are you talking about???


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 28, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> I would fly for allies for two reasons, number one - Fantastic planes, absoloutly beautiful, great engine, firepower and very reliable to use.





Adler said:


> Axis had great aircraft as well.





HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> Yeah pshhh sure great and thats y they lost ww2


Thats one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard here...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> i dont know what ya mean by those eyes, but ya wanna watch ya tongue around me lad, or ill cut it out!




Excuse me, You need to lighten up a bit. You have to be able to take a little on these forums. I did not do anything to offend you, if you took it that way, then that is your problem, but do not get an attitude with me.

2nd you will not make idle threats to me, especially when you are sitting behind your computer making them. Do you feel brave for doing that? I bet you do, makes me think you are a 15 year old kid! For making that idle and utmost completly stupid threat, you have recieved a warning.

You want to be in this forum, act like an adult.



HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> i've had enough of stuck up bastards, i didnt go to 'nam for this ****!



Dont even dare pull the veteran card on me. I am a veteran of the Iraq war as well so dont go there...


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 29, 2007)

Ok guys lets not start assuming things or ull make an ass out of u and me,
I just wanted appoligize for the stuff i said last night, i was very angry as i found out my wife was having an affair with another man. I expecially apoligize to adler for the racist comments i said about him.
I hope we can be great friends adler after this discussion.
Yours Sincerly John W. Battaham


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 29, 2007)

Well, Ill tell ya, ur not the first guy whose wife cheated on them, and u wont be the last... Sorry to hear it, Im goin through a divorce right now myself...


----------



## Wildcat (Mar 29, 2007)

Sorry to hear that guys, anyway welcome to the board John


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 29, 2007)

Thanks alot guys and im sorry to hear ur going through a devorce les


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2007)

HaWk3r T3mP3sT said:


> Ok guys lets not start assuming things or ull make an ass out of u and me,
> I just wanted appoligize for the stuff i said last night, i was very angry as i found out my wife was having an affair with another man. I expecially apoligize to adler for the racist comments i said about him.
> I hope we can be great friends adler after this discussion.
> Yours Sincerly John W. Battaham



No problem and I am sorry to hear about your wife.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 29, 2007)

Its not so bad, she's bein a real cu*t and all, but I've got this hot little 24 year old dancer all over me so its not all bad hehe...


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 30, 2007)

Im happy to hear your still having fun Les. hahaha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Its not so bad, she's bein a real cu*t and all, but I've got this hot little 24 year old dancer all over me so its not all bad hehe...



Hey careful now... The girls at the Bada Bing are dangerous...


----------



## HaWk3r T3mP3sT (Mar 30, 2007)

HAHAHA ur a funny one


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

Shes not that kind of dancer actually, she's a shadow dancer infront of a white screen at one of our local Casino Clubs in Biloxi... Funny (or sad) thing is she's only like 5'5" and I'm 6'6"...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 31, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Shes not that kind of dancer actually, she's a shadow dancer infront of a white screen at one of our local Casino Clubs in Biloxi... Funny (or sad) thing is she's only like 5'5" and I'm 6'6"...



Giant freak man.  

How are the casinos recovering? My wife and I went out there last July and several were still being repaired. I think only a couple were actually open. I couldn't believe how devastated the coast still was.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

The casinos for the most part are now re-open... Some still dont have hotels, but the revenue-generating casinos are cashing in...


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 20, 2007)

Greetings y'all
Just coming into this forum recently so quite late adding my piece here. I voted Alies mainly because I am American and VERY proud of that, despite the trained chimp we seem to have put in the White House,,,,,
That said, I'd fly almost any aircraft in WW2 gladly. I come from a family that has a long military history and I wish that I could have fought in that war, which I was born LONG after, and meant something to history, instead of leading a boring life that so far has helped noone. 
Being half-French, I'd STILL not fly the planes France had at the start of the war though.
BTW I read maybe half the posts here before I wrote this, and there seems to be a couple strong minds about American and British national pride. I think all involved nations made great contributions to the war, on both sides. The production ability of the US, and Britains Commonwealth meant, thankfully, that the Axis nations contibutions failed, but they did do a lot too. I find the Nazi's aims and hatred sickening, but most of the rank and file soldiers and airmen fought with as much honor as any other nation, and their aircraft were terrific. I'd love to be in an Fw 190 as much as a Jug or Lightning, or Mossie or Spit, or a Zero, or a Raiden ,,etc etc, the list goes on. Thanks forf an educational and entertaining forum to see what other parts of the world think.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 20, 2007)

In a totally off-topic side note, or rather question, I've been trying to add a small pic to my signature from my PC and always get the message "unable to save picture" and if I try one from online get told it's too big. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2007)

It has to be the right format. JPG is the best. The right pixel size and you have to put the right address in.


----------



## Louis (May 26, 2007)

Axis
Germans had the:
Bf109, Bf110, Me262, Me163, Fw190, Ta152, Ju390, He111
Japanese had:
A6M2, Ki27, Ki43, Ki61, Ki84, D3A1, B5N2, N1K1


----------



## rogthedodge (May 26, 2007)

I'd fly for whomever / wherever I was born. I'd have been pants at it it but I'd have had a go.

In fantasy-land (where else?) I'd have flown a Tempest over Europe in late '44/ early '45 with a full load of cannon/rockets taking on 'targets of opportunity'.

My last choice would be any bomber, last in the stream, holding steady on the final run-in to a heavily-defended target

 to all who had a go


----------



## Njaco (May 27, 2007)

Been following this thread for awhile and decided to put my two cents in. I'd fly for the Axis though as an adventure I'd try flying for Finland. Inferior planes (Buffalo), understrength and against Russia and they still came out with Aces! Waiting for it on CFS or IL2.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 13, 2007)

Axis for sure. And I'd fly any of these planes (that actually got used) in this order:

Fw 190D
Bf 109
Frank
Me 262
George


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2007)

I simply can't imagine flying/fighting for someone else, much less choose to fly for Axis rather than US... 

My preference would be USAAF with USMC a close 2nd and would prefere a lot of 'bubba's' from Texas so I could understand the guys in the Squadron


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2007)

corpcasselbury said:


> It should be noted that the German fighter pilots were polled after the war as to which air force had been their toughest opponents in the air. The RAF was the overwhelming choice for first, with the USA second.



Did they interview the dead pilots also? I've often wondered about this poll as the GAF didn't prevail against the US in a war the RAF chose to quit (Daylight Strategic Bombing)? And German Night Fighters were still taking big tolls of RAF bombers at night all the way to the end.

Not trying to be argumentative but I have heard differences from that opinion depending on whom and where they fought. 

Any examples cited as to why, for example, the US was easier to fight than RAF from late 1943 forward?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Njaco (Jun 17, 2007)

Drgn I don't exactly know what you mean "by a war the RAF chose to quit"? The RAF didn't quit, just switched priorities as per Casablanca. Granted, they realized with their resources they were getting hit badly during the day and they stopped daylight attcks but with the entrance of the US, the two forces spilt their time.

Maybe coincidence, maybe not that this decision to cease daylight operations came about the same time as US came onboard but I don't think they quit at all. In fact if it wasn't for the British fooling around with the P-51 it might not have progressed much farther or wouldn't have entered combat so quickly with a new engine to be decisive.

and what do you mean by easier to fight? I'm sure the Jagdflieger would disagree with you on that point.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2007)

I have to agree with Njaco here. That was a pretty below the belt comment. The Brits did not quite fighting. They just switched tactics and lets face it what broke the Germans back was the non stop bombing by day and night.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

Njaco said:


> Drgn I don't exactly know what you mean "by a war the RAF chose to quit"? The RAF didn't quit, just switched priorities as per Casablanca. Granted, they realized with their resources they were getting hit badly during the day and they stopped daylight attcks but with the entrance of the US, the two forces spilt their time.
> 
> Maybe coincidence, maybe not that this decision to cease daylight operations came about the same time as US came onboard but I don't think they quit at all. In fact if it wasn't for the British fooling around with the P-51 it might not have progressed much farther or wouldn't have entered combat so quickly with a new engine to be decisive.
> 
> and what do you mean by easier to fight? I'm sure the Jagdflieger would disagree with you on that point.



OK - let's debate it. 

The RAF quit flying daylight raids to Germany in 1940 before the US was in the war. The GAF quit daylight bombing on Britain in 1940 ~sept for the same reasons. They a.) didn't have escort fighters capable of defending the bombers over the target, and b.) they didn't have a strategic bomber heavily armed enough to even think they could bomb long range undefended. 

We will concede that the USAAF found themselves in same situation - but unlike the RAF and LW and USSR, developed escort fighters capable of defeating the LW over their own back yard in daylight.

They both quit daylight bombing over Germany and Britain loooong before we came into the war. Secondly, the back of the Luftwaffe's ability to defend their homeland in daylight was broken between January 1944 and June depending on the historian you want to believe. But the RAF was not engaged in that struggle over Germany - it was the USAAF and the Mustang and the Lightning that were escorting 8th, 12th and 15th AF over Germany during that period and in May and June the P-47s finally got the range to engage deep into Germany.


The fighter force that accomplished that ranged from 150 in January to 300 in April (combined 51s and 38s) and their effectives over target were often 1/2 of the ones that started engines for the mission because of mechanical teething problems. And that was all there was to cover 3 Air Divisions (8th AF) over all the targets attacked deep into Germany - so there were NEVER more than two Fighter wings to meet any German attack - of up to 300 fighters for exampe over Munich on 24 April, 1944


Your comment about Brits mating the Merlin is correct but irrrelevant to what actually happened so what is your point? I am NOT Denigrating the RAF, nor am I downgrading the LW. But it is curious why the Germans seem to always look to numbers as the prime reason for their defeats or studiously avoid giving American fighter pilots their due respect

I am wondering out loud why the Luftwaffe pilots thought that the "second" (or third - maybe they ranked us behind USSR) best pilots brutalized them over Berlin and Schweinfurt and Brunswick and Munich, when they ALWAYS outnumbered the Mustangs and Lightnings over the target.

If our pilots were so dismal, why didn't the Luftwaffe destroy an entire fighter Group when they had the advantage? or at least 10? Go back and look at the records and count on the fingers of one hand how many times the 8th AF FC had a Group lose more than 5 fighters air to air on an escort mission. (Not gonna count the 4th FG on D-Day or 18 August or 353rd on 10 June- when they were low strafing and got clobbered from behind and above.)

Remember we are talking about the 8th AF starting with one operational Mustang and three Lightning groups by end of January 1944 versus more than 400 single engine Me109s and Fw190s available to escort the Ju88s and the Me110/210/410s in their attacks agianst the B-17s and B-24s. The other 200 s/e fighters were based in Holland and France and available to tangle with RAF and 8th and 9th AF P-47 groups doing Penetration and Withdrawl support - but not going past Dummer Lake.

The RAF did a superb job of engaging JG26 and JG2 over France and the lowlands but this was not where the big battles were fought, nor where the Luftwaffe lost 1200 fighter pilots in 3 months

By "easier to fight" I was referring to Night Raids by RAF who did not have an effective 'night escort' capability. The German air force was taking very heavy tolls of RAF Lancasters at Night all the way into April 45 - when the 8th stopped losing big numbers in the April/May timeframe 1944 (Before you get upset with that comment - I do know that July 7, Sept 11-12, Sept 27 and Nove 26 were days in which one or two wings of B-17s/B-24s got mauled by a German force that over whelmed the escorts at the point of attack or evaded them altogether)

The average air to air ratio for the Mustang groups of German a/c shot down versus Mustangs shot down by German Fighters was arond 8 to 1. I'm not counting flak losses, or mechanicqal losses. I am using Kent Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of 8th AF as the basis for study and I will publish these numbers in my new book).

So, if the USAAF was second or third best against the LW, what does that say about the LW pilots? and what were to corresponding ratios of LW vs RAF in fighter to fighter battles over Europe? They better be awesome in RAF favor to merit the downgrade of the US pilot in the same theatre.

BTW, the best air to air ratio of any USAAF fighter group was the 56th FG in P-47s with 12:1 and the worst was 1:1 with the 55thFG (or 20th - I have to check) before they switched from P-38's to 51's.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2007)

Yes but to say the RAF quit that is wrong in my opinion. The RAF did what they had to do. They switched tactics and did fine in there night bombing. They did not quit...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but to say the RAF quit that is wrong in my opinion. The RAF did what they had to do. They switched tactics and did fine in there night bombing. They did not quit...



No, the RAF did not lay down (another definition of quit) Neither did the Germans. What they did is a.) recognize that they were going to lose more than they could afford and b.) hope that the new tactics would yield the hoped for results.

The RAF actually switched back to increasing daylight raids in 1945 when they realized they were losing more at night than they stood to lose in daylight - at a time when USAAF and RAF had overwhelming air superiority.

So, let me rephrase. 

The RAF chose to 'go in another direction' and told us we were 'silly' to attempt to do something neither they nor the Germans could make work. Those 'dumb colonials'..sigh.

Unlike both we had the will and the means to take the losses, learn, adapt and improvise - and make it work. We 'didn't take another direction' when our losses were prohibitive - we found a way to do it.

Further, it is rare that you hear admiration and respect from the Euro side for the job the 8th, 12th and 15th AF achieved in both the hard times and the good times - it always seems that America prevailed because of numbers, not valor, not intelligence, not skill. In short we were too dumb to listen to our betters and somehow managed to pull it off. Luck and wealth - that what its all about... This is the theme that will get me engaged in any thread

Once again - I want to be clear about the simple fact that I have nothing but the greatest respect for the RAF and Luftwaffe. Period. Just wondering if it is ever bi-directional?

Regards,

Bill

PS - I tried to understand why you both thought I implied the RAF 'quit' - That comment was very specific about the only thing the RAF 'quit' and specifically noted Daylight Strategic Bombing - I made no slur on their manhood or ability and certainly did not intend that meaning and would apologise if you took that as my meaning.

Can we agree that 'choose to go another way' is a better choice of words?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2007)

I have answered you in a pm and I think it is cleared up...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 17, 2007)

German replacement fighter pilots were basically in an accelerated training program from the beginnings of 1944.... By autumn, the average replacement pilot had about 150 hours, verses over 400 for the American jocks....

Thats not fair, even by todays standards, let alone back in 1944.... Crump and Dortenmann, as well as Weib knew this all to well and went to General of Fighters to complain about this, and in the end, were so ed with the training at Sagan that they were beside themselves...

Another thing that we seem to be getting away from, and Bill, u seem to be the most staunch on it, is the whole "The LW was NOT outnumbered"... If the LW put up 300 fighters and the 8th only put up 160 escorts, all these planes did not fly into the same area, nor did they stay in this huge formation of 300 planes to sweep in and destroy everything in sight....

There are many instances that Bill and Erich and myself, as well as others here, that know that many many times, individual Staffel were separated from the group and then bounced by an outnumbering forces of Mustangos... 30 vs 13 is called being outnumbered, and is usually followed by several black smoking holes in the German countryside....

Yea, it didnt happen all the time, but by the way things are starting to sound around here, it seems as though its being called a myth, and thats just not fu*kin right... It did happen, and most of us know it did, and it happened more than any of us will ever know...

There were many instances also where the LW outnumbered the Americans, and thats where the superior training came into play, as u are certainly aware of Bill.... During the mid point of 44, there was a good bit of fuel for the fighter units in combat, but the training facilities were constantly being rationed less and less fuel per pilot...

Point of the matter is this... Under-trained pilots with sometimes extremely poor leadership, as well as horrendous ground vectoring, lead to many situations where the 109s and 190s were severely outnumbered in a certain given area of airspace... There may have been less American escorts in Southern Germany or Northern France at that very moment, compared to what the LW had in the sky, but over the town of Heidelberg or Falaise in Normandy, a fighter sweep of 40 Mustangs bounces a wayward Staffel of 16 109s, and the rest as they say is history....


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2007)

I had little chat with a LW experten last week and he stated " You'd come out the top of the clouds and there would be aircraft thousands of aircraft all trying to kill you most times we were outnumbered 10 -1 "


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

Dan - I am not disputing anything you say except I would pinpoint that the bulk of the eperienced pilots went down between Jan and May 1944... and that the replacement pilots with lower time were staring in that timeframe and accelerating in April because so many went down in the first four months of 44.

Nor am I disputing that the LW didn't always have local superiority during those four to five months because they didn't put them all up to blunt just one thrust. 

But because so few fighter wings were spread so thin relative to the Target support for three bomb divisions it was very rare for more than one Fighter Group to be up against whatever concentration the LW threw at them in that region of sky. I hate to say this Dan, but do the math on what was available to cover 30-35 Bomb wings past Dummer Lake (~ 47 bingo time then) and then ask yourself "If more than one Group was in position to bounce a German force - how did they know "where and when" to be? and what were they uncovering to get another group in the fight.

As to Pbfoots recollection of a conversation "about thousands coming down at you" - with due respect to the LW pilot there weren't thousands or hundreds or 50's in the local area you were climbing in - not in Jan-May 1944. 

Additionally that might have happened occasionally during bad weather when the LW didn't scramble in time (rare) to get an altitude advantage over the inbound bomber stream, but by and large and particularly in those first months when the Target escort was small (relatively speaking) to the available strike force the LW controllers and shadow ships were looking for the 'uncovered spot'

One Fighter group would ordinarily covering a space of 10-20 miles all by its lonesome. There were 15 Fighter Wings at peak to cover 45 bomber wings in 8th AF and it was much less coverage during the first four months of 1944.

So we can agree that we have a different perspective about the numbers of USAAF fighters available to take on the 450+ s/e fighters over German as well as the twins, and we can have a different perspective about the quality - but the German records show a lot of experienced pilots and squadrons being transferred from Russain front to Germany in late 1943 and I don't believe that bunch was heavily populated by the 150 hour replacement pilots.

If someone wishes to challenge my numbers, get different historical sources - for both the 8th AF TO&E for Mustang and Lightning Groups as well as the Luftflotte strengths? 

Then tell me how the outnumbered few wings of those 51 and 38 groups were steered and directed to ambush, in 'great' numbers, the few german Fighters that contested the space while the rest of the available German force were unmolested? 

On its best day in those four or five months the 8th AF would have 48 escorts over the target (of 5 or six different targets in different locations) for any given two or three bomb wings over 20 miles and most of the time the effectives were closer to 35. 

If a REALLY big force with the huge numers attacked in one volume of space you might get a second wing engaging and this happened more frequently as the 8th transitioned to 51s and the 47s got the range to go to Berlin and back

Your point that 30 might bounce 13 is of course correct - and vice versa. But even if a group were at full strength it was rare that all three squadrons engaged - not if they were doing their job correctly. 

The Good (responsible) ones tried to keep sections in place to cover the vacuum as they released one section after another to engage. If you saw a group that frequently engaged everybody you hadda ask 'what about covering the bombers'?? I have opinions about one or two that had that reputation but I don't comment on the specifics. For one thing I wasn't there.

But Dan - most of the people that comment on overwhelming numbers of fighters in the 8th AF in 1944 overlook the point that most of that Fighter force had to turn back near Bremen, Hannover, Frankfurt line while the 51s picked up the Penetration and Target Support from there all the way to Munich or Berlin or Posnan - or thereabouts. 

The LW wasn't stupid - they withdrew much of their force (except JG2 and JG26) from France and the Lowlands and put JG1, 3, 5, 11, 27, 53, 54, 300, 301, 302 into Germany in the first months of 44... and those had Fw190s that could Fight - not the A8/R2 deathtraps de jour from July forward. Each one of the Jagds in January had 9+ staffeln with 10-12 effectives so each was the equivalent of perhaps two Mustang groups if the entire Jagd went maximum effort. Some of the above did not have a full compliment and some were split between Germany and other fronts (like JG5, JG53, JG54,JG301, JG302), etc

In addition the other side of the equation is that the long range escort focused first on the Zerstorer and NJG units with the firepower - that was another 374+ t/e ships available to attack those 31 bomb wings.. the math says the few long range fighter wings could be challenged at any point on the route by very large chunks of the available 374 t/e plus 479 s/e fighters.

The Germans couldn't concentrate 'em all but the fighters couldn't cover evrybody and had far fewer to respond to skill German controllers... who knew where they wanted to be and our guys had exactly one place where they were assigned to be.

*The net is that I agree most of your points 100% - and leave room for common agreement on the rest. *

I think as I look your post over again that our prime difference in point of view is the relative quality of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm in Luft3 and Luft Reich in January 1944. So I will repeat what I believe (about German relative strength) and what I know - 8th AF precise strength on January 1, 1944

I believe top to bottom that the Germans had far more experience and equivalent Fighter log time on 1 January than all of 8th FC and way more than the 354th and 357FG which were within two weeks and 6 weeks of being the first Mustang Target Support forces.. and that the 20th was in ops for 3 whole days,while the 55th had been flying for two whole months in their ratty engine blowing 38s. 

Over the following four months till the end of April, 1944 the 4th/355th then the 352nd would join the Target escort force with buggy Mustangs and the 364th FG would come on ops in March. Then the 339th on 30 April, the 359th and 361st got their 51s in May, along with Robin Olds and 38s for the 479th.

January 1 ------> two P-38 groups operational
February 1------> " plus one 51 group
March 1---------> " plus 3 51 groups operational
April 1-----------> three P-38 groups plus four 51 groups operational
May 1-----------> three P-38 groups plus six 51 groups operational

....to escort 27 Bomb wings on January 1 and 31 Bomb wings deep into Germany on 1 May... three Long range fighter groups per Air Division, three Fighter groups to cover 10+ bomb wings of 40-45 bombers each stretched out for 30 miles over the target. That is May 1

On March 6 it was 5 fighter wings to cover 30 bomb wings to Berlin.. just less than two per 10 bomb wing column over 30+ miles

Tell me that this is an overwhelming force or had more than enough combat experience and log time to offset German forces but help me understand your point of view as to why I am wrong?


I won't goof around on this subject with people that I have already debated with - if my math and logic ain't right why embarass myself with the ones that have better facts than me?

Warm Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

Dan/Chris - another footnote to the discussions about air battles in the ETO. You may know more about this subject and just skip to the end

It occured to me that a lot of people on this forum think of the air battles over Germany as large formations of USAAF fighters picking on small formations of German fighters the same way every day.

The tactics and distributions of squadrons, flights and sections were very different depending on whether you were flying a Freelance Fighter Sweep or a Ramrod escorting bombers or were flying an Area Patrol down low under Beachy Head Control.

In the Sweep, the squadrons were untethered and more likely to fly a relatively compact formation strung out 600-1000+ yards. The formation would just as likely be line abreast in 'flight units' for each squadron and eschelon up and down to avoid m/a and collisions. Each squadron would be in trail with room between each. This formation is much better suited to every body having a chance to engage when a LW formation was spotted - and no requirement to leave anybody behind to escort bombers.

In the Ramrod, the three squadrons would be strung front to back and each squadron likesly to be broken up into sections of two flights each - essing one above the other to cover high and rear- above the bombers. Typically one squadron may be out in front and about 1-2 thousand feet above the lead box of bombers. There would usually be the high middle squadron somewhat higher, relatively, above the High Bomber squadrons ot give a little more buffer from high attacks and also have more energy to dive and help out the other two in a fight.. same sections, same 'essing' - then the other squadron would be in trail. Variation would be lead high, one aft qtr and side, both high on each side.

On the Area Partol - rare for the Group to be together - too many in close area, low to ground is trouble so squadrons would often be broken up with different assignements in different places. This would likely be more of a tactical spread with one set of eyes looking ahead and another high and behind. They would have an assigned target to bomb and strafe or were under Beachy Head or Type 16 Control

This scenario is where the LW scored biggest during Normandy campaign, catching our fighters from above and behind with minimum manuever room where the Fw190 and 109 could really perform against the 47 and 51. This is a scenario where the Allies (not just 8th FC) may get caught at a significant disadvantage numerically, altitude and performance wise.

The reason I bring this up is that during the Sweep - the 8th AF Group in this role is the most likely to a.) have a numerical advantage and b.) have an altitude advantage because they were c.) out in front where the LW would be logically trying to form up. This is where your 30-13 analogy really rings true!

During the Escort the usual mode was for LW staffeln to engage from higher altitudes. They would sent a couple of flights through and hope everybody would miss the 50 more 10,000 feet higher. The reaction would be to send a section to climb and engage the first batch if seen, or send a section after the divers or sit tight.

If the attackers found a weak spot and concentrated then usually only one squadron would be close enough to engage at same altitude before the attackers split S and waved 'bye' - so it was rare for more than parts of a squadron to engage at any one time - but over the course of 30-40 minutes there may be five or six smaller unit engagements in which flights and sections are engaged while another squadron may hear a lot but see notthing because of cloud cover, contrails in wrong place, etc

In these scenarios it was far more likely for the LW to have both a local numerical superiority and and altitude advantage, and if steered correctly a significant critical mass.

This is another topic I won't bore you with again but it is core to my other beliefs regarding the nature of the air war over daylight Germany Jan1 -May1, 1944.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Dan -
> 
> As to Pbfoots recollection of a conversation "about thousands coming down at you" - with due respect to the LW pilot there weren't thousands or hundreds or 50's in the local area you were climbing in - not in Jan-May 1944.
> 
> ...


Don't **** me now .....it was an the mans impression and I believe he is somewhat of a better pilot then most


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

I am not denigrating his memory. I had the very same discussion with Rall, Krupinski and Galland, along with quite a few other American Aces back in 85(?) Fighter Aces Reunion at Champlin Museum. 

I have studied this specific subject and analyzed till I was blue in the face by the time I asked this question. I asked a lot of questions of the fighter pilot community I grew up with and was comfortable with presnting the subject to Toliver first as he was close to Galland and I didn't want to offend anyone with the 'question'.

When pressed, to a man the three agreed the points I made about the relative weakness of Mustang units early to mid 1944. 

I wish Toliver was alive as he was in that conversation and for that matter if anyone has a contact point with Rall, I could possibly steer him to remember this subject.

BTW - the real answer is not question of numerical superiority - it was that Goering basically ordered the LW to attack the bombers and ignore the fighters - which each of the three well knew was stupid and just cut well honed aggression out of a great fighter arm. 

Pb - don't take my word or logic or data - just work it out yourself. Do the math on the numbers. Look at the long range mission, the assignments and the resources available to bomb beyond coverage of P-47s.

Paint a mental picture of 30 bomb wings/10 bomb wings per division - each Division heading to a different target region of Germany or all in one direction to same target but an hour long procession.. 

In the case of march 6, 1944, imagine a 100 mile line with each Bomb Group/wing occupying 2000+ feet wide and 3000 feet deep in a two+ mile long volume of rarified air and position each of the 3 Mustang Groups and two Lightning groups available on March 6, 1944 to cover 6 Wings each. So perhaps 48 fighters to see, react and meet the LW within a 15-20 mile block?

Optimal formation flying and control of space between each wing - no screw ups or lagging formations

Assume the Germans want to punish the bombers but not tangle with the fighters.

Assume the germans have close to 800 s/e and t/e fighters that they can distribute as they choose...but maybe only put up half theri force

Assume the 5 Fighter groups have no aborts and they put 48 fighters each into their assigned place.. so 240 versus 400.

Demonstrate to me (or ignore me and just please yourself) how the USAAF Fighter Groups achieves parity consistently, much less any numerical advantage? 

I can illustrate as many times as you wish where smaller forces of fighters are attacking larger forces of German fighters in both Encounter Reports and mission histories. You will see same but opposite in LW reports.

Do the math and get your own conclusion - I'm comfortable with mine but I am equally comfortable that you believe what you believe about this subject based on multiple inputs. 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2007)

OK but what was the servicability rate of the various LW units remembering that many were double and triple tasked with both night and day duties American units were never shy of equipment and had spare aircraft ready in case one or several had snags also take into consideration the work with the 9th AF certainly the A20s 25s and 26s went out the same days as part of comprehensive strategy these were also escorted probably by the RAF/RCAF . How the fighters were vectored in by the GCI guys and how many was a guessing game how many LW aircraft actually saw the targets they were vectored in on . Meanwhile the 51's etc were in a concentrated area not attacking piecemeal


----------



## drgondog (Jun 17, 2007)

PB - the numbers I gave you are for the 1 May 1944 Order of Battle for the Luftflotte Reich - solely s/e and t/e fighters based in Germany - excluding JG2 and JG3. The 439 s/e (Me109s and Fw190s only) figure was the number in service - the 'auhtorized' count was much higer. The data can be found in Doctor Alfred Price's "The Luftwaffe Data book" published 1977. The data for Luftflotte 3 and Luftflotte Reich are found pg 92 -125.

Luft Reich was the force available to resist daylight and night attacks on Germany. Luft 3 was based in France and Netherlands and Belgium and available to attack RAF and USAAF inbound and outbound to Germany 

In addition to the s/e fighters ZG 1, 26 and 76 had an additional 67 210 1nd 410s - way down from their Jan 1 levels. But these were all targeted to B-17s and B-24s penetrating Germany beyond the range p-47s. This number does not include the extra 300+ NJG units which did night and day defense - your 'double duty' fighters.

You closed with "Meanwhile the 51's etc were in a concentrated area not attacking piecemeal" 

What did you mean by that? 

There were three P-51 wings on March 6 and six Mustang wings at the end of May, 1944 covering 32 Bomb wings penetrating deep into Germany. Just how did they manage to be in a 'concentrated area' where they enjoyed numerical superiority.

No B-26s or A-20s or B-26s or B-25s or P-47s to dilute the Luftwaffe Reich's attention deep into Germany - only the 8th and occasionally the 12th and 15th down south where Luft2 and Lw Kdo Sud Ost were available to assist from the South.

So how did the three Mustang groups in march and six in May manage to 'concentrate themselves' to cover 100 miles of bomb wings? Pick your technique, and tell us how 8th AF directed Mustangs from one formation to another so they could concentrate.

Regards,

Bill

Bill


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 17, 2007)

Sorry I have not spent years reading numbers but I have spent years reading and listening. Your theory is good if no other unit on the Allied side is flying I do believe the RAF, RAAf ,RNZAF,RCAF also flew on the same days as the USAAF they didn't stop flying in awe of the USAAF. Do you really think the LW dropped everything else on their plate just to attack the USAAF. Think about it coastal strikes ,day rangers ,gardening etc these "auxilliary units" also had a hand in diverting the LW.
on a quick search I found this

"The terrible pressure on the fighter force culminated in the five-month period between January and May of 1944. The Luftwaffe was already in serious trouble at the beginning of the year. On 31 December 1943 the Luftwaffe had 2395 single-engine pilots in combat squadrons deployed throughout Europe. Of these pilots only 1495 were fully operational (62 percent), 291 were partially combat-ready (12 percent), and 691 were not operationally ready under any circumstances (26 percent). This force lost no less than 2262 fighter pilots in the next five months—close to 100 percent of the number reporting for duty at the turn of the year.27 In a conference with Herman Göring in mid-May, General Adolf Galland admitted that Luftflotte Reich (responsible for air defense over northern Germany) had lost 38 percent of its fighter pilots in April, while Luftflotte 3 (responsible for air defense over France and southern Germany) had lost 24 percent of its fighter pilots.28

The laconic reports of II Gruppe/JG 53 indicate what happened to that unit in the months of May and August. In the former month the unit reported:

(A) Operations took place on thirteen days. Twenty-one scrambles, fifteen of which resulted in combats.

(B) *Average aircraft strength thirty-four; average serviceability twenty*.

(C) Fifty-three aircraft lost or damaged. Of these: (1) extent: thirty-four 100%, three over 60%, nine over 35%, seven under 35%, (2) reason: thirty-three through Allied action, four [through] technical faults, sixteen owing [to] servicing faults. . . ."


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2007)

PB - I failed to make myself clear. Yes the RAF, RNZAF, RCAF, 8th AF P-47 groups, 9th AF P-47 groups ALL stopped flying east of Bremen and Frankfurt - simply because they don't make it back before running out of fuel.

What I gave you in the context of 2 Lightning and three Mustang groups is ALL there were to contest the Germans over Berlin, Munich, Brunswick, Ruhland, Leipzig, etc

Back to your figures for "38% Lost in Lufflotte Reich" ----> mostly due to the 8th AF bombers and those few mangy USAAF fighters that had the range to go deep (see above). Stick with Luftflotte Reich and stick to the maximum number of P-38 and P-51 Groups available between Jan 1 and May 1 1944. 

That was the Daylight Battle for Air over Germany.

That was ALL the Allied fighters avialable to go to Berlin, Munich, Brunswick and beyond. Every single one was in those few groups. Not one RAF day fighter. Not one RNAF, RAAF, RCAF or 8th/9th AF P-47... just the 3 to six between 1/1 and 5/1/44. Period.

That is the point I am painfully, but not very clearly, trying to make.

Regards,

Bill

PS - EVERYBODY got a piece of Lflotte 3 because everybody could go to France, Belgium and Holland. RAF/9th/8th AF Fighter Groups.. but L3 was only about 1/5 size of LReich


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 18, 2007)

drgondog said:


> - but the German records show a lot of experienced pilots and squadrons being transferred from Russain front to Germany in late 1943 and I don't believe that bunch was heavily populated by the 150 hour replacement pilots.


I agree with u in 1943, as well as the loss of many aces and experten


> I would pinpoint that the bulk of the experienced pilots went down between Jan and May 1944... and that the replacement pilots with lower time were staring in that timeframe and accelerating in April because so many went down in the first four months of 44.





> most of the people that comment on overwhelming numbers of fighters in the 8th AF in 1944 overlook the point that most of that Fighter force had to turn back near Bremen, Hannover, Frankfurt line while the 51s picked up the Penetration and Target Support from there all the way to Munich or Berlin or Posnan - or thereabouts.


Very true statement....


> The LW wasn't stupid - they withdrew much of their force (except JG2 and JG26) from France and the Lowlands and put JG1, 3, 5, 11, 27, 53, 54, 300, 301, 302 into Germany in the first months of 44... and those had Fw190s that could Fight -


One of the reasons was because they were decimated to the point of being inneffective.... One stafflen putting up 4 planes aint gonna work...


> I think as I look your post over again that our prime difference in point of view is the relative quality of the Luftwaffe Fighter arm in Luft3 and Luft Reich in January 1944. So I will repeat what I believe (about German relative strength) and what I know -


I would agree with u on the strength of the LW during January 44, as well as the number of experten and KC winners in the air...


> Tell me that this is an overwhelming force or had more than enough combat experience and log time to offset German forces but help me understand your point of view as to why I am wrong?


I dont think ur wrong at all... I was just pointing out some things that seemed to have gotten looked over.... I was also thinking more in terms of the latter part of 1944, not the beginnings... U made several valid points that are the same as my views...

As far as Im aware, not every bomber had a fighter covering him at all times... (that was a joke) The Mustangos couldnt be everywhere at one time, and usually, and I say usually loosely, the LW didnt attack a group of bombers with 40 190s in the stern attack...

Blah blah blah, we agree with each other more than we disagree so Im happy....



> I won't goof around on this subject with people that I have already debated with - if my math and logic ain't right why embarass myself with the ones that have better facts than me?


U have more facts than I do Bill, and ur opinion is more educated than mine... I cant say that about many here so.....



> It occured to me that a lot of people on this forum think of the air battles over Germany as large formations of USAAF fighters picking on small formations of German fighters the same way every day.


Not true at all....


> Demonstrate to me (or ignore me and just please yourself) how the USAAF Fighter Groups achieves parity consistently, much less any numerical advantage?


I cant do that from early to mid 44, but I can definatly say that certain LOCAL numerical superiority situations were sincerely favored to the Allies... 


> I can illustrate as many times as you wish where smaller forces of fighters are attacking larger forces of German fighters in both Encounter Reports and mission histories. You will see same but opposite in LW reports.


And I can as well, as I too have read too many contact reports in my 41 years, and Im sure uve gone through more than myself... Ive had disussions with certain US pilots that said the same thing about attacking a larger sized LW force, and some that were bounced by a smaller force of 109s and got hammered... 

War is hell aint it??? 



PBFOOT said:


> I do believe the RAF, RAAf ,RNZAF,RCAF also flew on the same days as the USAAF they didn't stop flying in awe of the USAAF. Do you really think the LW dropped everything else on their plate just to attack the USAAF. Think about it coastal strikes ,day rangers ,gardening etc these "auxilliary units" also had a hand in diverting the LW.


Gotta agree with u there pB... Very good point to bring up...



> That is the point I am painfully, but not very clearly, trying to make.


I got u Bill....


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2007)

Dan/PB - this one is worth talking about just a little bit because of impressions that could inadvertantly be left behind?


Quote:
*Originally Posted by PBFOOT 
I do believe the RAF, RAAf ,RNZAF,RCAF also flew on the same days as the USAAF they didn't stop flying in awe of the USAAF. Do you really think the LW dropped everything else on their plate just to attack the USAAF. Think about it coastal strikes ,day rangers ,gardening etc these "auxilliary units" also had a hand in diverting the LW. 

Dan - Gotta agree with u there pB... Very good point to bring up...*

Although I touched on this in the previous thread - I want to be very clear on this part of the discussion I never intended to imply that the LW 'dropped' everything just to attack USAAF, nor did the R's (RAF, RNZAF, etc) stop flying, in 'awe of the USAAF'

Here is what was happening Jan-May 1944 for PB's benefit.

The entire fury of daytime ops from England for the R's were inflicted within escort range of Spit IX and XIV's, Mustang II's, Typhoons and Tempests for the B-25/A-20s', etc and other light and medium bombers. They were supporting both British AND American efforts all over France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark (a stretch)..

The 8th AF P-47 groups plus some 9th 47 groups were performing inbound and outbound escorts to both 8th BC and 9th AF Mediums to the limits of their range. That limit was roughly a radius curve through Bremen and south to Hannover. It covered the Ruhr and places like Munster, Frankfurt and Stuttgart (a stretch).

The 51's picked up Penetration, Target and Withdrawal Support for the Strategic Heavy Bomber deep raids to Leipzig, Brunswick, Ruhland, Augsburg, Kassel, Munich, Kiel, Hamburg, Merseburg, Misburg, Schweinfurt, Regensburg, etc, etc.

Neither the R's nor the 47s could go there. Mossies had other things to do.

But, effectively JG26 and JG2 in Lufflotte 3 had what was known as "a target rich environment' and could merrily choose to fight against overwhelming numbers of any nationality de jour that suited them... and they weren't near as constrained by 'Fatso' stupid directives to 'avoid the fighter escort' because they had no choice as many of their missions were trying to blunt fighter sweeps or simply trying to stay alive when 70% of the 8th AF Fighter Command plus most of the 9th and all of British TAC air was playing in their sandbox. They were all of Lufflotte 3 single engine fighters available. They occasionally pitched in on the 38s and 51s when they could ambush them going in to meet the bombers or coming home over their 'patch'

Occasionally JG11 and JG53 and and JG3 located more in Central zone could pitch in to help Luft 3, but mostly they waited for the 47's to turn back and then all the Luftflotte Reich had to deal with was 1000 B-17s and B-24s plus 100-250 (max 'effective') long range fighters from 354FG and 20th (P38) and 55th (P-38) from Jan11 forward, then 4th and 355th and 364th (P38) from 2/28-3/8 forward, the 352FG from ~4/10 forward to May1. 

Last of the boring summaries -
On Jan1 approximately 96 P-38s would start engines and approximately 40 would actually make the target. This is ALL of the ALLIED fighters available to escort 8th BC past Dummer Lake on January 1, 1944.

On March 1, 144 P-51s could start engines, 96 P-38's would start engines - ~120 would make the target because of mechanical malfunctions in new airplanes..

On May1, 366 combined P-51s and P-38s would SE and more than 60% (~220) would reach the target.. (By August the P-51s reliability was up around 75% effective)

PB - No, the RAF didn't quit, nor did the 56th or 353rd or 78th or 356th (all P-47) quit - they (rest of 8th AF) just could not go to Central and Far Germany until mid to late May. On May 1, 1944 only half of 8th AF Fighter Command's ultimate build up could be available to escort 8th BC in the numbers I just described.

I apologise to you both for 'death by prose' 

Regards,

Bill


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 18, 2007)

Good post Bill...


----------



## Trautloft (Jun 18, 2007)

axis,i'd love 2 fly a late italian plane like the Centauro or Sagittaro or other rare aircraft.
thats why im so happy about my il2 complete edition, i can fly fiat cr.42's, c,200,c.202 ,c.205 ,even a PZL.p11 or I.A.R.80/81 ,or the weirdo TB-3


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 18, 2007)

I appreciate the jist of your point and I'm not arguing the fact of nominal support for the heavies all I am trying to say is I can't fathom the LW being any where as a effective a fighter force as it was in previous years lprior to 44 attrition of the experianced aircrew was extremely high and its really not a place to learn on the job . Its pretty hard to cram tactics gunnery formation flying and basic flight training into 150 hours starting off in a 100 hp Arados and moving up into the realm of 2000hp crotch rockets . Would you let some one with a 150 hrs fly your p51


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2007)

slight comeback but this to add to Bills post. From late 1943 Heavy twin engine gruppen were brought back from the Ost front redeveloped tactics used and up-gunned the Bf 110G-2 with heavy cannon and additional Br 21cm rockets. In fact it was a July 1943 directive that I have a copy of that directed that all available S/E and twin E units were to take part in the defense of the Homeland, the utmost and most primary mission was to be "bring down US heavy bombers"


----------



## drgondog (Jun 18, 2007)

PB - in my humble opinion the deciding factor was Oct 43 through April 44 when the LW commanders were ordered to Ignore the Fighter Escort.

Americans are aggressive enough without being encouraged by perfectly good 109s and 190s as they split S and dove away. The 8th and 9th FC pilots got epxerience, made mistakes and survived to learn from them.

What the LW should have done in retrospect is specifically bounce every formation of P-47s and attempt to wipe them out early, each time taking a toll of experience. For sure they needed to meet them on the coast and try to force dropping of external fuel tanks early.

Having said that I think it would have only delayed the outcome as the 56th, 353rd and 4th and 78th were developing into very good organizations by that time and the key performance boosters in paddle blade props and longer range tanks were on the way.

These debates are good vehicles to test 'accepted tribal knowledge'

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 18, 2007)

seriously Bill in my estimation is that the LW should of inacted a furtherance of it's night time campaign in 1941 with Fernenachtjagd- long distnace night fighting. well during the day having all LW pilots trained in night and bad weather flying able to come over and strafe and bomb Allied airfields in England at un-Godly early morning hours instead of just waiting and listening to all the fighter/bomber engines engage, take off and get into formation and come over and paste Germany, etc........

as we have well noted the LW hierarchy including the FAT ONE made some huge blunders that cost Germany dearly


----------



## Bird-Nerd (Jun 18, 2007)

well there was that one part in Battle of Britain (the movie) where the German Squad leader asks for a squad of spitfires and po's the herman goering or whatever his name was guy...
I'd go with allies anyways.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

Bird-Nerd said:


> well there was that one part in Battle of Britain (the movie) where the German Squad leader asks for a squad of spitfires and po's the herman goering or whatever his name was guy...
> I'd go with allies anyways.


That "Squad Leader" was Adolph Galland.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2007)

Erich said:


> seriously Bill in my estimation is that the LW should of inacted a furtherance of it's night time campaign in 1941 with Fernenachtjagd- long distnace night fighting. well during the day having all LW pilots trained in night and bad weather flying able to come over and strafe and bomb Allied airfields in England at un-Godly early morning hours instead of just waiting and listening to all the fighter/bomber engines engage, take off and get into formation and come over and paste Germany, etc........
> 
> as we have well noted the LW hierarchy including the FAT ONE made some huge blunders that cost Germany dearly



Total agreement on the point. As I recall one staffeln of 410s shadowed a B-24 group on an early evening return to England and snuck in to shot down (? can't recall date (summer 44?) or numbers - CRS) more than a couple for a spectacular success and to my knowledge never repeated it.

As to night strafing, pop some flares and go down and make at least one run over any airfield and it would look like Poltava in July 44 first shuttle mission. Sure the Brit Night Fighters and flak would get a few - but the tactics would have worked well. 

Look what the 8th achieved strafing against fighters that could find you and incredible flak.. I can't help but believe Me410s at night would have done very well indeed.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That "Squad Leader" was Adolph Galland.



ROFLMAO - the 'squad leader' that was leading JG26 at the time?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 19, 2007)

Gotta go with the Germans; overall, they had the best hardware. Yes, the -51was a nice airplane but, IMHO, it was (and still is) overrated. Not much in the way of armament (six .50's was kinda light by 1945), and you had to keep that laminar-flow wing clean or it was useless.

On a one-for-one basis, I'd give the German aircraft/pilot a better than even chance of defeating any Allied aircraft/pilot. Look at the kill ratios by the end of the War; German pilots beat the average (there were more "aces" in the LW than in all of the other world's air forces combined). The highest Allied ace had, what, 40 kills to his credit (Maj. Richard Bong, AAF, P-38 Lightning, Pacific Theater) versus Erich Hartmann (LW, 352 "kills", Me 109G-6 -10, Eastern Front). What it all came down to, basically, was the overwhelming materiel superiority of the Allies, in particular the US. The US could "afford" to lose 10 planes/pilots for every Axis aircraft shot down, whereas the LW could ill afford to lose any planes and/or pilots in the later stages of the War.

All in all, I'd choose an Axis aircraft any day, particularly if it's an Me 262 or a Do 335 (I'd even settle for a Ta 152 or an Me 109K).


----------



## drgondog (Jun 21, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Gotta go with the Germans; overall, they had the best hardware. Yes, the -51was a nice airplane but, IMHO, it was (and still is) overrated. Not much in the way of armament (six .50's was kinda light by 1945), and you had to keep that laminar-flow wing clean or it was useless.
> 
> On a one-for-one basis, I'd give the German aircraft/pilot a better than even chance of defeating any Allied aircraft/pilot. Look at the kill ratios by the end of the War; German pilots beat the average (there were more "aces" in the LW than in all of the other world's air forces combined). The highest Allied ace had, what, 40 kills to his credit (Maj. Richard Bong, AAF, P-38 Lightning, Pacific Theater) versus Erich Hartmann (LW, 352 "kills", Me 109G-6 -10, Eastern Front). What it all came down to, basically, was the overwhelming materiel superiority of the Allies, in particular the US. The US could "afford" to lose 10 planes/pilots for every Axis aircraft shot down, whereas the LW could ill afford to lose any planes and/or pilots in the later stages of the War.
> 
> All in all, I'd choose an Axis aircraft any day, particularly if it's an Me 262 or a Do 335 (I'd even settle for a Ta 152 or an Me 109K).



Wow - that about summed it up..

Out of curiosity do you have any examples of 51s 'wiping out' because of a dirty wing?

Six 50's might be light if you had to attack B-17s but it was definitely all that was needed for German fighters - for that matter the 51B didn't really suffer when all four were functioning - but if you feel that way what would you offer as facts?

I can speak to you about several 8th AF Fighter Groups with a high degree of accuracy and authority - particularly the 355th FG. 

It had 21 air aces and did not lose a single ace in air to air combat (but did lose 4 to flak strafing airfields). It finished the war with an air to air ratio of 8:1 which does not include flak, accident, weather or mechanical. All in they destroyed 4+ German a/c (857) for each aircraft lost in operations for all causes (176 total (38 confirmed air 8 unknown) 96 flak 34 mechanical/weather)... and the 355th was only in the top 5 - air to air and top 3 - total a/c destroyed.. They started ops in Sept 1943.

There are a lot of mitigating factors, most importantly fuel deficiencies in early to mid 1944, causing low time German pilots to be thrown into combat to get slaughtered - starting in spring to summer of 44 - but the LW did not have their way with Allied fighter pilots after 1943...and they ended the war with quite a few of their aces alive.

Having said that, your opinion is as valuable as mine as we are debating not fighting

Regards,

Bill Marshall


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Gotta go with the Germans; overall, they had the best hardware. Yes, the -51was a nice airplane but, IMHO, it was (and still is) overrated. Not much in the way of armament (six .50's was kinda light by 1945), and you had to keep that laminar-flow wing clean or it was useless.
> .



I too am not a big P-51D fan (It was an excellent aircraft though) but there is a reason for its armament. 

What was its primary target?

Bombers or fighters?

Fighters ofcourse.

6 .50 Cal is eneogh when you only have to deal with fighters.

If the P-51D would have had to deal with a Luftwaffe bombing offensive like the ones the USAAF and RAF were putting on to Germany then its armament would have been more suited for bombers, ie 20mm and above, etc..

Look at the Luftwaffe aircraft as the war progressed the armament evolved based off of the thread.

Early war years when the Luftwaffes main thread was not the B-17 and B-24.

Bf 109D 4x 7.9mm
Bf 109E 2x 20mm and 2x 7.9mm
Bf 109F 1x 15mm and 2 7.9mm

Mid to late war years when the bombing offensive was at the most:

Bf 109G-6 1x 30mm (or 2x 20mm) and 2x 13mm
Bf 109K-4 1x 30mm and 2x 15mm


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 21, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Wow - that about summed it up..
> 
> Out of curiosity do you have any examples of 51s 'wiping out' because of a dirty wing?



No, I don't have any examples of any -51's "wiping out" due to a dirty wing, but I do know it's performance was severly affected if the wing wasn't kept clean. Quote from "Combat Development In World War Two: Fighter Aircraft", by Alfred Price: "Although this high-speed laminar-flow section gave a lower drag than the other two (wings) when it was in good condition and highly polished, it's efficiency fell rapidly if particles of dirt or crushed insects adhered to the leading edge . . ."


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I too am not a big P-51D fan (It was an excellent aircraft though) but there is a reason for its armament.
> 
> What was its primary target?
> 
> ...



Excellent argument, very sound; yes, since the P-51 was primarily engaged in fighter vs fighter combat, six (6) .50's are/were adequate. 

I was just saying that, by the end of the War, a majority of fighters, Axis aircraft in particular, were armed with some form of cannon, mostly 20mm 30mm calibers; in an extreme case, the Germans armed late-war 410's with a 50mm auto-load tank cannon in an effort to take the heavy bombers out at longer ranges (up to a mile away). By War's end, the Japanese had developed a rocket-propelled 40mm cannon for knocking down B-29's; unfortunately, the muzzle velocity was so low (760 fps) that it wasn't very accurate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2007)

Because the Axis was having to deal with the bombers.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> No, I don't have any examples of any -51's "wiping out" due to a dirty wing, but I do know it's performance was severly affected if the wing wasn't kept clean. Quote from "Combat Development In World War Two: Fighter Aircraft", by Alfred Price: "Although this high-speed laminar-flow section gave a lower drag than the other two (wings) when it was in good condition and highly polished, it's efficiency fell rapidly if particles of dirt or crushed insects adhered to the leading edge . . ."



I had heard that and read it several times, and know North American took pains to instruct ground crews to keep the leading edges clean of mud, debris, etc - but have never found a pilot who had a problem that they could trace to 'dirty wing.

I just finished an email exchange with an old friend of my father who flew for RCAF in Spits, Tempests and 'on loan' to 355th FG when my father was his Squadron CO.

The only issue he had with the Mustang was a.) it would not out turn a 109 at low speed whereas the Spit would and b.) it had a tendency to 'dance' on final in a cross wind more than a Spit or Tempest. 

I can personally attest that you had to focus on final and touchdown or possibly end up with a ground loop on your hands.

The background on Peglar is that he had flown some 200 odd missions in Spits and never gotten a shot at a German fighter.. within 2 weeks with the 355th he had a pair, then got another pair 5 weeks later and returned to RAF shortly afterwards (60 day assignement) to fly Tempest V for rest of war. He loved the Mustang at high and medium altitudes especially over enemy territory where he could find a fight - 

Anyway - Price was reporting what he read, perhaps not what pilots were actually experiencing? or somehow attached low speed turn stall characteristics to dirty wing laminar flow separation?

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

SoD throw in the fact that the 8th AF Mustangs were also rippin it up on the LW airfields when no aerial targets were found during 1945. not quite packing the heavier punch of the 9th AF Jugs but still quite adequate to deal with ground tragets-locos/trains and parked a/c sufficently.


----------



## BikerBabe (May 26, 2009)

Allies.
In fact, Denmark (I'm danish) bought three Spitfires during WW2, planes which flew for (among others) the RAF, despite the fact that Denmark was occupied by the german forces at the time.
Interested forum members can read more here about the history of the danish Spitfires:
http://www.spitfire.dk/


----------



## Doughboy (May 27, 2009)

Allies...with planes like the Spitfire, Corsair, P-38 Lightning, and P-51 Mustang...why not vote allies?


----------



## 109ROAMING (May 27, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> ...why not vote allies?



Bf-109 is a pretty good reason .....you know? one of mans most sexiest creations to ever take to the skies

I went Allies cause of the ratio Typhoon/Corsair:Bf-109


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Allies...with planes like the Spitfire, Corsair, P-38 Lightning, and P-51 Mustang...why not vote allies?




With planes like the Bf 109, Fw 190A, Fw 190D, Ta 152, Me 262, Ar 234...why not vote axis?



Just kidding, this whole thread is subjective anyhow.


----------



## Catch22 (May 27, 2009)

Woah, blast from the past!

I voted Axis...whenever it was I voted! I'd probably have to say Allies now. Combat Tours = greater chance of survival as you're not fighting as long. And the Corsair! ALthough I can't base anything on the planes as I'd just as easily fly a Dora.


----------



## imalko (May 28, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> With planes like the Bf 109, Fw 190A, Fw 190D, Ta 152, Me 262, Ar 234...why not vote axis?



My opinion too...  

But in my case the main reason for voting Axis is definetelly Bf 109. 8)


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 9, 2009)

Being of sound mind, I would stay on the ground.


Seing the comments at the begining of this thread re; the best air force (Brit or US.) it reminded me of a reprimand I received on an RN training course. I was asked by a visiting high ranking US Naval officer "How does it feel serving in the second largest navy in NATO.? "Marvellous" I replied, "How does it feel serving in the second best"......He was not amused!!!



Yes moderators ,I konow.....My round


----------



## Marcel (Jun 9, 2009)

I would like to choose the Swiss airforce 8)


----------



## imalko (Jun 9, 2009)

Interesting choice Marcel.... You would be neutral but still able to fly Bf 109. 8)


----------



## Marcel (Jun 10, 2009)

imalko said:


> Interesting choice Marcel.... You would be neutral but still able to fly Bf 109. 8)



Exactly. BTW, did you know the Swiss fought large battles in the air with the Luftwaffe?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 10, 2009)

I would have loved to fly with the Finns, if nothing else you were busy.


----------



## imalko (Jun 10, 2009)

Marcel said:


> Exactly. BTW, did you know the Swiss fought large battles in the air with the Luftwaffe?



I know that Swiss Air force had several confrontations with the Luftwaffe over the years, but I'm not familiar with details about these encounters or with the scale of it.


----------



## HerrKaleut (Jun 10, 2009)

Just a quick question...what is the signifigance of the Red inserts ?


----------



## Amsel (Jun 10, 2009)

I would have like to have flown fighters for the USN. That was good duty; hot chow every night served by stewards and some of the best training available.


----------



## imalko (Jun 10, 2009)

HerrKaleut said:


> Just a quick question...what is the signifigance of the Red inserts ?



If you are refering to the red/white stripes on the wings and fuselage of Swiss aircrafts which were used during the war this was done for identification purposes. Swiss were flying German fighters (often in original German camouflage colors) and their national insignia includes white crosses so this could under certain circumstances have been confused with Luftwaffe aircrafts. Colorful stripes were aimed to avoid this from happening.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 10, 2009)

> Exactly. BTW, did you know the Swiss fought large battles in the air with the Luftwaffe?



I didn't know that. I thought the Swiss were always neutral in WWII. Didn't Germany get angry when they got their fighters shot down by the Swiss?


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 10, 2009)

Like Amsel I would liked to have flown for the USN.


Wheelsup


----------



## Marcel (Jun 10, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I didn't know that. I thought the Swiss were always neutral in WWII. Did't Germany get angry when they got their fighters shot down by the Swiss?



Well, they provoked it themselves. I must have a story about it somewhere. I'll look it up and post it if I can.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 10, 2009)

I would be interested in it too Marcel.
This is the first time I have heard of this myself.


Wheelsup


----------



## imalko (Jun 10, 2009)

Until Marcel find story about Swiss vs. Luftwaffe confrontations, here's a preview. Unfortunately artist is unknown.

Btw, I too would like to read this story because (as I wrote) I know that this did happen but don't know details about it.


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2009)

The Swiss vs LW confrontation began when Swiss shot down a or a couple He 111(s), which had intruded into their airspace during the Battle of France in June 40, IIRC. LW decided to give a hard lesson to Swiss and sent a force of Bf 110Cs to ambush them but to the surprise of LW they were bested by Swiss. I also had an article from a French aviation magazine on the skirmishes somewhere.

Juha


----------



## Marcel (Jun 10, 2009)

Found it, a long story, but here the summary:
First encounter was on May 10th 1940 when a Swiss bf109e intercepted a Ju-88, flying towards Basel. The Bf109 fired a warnig shot in front of the nose of the Ju-88. The Ju-88 fired back, but neither side damaged the other.
Same day, a He111 was intercepted near Altenheim and shot at it, damaging an engine. The He111 escaped.
Next week a He111 was shot down bu bf109e's.
Same month two others.
Goering threatened the Swiss with retaliation for the 4 lost aircraft. To keep his word, the first week of June 1940, He-111 formations, escorted by Bf110's flew over Switzerland. 2 German 110's and 1 He111 was shot down, while the Swiss lost 1 Bf109C.
4 days later, German fighters entered Swiss airspace to hunt down Swiss AF aircraft. 1 biplane was shot down and 32 bf110's patroled the sky. Swiss Bf109's attacked these 32 Bf110's. At least 14 Bf109's were involved and it came to a big dogfight. 5 Bf110's were shot down for the loss of 1 Swiss Bf109e.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 10, 2009)

Thanks for telling. I guess Goring backed down after that. 

Funny how the Germans couldn't beat their own aircraft. Of course if the Germans were smart, which Going wasn't, they would have sent Bf 109's into Swiss airspace.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 10, 2009)

Nothing worse then sending in a force to teach somebody a lesson and you end up getting your arse kicked - lol


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2009)

I'd probably choose flying the Ta-152H as none were ever shot down by enemy a/c yet they accounted for atleast 11 Allied a/c lost, all fighters.

Either that or fly something really fast like the Me262 so I can choose any fight 

I just wanna fly the a/c I'd feel the safest in..


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 10, 2009)

The Swiss also intercepted wayward U.S. bomber formations as well. American bombers would mistake Swiss cities for German targets occasionally, and would be attacked to drive them off. Also stories of Swiss fighters intercepting lost bombers to "force" them to a nearby airfield and the bomber's gunners mistook the Swiss fighters for Germans (not sure how they could miss the markings), resulting a brawl.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2009)

I wonder what a/c the Swiss would be attacking the US with in 44, the many Emils on hand or the newly acquired G-6's they had. By 44 they had 6 squadrons of Emils while having only 1 squadron of G-6's.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 10, 2009)

When you are a scared gunner in a bomber any Bf 109 looks like an enemy Bf 109!

Though I feel sorry for the Swiss getting their cities bombed by the US, Switzerland was a good refuge for escaping POW's. Luckily it probably didn't happen too much?

Just wondering, was Britain ever bombed by a mixed up US bombing force?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 10, 2009)

Aparently, Switzerland operated Bf109D and Bf109E as well as M.S. 405 aircraft from the start of the war onwards. But as the war progressed, they operated a number of impounded aircraft as well.


----------



## Soren (Jun 10, 2009)

They bought a dozen Bf-109 G-6's in 1944 GrauGeist. They impounded some Bf-109F's in 1943.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> They bought a dozen Bf-109 G-6's in 1944 GrauGeist. They impounded some Bf-109F's in 1943.


That's right, forgot about the G-6s...and weren't those actually a trade?

But like I said, the Swiss did operate a number of impounded aircraft, including P-51Ds...which might be a cool subject for a model theme!


----------



## Marcel (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> I wonder what a/c the Swiss would be attacking the US with in 44, the many Emils on hand or the newly acquired G-6's they had. By 44 they had 6 squadrons of Emils while having only 1 squadron of G-6's.


The G'shardly saw combat, but the Emils were still very active in 1944.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 11, 2009)

That's a sweet P-51 camo. Would look great flying over the Alps.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> They bought a dozen Bf-109 G-6's in 1944 GrauGeist. They impounded some Bf-109F's in 1943.



They did, but they hardly saw service due to extremely poor workmanship. The Bf 109Es actually stayed in service after the Gs were removed. The Gs served until 1948, while the Es served until 1949.

GG, it was a trade of sorts, the Germans agreed to sell the Swiss the 12 Gs in return for the destruction of an impounded Bf 110 Nightfighter, to avoid the radar being found by the Allies.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 12, 2009)

Voted allies. I think my sig says it all.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> ...GG, it was a trade of sorts, the Germans agreed to sell the Swiss the 12 Gs in *return for the destruction of an impounded Bf 110 Nightfighter*, to avoid the radar being found by the Allies.


That's what I was trying to remember!

Thanks man!


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2009)

Hello Catch22
you are right, and it was a deal in which both sides cheated, Swiss allowed British to examine the Bf 110G before destroying it and Germans delivered bad quality 109Gs.

Juha


----------



## peterpro (Aug 31, 2011)

I choose Axis for a number of reasons:1.My favorite plane,the bf-109.2.The most successful pilots and 3.They are the forgotten "fighters" of WWII


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 31, 2011)

Forgotten? which model do you mean.


----------



## davebender (Sep 1, 2011)

In the real world only members of neutral nations such as Sweden get a choice. Everyone else gets drafted into the armed forces of the nation where they are born. If I were fortunate enough to be born in Sweden I might volunteer to fly for Finland. Otherwise I would sit the war out. 

Fighting against Soviet invasion of other European nations such as Latvia has some apeal but it's suicide as long as the Soviet Union is supported by Britain and the USA.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 1, 2011)

Spain sent volunteers to fight alongside Germans against the Soviet Union in the form of the Blue Division. As the Allies emerged as possible victors, the regime became more neutral, at least in theory, finally declaring its neutrality in July 1943 although the complete removal of Spanish troops from Eastern Front was not completed until March 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 2, 2011)

I am pretty sure that more than half the blue Div resigned from th spanish army and joined the SS so they could keep fighting.

There was also a squadron of Spanish Me 109s that operated in Russia from memory.

All Spanish units fought in the vicinity of Novgorod. They acquired a very good reputation


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 2, 2011)

The *Blue Squadron *was a group of *voluntary pilots *of Spanish Air Force that during World War II fought next to Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) in In front Russian to the aid of the Germans with his Legion Condor, during Spanish Civil War. In the Luftwaffe it was denominated to them with the name of 15ª Spanische Staffel, added to 27º Group of Caza (JG27), elite unit to the control of Tungsten von Richtofen (old head of the Legion Condor in the Spanish Civil War). In fact she was not a single squadron, but they were five squadrons who went away standing out between 1941 and 1944, every six months approximately, to fight in the Russian front. Its emblem was based on the emblem of Blue Patrol of Joaquin Garci'a-Morato leader of the national fighter aircraft during the Spanish Civil War. In the nose of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 of 1ª Squadron, the mechanics painted the emblem of the fighter group of Garci'a Morato, accompanied now by a two number Roman, in the case of 1ª Squadron (indicating in this way the second fight of the members of the famous unit against the Comunism); by the Cross of Santiago, in 2ª; mounted on the German cross that she identified to the airplanes of the Luftwaffe, in 3ª; superposed on the symbol of the German hunting (she shoots with an arrow winged, surrounded by a crown of laurels) in 4ª; and with a five number Roman (v) in 5ª, placed in the same position that the II of 1ª.


----------



## claidemore (Sep 2, 2011)

There were spanish fighters on the Soviet side as well, including pilots.


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2011)

Only during 1936 to 1938. From 1939 onward they were simply communists who chose to move to the Soviet Union. Similiar to Ramon Mercader who left Spain during the late 1930s to work for the NKVD, who employed him to kill Leon Trotsky in Mexico during 1940. Ramon Mercader was a Soviet agent, not a Spanish agent.


----------



## Readie (Sep 2, 2011)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> The British easily had the best aircraft of any nation- including the states (and no-one will convince me otherwise )
> 
> They had the:
> 
> ...




Top man, of course British is best.
We taught the American's everything they know.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> Only during 1936 to 1938. From 1939 onward they were simply communists who chose to move to the Soviet Union. Similiar to Ramon Mercader who left Spain during the late 1930s to work for the NKVD, who employed him to kill Leon Trotsky in Mexico during 1940. Ramon Mercader was a Soviet agent, not a Spanish agent.




Could be viewed as a spaniard national working for the Soviets. Surely it depends on how they view themselves not so much how we view them.

Australia treated Germans and Italians that had recntly moved to the country prior to the outbreak of the war as Germans or Italians, not as Australians. From memory they were rounded up and put into detention for the duration. 

Same eith the US eagle Squadron was it not.....they were Americans, flying for the RAF....


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 2, 2011)

bronzewhaler82 said:


> The British easily had the best aircraft of any nation- including the states (and no-one will convince me otherwise )
> 
> They had the:
> 
> ...


Now alls you need is aircrew


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 2, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Same eith the US eagle Squadron was it not.....they were Americans, flying for the RAF....


Just a small clarification a good part of them were Americans in the RCAF i'm quite sure they wouldn't take the substanial drop in pay


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2011)

We have charted our own course since 1776. But we owe Britain a huge debt for getting the USA started on the right foot with respect for capitalism, personal liberty, and representative government. 


Perhaps it's just as well we went our own way. What were you Brits thinking, flying aircraft like the Stringbag and Boulton Paul Defiant vs German Me-109s?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 2, 2011)

America wrote a pretty big check during WWII.. debt repayed x 10 I would think.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> Perhaps it's just as well we went our own way. What were you Brits thinking, flying aircraft like the Stringbag and Boulton Paul Defiant vs German Me-109s?



winning the war in their respective TOs actually. 

Stringbag: Sunk or disabled 5 Battleships, just off the top of my head

Defiant: First truly successful NF of either side deployed effectively. Responsible for night air defence until replaced in 1941 by Beaufighters

By comparison, Me 109 was just another daytime fighter , with some capabilities but also some pretty severe limits as well. How many Battleshipps did the me109 sink or disable (actually they did cause the loss of one cruiser)


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 2, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Defiant: First truly successful NF of either side deployed effectively. Responsible for night air defence until replaced in 1941 by Beaufighters


Geez I'd dispute that I was under the impression it was responsible for under 10 IIRC, maybe its use was of training night fighter crews for the future when other types became available. I could be incorrect but I know I was shocked by how few it claimed


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2011)

What does that have to do with winning the war? Battleships were endlessly hyped by most navies but actually contributed practically nothing to fighting either world war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> What does that have to do with winning the war? Battleships were endlessly hyped by most navies but actually contributed practically nothing to fighting either world war.



It has just as much to do with the discussion as saying the British flew stringbags against 109s. NOBODIES 1939-43 single engine torpedo bombers stood a chance against 109s without a fighter escort. The British may have flown Swordfish in areas where 109s also flew but Swordfish were never expected to do battle against 109s on their own. Battleships were also the the ships that controlled the oceans (or seas) for the first 1/3 of the war. They may not have shot at each other much but the presence or absence of battleships determined if convoys pressed on or turned back in many cases. When did the was the first battleship sunk (not damaged) by carrier planes at sea and not in harbor? Until carriers could operate large air groups at night or in bad weather they could not quite claim total dominance. Why didn't the RN just use a carrier or two to sink the Scharnhorst if aviation was so all powerful?


----------



## davebender (Sep 2, 2011)

The battle off North Cape is an exception as the weather was so bad that aircraft couldn't operate. Heck, the weather was so bad that destroyers could barely operate. The German Navy was foolish to challenge the RN under such circumstances and paid the price by losing a battleship.


----------



## Readie (Sep 3, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Now alls you need is aircrew



Ummm...that is a slight issue. But, look at the positive we taught the commonwealth to fly properly.

And before you explode Neil... I'm only joshing.

Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 3, 2011)

davebender said:


> We have charted our own course since 1776. But we owe Britain a huge debt for getting the USA started on the right foot with respect for capitalism, personal liberty, and representative government.
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's just as well we went our own way. What were you Brits thinking, flying aircraft like the Stringbag and Boulton Paul Defiant vs German Me-109s?




Yes, the USA was very advanced with the Peashooter while we had the Hart.

The Swordfish did its job, look at the axis iron in davey jones locker I'm not sure why you think it was supposed to fight the 109 though....

Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 3, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> America wrote a pretty big check during WWII.. debt repayed x 10 I would think.



America wrote an even bigger cheque to get Germany back on its feet after WW2 and continued to write cheques to the British exchequer throughout the 50's and 60's.
I'm not sure that all of the receipents of America's generosity have repaid the debt.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 3, 2011)

davebender said:


> The battle off North Cape is an exception as the weather was so bad that aircraft couldn't operate. Heck, the weather was so bad that destroyers could barely operate. The German Navy was foolish to challenge the RN under such circumstances and paid the price by losing a battleship.



There was also another factor Dave. Revenge after they sunk our HMS Hood. The RN ruled the waves and mighty though the German battleshipes were they were never properly used and remained only a threat to be hunted down.
Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (Sep 3, 2011)

Revenge makes a poor military strategy.


----------



## Readie (Sep 3, 2011)

davebender said:


> Revenge makes a poor military strategy.



Its more complicated than that ;

H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: H.M.S. Hood Today - The Wreck of H.M.S. Hood
H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood - The History of H.M.S. Hood: Part 3 of The Pursuit of Bismarck and Sinking of Hood (Battle of the Denmark Strait)

Please read these links and you'll understand better why the Hood had to be avenged.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 4, 2011)

Its a comon and oft repeated error that Battleships had no useful role to play, and were not engaged in surface actions all that much. On both counts facts dont line up with asserions.

Just to look at the Battlehips versus Battleships actions, one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often. Here is a short list of them. and remember, ther were plenty of other actions where battleships were involved on one side, and not another, such as at 2nd Narvik, where ten German Destroyers were sunk bgy a Brit TF built around a single BB 

Of the actions listed only a few could be said to have constituted a test of the ability of these vessels to fight their contemporaries. In most actions, either one side broke off combat before a real contest took place or, the odds were such that the contest was one sided. However, even in these inconclusive actions the Heavy ships were projecting naval power, gaining control of an area of ocean, or denying freedom of movement to an opponent. The list below enumerates the various surface actions in which modern battleships took part on both sides: 

* 9 Apr 1940 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau versus Renown off the Lofoten Islands, Norway. 

* 3 July 1940 Strasbourg and Dunkerque versus Hood, Valiant, and Resolution at Mers el Kebir following the surrender of France. 

* 9 July 1940 Giulio Cesare versus Warspite at Calabria / Punta Stilo 

* 24 Sept 1940 Richelieu versus Barham and Resolution at Dakar 

* 28 Mar 1941 Vittorio Veneto versus Warspite, Barham, and Valiant at Matapan 

* 21 May 1941 Bismarck versus Hood and Prince of Wales, Denmark Straight. 

* 27 May 1941 Bismarck versus Rodney and King George V, North Atlantic. 

* 8 Nov 1942 Massachusetts versus Jean Bart, Casablanca 

* 13 Nov 1942 South Dakota and Washington versus Kirishima, Savo Island, Solomon Islands. 

* 25 Dec 1943 Scharnhorst versus Duke of York, North Cape 

* 24 - 25 Oct 1944 Yamashiro versus California, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and W. Virginia at Surigao Straight. 

Looking briefly at those battles listed above, several need to be qualified by the material condition of the ships involved at the outset and the conduct during the action. Matapan can safely be discounted as neither side scored any hits using gunfire on the other although firing did occur, however the british battleships finished up dominating the battlefield, and resulted in the loss of three Italiaqwn cruisers. At Dakar and, Casablanca the French ships were not in full readiness or capability, however the British remo9ved these ships as any sort of threat to their already stretched control of the western med. The Richelieu had only just left her constructors and had not had any real time or ability to undergo proper trials or training. Likewise, the Jean Bart was in only partially completed condition and was unable to raise steam and maneuver during her fight. The Scharnhorst at North Cape had suffered previous light damage from engaging British cruisers present that had as a result knocked out her primary radar systems, nevertheless her loss put paid to any further major surface activity by the KM. The Bismarck during her second engagement on 27 May had a crew that was suffering from fatigue as well as the ship itself having the handicap of previous damage that limited her ability to maneuver. Crippling damage had been done to her by Ark Royal, neverthyeless without the intervention of the British Battlewagons she would have made it back to port, since there was no way or means for the Swordfishes 18" torps to actually sink here. 

Battleships were actually still critical to sea control and sea denial until the development of the US fast carrier forces in the latter part of the war. However, there were many challenges and alternative presented to the formal battle line, principally airpower, submarines and light forces. None of these alternatives could completely dislodge Battleships as the final arbiters of power at sea. But they were cheaper, more flexible, took less time to build , so their owners could take greater risk with them


----------



## Readie (Sep 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Its a comon and oft repeated error that Battleships had no useful role to play, and were not engaged in surface actions all that much. On both counts facts dont line up with asserions.
> 
> Just to look at the Battlehips versus Battleships actions, one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often. Here is a short list of them. and remember, ther were plenty of other actions where battleships were involved on one side, and not another, such as at 2nd Narvik, where ten German Destroyers were sunk bgy a Brit TF built around a single BB
> 
> ...



Good answer Michael.
The battleship in WW2 was still the pinnacle of any nations naval prestige. 
Another reason why the German fleet was always going to make a one way trip to the bottom.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 4, 2011)

Where I said "one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often" is an error: it should read "one gets a bit of a surprise that they were used that often".


----------



## Readie (Sep 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Where I said "one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often" is an error: it should read "one gets a bit of a surprise that they were used that often".



I understood what you meant. 
The very presence of those majestic battle ships was often enough.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 4, 2011)

davebender said:


> Revenge makes a poor military strategy.



who was basing their strategy on revenge???? Id say the whole nazi war plans were based on revenge to be honest, along with crackpot racial dogma


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> who was basing their strategy on revenge???? Id say the whole nazi war plans were based on revenge to be honest, along with crackpot racial dogma


Yep. It was based on the humiliation placed on the Germans by the french in the Treaty of Versailles. Even the Americans knew it was too much, and forseen another World War.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Geez I'd dispute that I was under the impression it was responsible for under 10 IIRC, maybe its use was of training night fighter crews for the future when other types became available. I could be incorrect but I know I was shocked by how few it claimed



I dont know th exact numbers that can be claimed for the Definat NFs, but quite a few sources claim that it was the most successful nightfighter in the allied inventory until April 1941. Given that the Axis lost something like well over 600 aircraft between September 1940 and March 1941 in air combat at night, the Defiant is going to be considerably more than 10 kills. probably more like 100........

"_first night kill being claimed on 15 September 1940. From November 1940, an increasing number of new night fighter squadrons were formed on the Defiant. Units operating the Defiant shot down more enemy aircraft than any other night-fighter during the German ‘Blitz’ on London in the winter of 1940-41. Initial operations were conducted without the benefit of radar. From the Autumn of 1941, AI Mk 4 radar units began to be fitted to the Defiant. An arrow type aerial was fitted on each wing, and a small H-shaped aerial added on the starboard fuselage side, just in front of the cockpit. The transmitter unit was located behind the turret, with the receiver and display screen in the pilot’s cockpit. The addition of radar brought a change in designation for the Mk I to N.F. Mk IA, but the designation of the Mk II version did not change. By February 1942, the Defiant was obviously too slow to catch the latest German night intruders and the night fighter units completely re-equipped in the period April-September 1942_".


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Yep. It was based on the humiliation placed on the Germans by the french in the Treaty of Versailles. Even the Americans knew it was too much, and forseen another World War.



We are getting way off topic, but on the issue of versaile, I dont think it went near far enough. It was because it was a weak and inneffective treaty that it failed, not because it was too hard. In this regard Genral George Pershing thought so too. he strongly advocated unconditional surrender. if this had been made the terms of surrender, ther could have been no doubt as to the outcome, and the termoil that followed the negotiated peace would never have happened. This was unnattainable because mostly of the intransigence of the US government. Wilson and his feel good supporters .....

We should have kicked the german backsides all the way back to berlin and beyond in 1918, whilst we had the chance. one more year of fighting would have saved six years of further fighting 20 years later.


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Yep. It was based on the humiliation placed on the Germans by the french in the Treaty of Versailles. Even the Americans knew it was too much, and forseen another World War.




Totally undeserved humiliation of course. 
What did Germany expect after WW1 the hand of friendship?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2011)

Readie said:


> Totally undeserved humiliation of course.
> What did Germany expect after WW1 the hand of friendship?


I know we're straying a little off topic here, but Germany didn't start the war though they were pretty much the last man standing at the end...And in doing so, ended up with the tab.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

Sorry, but untrue. In actual fact the events in the rough were:

"On 28 July, the conflict opened with the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia, followed by the German invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France; and a Russian attack against Germany".

Germany was allied to one of the agressor nations that started the whole conflagaration, and widened the conflict by invading neutral and third party nations. In othr words they were guilty of waging a war of aggression.

Of course its more complicated than that, but in terms of determinaing war guilt, thats as far as it need go. germany wanted to gamble its national survival by invading other nations. end of story, no further debate necessary. guilty as charged. they wre lucky to keep their national identity. If it had been me in charge, there would have been no Germany after the end of the armistice

The run of events that led to war were as follows:

28 June Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne in Sarajevo. He was shot by a Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip. The Austrians saw the murder as a perfect pretext to crush Serbia. 
5 July Kaiser William II assured Austria of Germany's support in whatever measures she took against Serbia, the so-called "Blank Cheque". 
23 July Austria presented Serbia with an ultimatum and she was given 48 hours to reply. Although the text was approved on the July 19 it was decided to delay its presentation until the state visit of the French President and Prime Minister to Russia was finished. This was done to prevent the French and Russians from co-ordinating their response. It was presented when the French delegation had left Russia and was at sea.

The Serbs agreed to all of the Austrian demands bar one. The Austrians were so surprised by the humility of the Serbian reply that the foreign minister hid it for 2 days from the Germans. The Kaiser commented that the reply was “a great moral victory for Vienna, but with it, every reason for war disappears."

28 July Austria rejected the Serbian reply and declared war. The Russians ordered a partial mobilisation of their troops against Austria in defence of Serbia. 
29 July The Austrians shelled Belgrade. 
30 July Russia ordered general mobilisation. Crisis escalated. British attempts at mediation failed. 
31 July The Germans presented an ultimatum to Russia to halt her mobilisation within 12 hours. She also presented one to France in which she was asked to promise to stay neutral and to hand over border fortresses as guarantee. (the Germans knew the French would never agree!) 
It must be remembered that once the military machine mobilised the generals took over from the diplomats. James Joll wrote “once the Russians had mobilised the military machine took over from the diplomats. 

In German military thinking, once she was at war with Russia, war with France was unavoidable. The Schlieffen plan now came into operation. This involved a concentration of German forces on an attack on France. Delay could be fatal.

1 August Germany declared war on Russia. France ordered general mobilisation. 
2 August Germany demanded from the Belgians the right to send troops through their country. The Belgians refused. 
3 August Germany declared war on France and its troops entered Belgium. The British sent an ultimatum to the Germans calling for the evacuation of Belgium. 
4 August Britain declared war on Germany. 

World War One had begun.



Lloyd George later remarked that at this time Europe “stumbled and staggered into war”


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I know we're straying a little off topic here, but Germany didn't start the war though they were pretty much the last man standing at the end...And in doing so, ended up with the tab.



Germany didn't start WW1 ?
Your understanding of history is different to mine (and everyone else)

http://www.causeeffect.org/articles/historypart2.pdf

08-03 - Germany declares war on France. 
-1914 
08-04 - Britain informs Germany that a condition of war will exist between
-1914 Britain and Germany--if Germany does not agree to promptly 
stop trespassing its army through Belgium. After Britain receives no 
reply, Britain declares war on Germany (i.e., ref. 8-4-1914). 

05-07 - Treaty of Versailles submitted to the German delegation. 
-1919 
Strangely; it seems to have taken the “Allies” almost 6 long months 
to decide what to demand from the defeated Axis. Perhaps that 
unusually great time was required, because the Allies argued among 
themselves as to how to the divide up the “spoils”. ((A tough imposed 
treaty, itself, would have seemed justifiable—since Germany had 
recently set such pattern by the ultra-tough terms they imposed on 
Soviet Russia. And Germany, earlier, had imposed tough terms on 
France (after the Franco-Prussian war). Hitler’s future argument (that 
the harsh terms of Versailles’ dwarfed anything Germany, etc., had 
ever imposed) --is nonsense!)) 

You'll see that the imposition of tough terms on a defeated nation has its roots in history.
If Germany had won WW1 do you seriously think that they would have shown any clemency to the defeated allies? 

John


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 5, 2011)

Readie said:


> Germany didn't start WW1 ?
> Your understanding of history is different to mine (and everyone else)


 
In the days when historians used to speak at length RGP Taylor made a programme 
about the start of WW1. He offered the theory that the problem revolved around the word Mobilization.

To France and Russia mobilization meant go to the front and get ready, to the Germans it meant
go to a railhead and invade. There was no scope in the Schliefen plan to have thousands of soldiers standing around.

Back on topic I would fly for the allies on diver patrols, fly the fastest planes, defend the homeland, get a heros welcome in the bar but you dont have to kill anyone.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> If it had been me in charge, there would have been no Germany after the end of the armistice



Good luck - can you also present you battle plan as to 

a, Push out German from France (where they had strong position still)
b, How to cross Rhine..

Thank you.

Very easy to dissolve Germany from armchair I say. But by 1918, the British and French were at least as "spent" as German.. That is said, German had no hope of winning war no longer after the failure of their 1918 offensive.. it would, on different hand, rrequire years to actually loose it for them.



parsifal said:


> The run of events that led to war were as follows:



WW1 had simple reason. France could not sit tight on its ass which was handed to her in 1870 - a war that she started, and lost. She could not accept being no longer the greatest continental power.. so they spent next 40 years building a military alliance around Germany - fatally this included Russia, and Russia and Austria (as well as Turkey) had long term rivalry in Balkans. This was no problem until Bismarckian allience worked in Europe - Germany, Austria and Russia being uneasy friends. French diplomacy skillfully ruined this allience.

The most imminent cause of World War I was Russian mobilisation, refusing to stop it, meddling with the Balkans. Princip's terrorist group was funded by Russian, well known.. Sarajeve just lit the fuse. Otherwise it would stay a small Serbian - Austro-Hungarian war. The French already packed the building with gunpowder barrels... 

Letters exchange between the Czar and Kaiser are very interesting. First World War.com - Primary Documents - The "Willy-Nicky" Telegrams


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2011)

Germany could never win WW1 for more reasons than you selectively choose TJ

The Naval blockade Allied Naval Blockade

More than anything it was the British naval blockade which kept the Central Powers from getting sufficient amounts of ammunition, food, medical supplies, and so on to continue the war past 1916-1917. If it hadn't been for this it's probable that either the Germans would have had a breakthrough (i.e. capturing Paris and forcing France to surrender), or that the war would have ended with an inconclusive armistice (one that didn't really recognize either side as the victor).

Having said that the blockade enabled the western Allies to match the Germans, and once the U.S. got involved the amount of material support made it impossible for the Germans to continue the fight, not even their reinforcements from the Eastern Front after Russia surrendered were enough.

The other reasons are in this essay. Why did Germany lose World War One? | Socyberty

John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

Tante

I dont dispute that Britain and France were exhausted, but they were not starving, they had largely defeated the blockade affecting them (the U-Boats). Germany on the other hand had not overcome their blockade.

As to Britain and France being on their knees, just like Germany, they sure had a funny way of showing that. Having defeated Ludendorfs final throw of the dice, with Germany unable to feed even their frontline armies, the allies were already busily destroying the German frontline defences on the western front, before the arrival of large numbers of Americans. Those American formations that were in the line were poorly trained and not in a position to immediately undertake heavy operations. They were mostly farmed out and given "instruction" on techniques learned so far. By wars end they were attacking independantly, and were going to tip the balance.

Had the war progressed into 1919, the british were going to employ massed tanks on a sustained scale, properly organized (for 1918 ) and provided with better maintenance support. Cambrai had faltered because of a lack of manpower (occuring just after the Somme) and because of a massive breakdown rate. The Germans had no real answer to the American build up, the allied technology based counteroffensive. Black week saw the near total collapse of the german armies in the west, so i dont know where you get this notion that Germany was not defeated....rings very like the myths and lies that sprang up just after the war....."we wewrent defeated, we were just betrayed". No you were not betrayed, your armies were in defeat, and that was achieved by the allies, not by some mythical 5th column.

As for Russia causing the war, or france not sitting on their ass, Austria determined that it wanted to wage a war of agression against Serbia, rejected the accession by Serbia to all but one Austrian of the demands deliberately misled the French and the Russian delegations. Serbia was a Russian ally, so any move against Serbia is goiing to attract a russian resposne. Same for france. I dont deny the French were dirty about the Franco Prussian war, bu they were closely allied to Russia, and Britain had given a long standing gurantee to Belgium since Napoleon. All these were known facts, yet Germany nevertheless chose to attack anyway. Tell me again Russia and france were responsible for the war. Who invaded who???????? What you are saying is, "why didnt the allies sit back and just let the central powers have their way with serbia?". Sorry, it doesnt work that way with allies working as allies. 

And all this doesnt get around the fact that Germany andf Austria, allies of their own, fired the first shots, caused everyone to react by their reckless acts, and comitted overtly agressive acts like invading Belgium....which make them guilty of initiating a war of aggression. Paint your story any way you want, you cannot erase that fact, and thats what should damn both Austria and Germany to the scrap heap of history in my opinion.

As to how I would break up Germany, the model for that exists in the post wwii occupation of the country. instead of occupying just parts, the allies should have occupied the whole country, dissolved whatever pissant government was in place maintained military administration until the country was rebuilt, the general staff dissolved, and the scourge of German militarism excorcised. It was possible 25 years later, after unconditional surrender was achieved, why not in 1918. What was needed was US co-operation, but they would have none of this. As you say the remaining allies were too weakened by German aggression at that stage to complete the job themselves. The US needed to be part of that plan, but instead wanted to follow the path of a weak and inneffective treaty....create a whole stack of non-viable nations around a nation that whilst defeated, had benn allowed to play the charade of not having been beaten.


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2011)

Paint your story any way you want, you cannot erase that fact, and thats what should damn both Austria and Germany to the scrap heap of history in my opinion.

The German aggression in WW1, the interwar years, and in WW2 all combine to do just that.
There are no excuses however you choose to rewrite history Tante Ju

John


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 5, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I know we're straying a little off topic here, but Germany didn't start the war though they were pretty much the last man standing at the end...And in doing so, ended up with the tab.


Exactly. Also, if one chooses to read the treaty begining to end, it guaranteed the making of a second world war.. anyways I'd fly for Germany.


----------



## Readie (Sep 5, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Exactly. Also, if one chooses to read the treaty begining to end, it guaranteed the making of a second world war.. anyways I'd fly for Germany.




The ToV does not. Hitler made it his excuse for war and genocide.

John


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

My opinion: The treaty was a failure because it was too easy on the germans. From ther, the makings of the second war were all of germany's making (well, except for Allied complacency). They chose to rearm, chose to abrogate the treaties that they had accepted, they gobbled up country after country, installed a meglomaniac as their leader, planned and prepred for war. None of these were forced on Germany. they chose this path. What the allies were guilty of was, firstly to trust germany and secondly to lack the will to enforce the weak treaty that they had helped create.

This , strangely enough has at least passing relevance to the topic. By following an essentially opportunitic pathway, the germans failed to plan and prepre for a long war the second time around. This affected their outputs and productivity and damned them to fighting a "poor mans war" the second time around. The allies prepred their nations for the long term haul and reaped benefits, eventually, from that approach. 

none of this would have happened if unconditional surrender had been demanded the first time around. And if it hadnt been demanded in the 2nd war, we would have had to do it all again a third time around. And there are signs that even after all this effort and blood there are still a few people within Germany and a few more around it, that want to allow the world to make the same mistakes allover again by trying to argue that germany was not to blame. Twice Germany has been found to be the guilty party, surely that should be enough to prove their war guilt beyond any doubt, and what they were capable of in their past. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of Germans in modern Germany want nothing to do with this sort of platitudes.

After the second Punic war, the romans decided to destroy Carthage, and as legend has it, plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood. perhaps the Romans of that time knew something that we have forgotten


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Tante
> 
> I dont dispute that Britain and France were exhausted, but they were not starving, they had largely defeated the blockade affecting them (the U-Boats). Germany on the other hand had not overcome their blockade.



Germany, unlike Britain was not very reliant on oversea import. France was not, too, but much of France was occupied or devastated during war. German internal supply problem was rooted in men and animal taken from farm. They, however, secured vast area of Soviet-Russia by 1918.. a very different situation than say 1917. And Germany was not starving during war - this came after war, as result of post-war Allied blockade. 



parsifal said:


> As to Britain and France being on their knees, just like Germany, they sure had a funny way of showing that. Having defeated Ludendorfs final throw of the dice, with Germany unable to feed even their frontline armies, the allies were already busily destroying the German frontline defences on the western front, before the arrival of large numbers of Americans. Those American formations that were in the line were poorly trained and not in a position to immediately undertake heavy operations. They were mostly farmed out and given "instruction" on techniques learned so far. By wars end they were attacking independantly, and were going to tip the balance.



It is simple fact of history that Allied attacks did not achieve much - they pushed back German to their starting lines of their offensive. Just like German offensive earlier secured as much territory. 
Study maps of conflict. Highly recommend for you. Western frontline was on the Belgium-France border.

I would like source "Germany unable to feed even their frontline armies". Very interest claim. Needs of army, food delivered. Information like that to make it look like more history, than funny thing.



parsifal said:


> Had the war progressed into 1919, the british were _going to_ employ massed tanks on a sustained scale, properly organized (for 1918 ) and provided with better maintenance support. Cambrai had faltered because of a lack of manpower (occuring just after the Somme) and because of a massive breakdown rate. The Germans had no real answer to the American build up, the allied technology based counteroffensive. Black week saw the near total collapse of the german armies in the west, so i dont know where you get this notion that Germany was not defeated....rings very like the myths and lies that sprang up just after the war....."we wewrent defeated, we were just betrayed". No you were not betrayed, your armies were in defeat, and that was achieved by the allies, not by some mythical 5th column.



So, why did not they? Why did not just break the German line, instead of push back a couple of ten kilometer. Why still on Belgian border after four years? "Pipe dream", simple... could, would - It was a long way to Berlin. Everybody knew. The French were spent, morally. French soldier would die for France, but not in attack in no sense - French army rebelled in 1916, and refused to attack. They would defend, but not attack. But, you are right, if complete victory would prevent World War II happen. If, no else reason, because it would take the 1950s to actually reach Berlin at pace like real achieved 1918.. consider how difficult it was to cross even a few miles, I can make imagination if they could ever cross river like Rheine. A very difficult task, even 1945.



parsifal said:


> As for Russia causing the war, or france not sitting on their ass, Austria determined that it wanted to wage a war of agression against Serbia, rejected the accession by Serbia to all but one Austrian of the demands deliberately misled the French and the Russian delegations. Serbia was a Russian ally, so any move against Serbia is goiing to attract a russian resposne. Same for france.



Austria determined it would not smile and standby to Russian paid Serb terrorists assassinating members of it royal family (who, btw, was very pro-slavic within empire, against austro-hungarian dualism). The reason was he become target was he was in way of panslavic movement - all slavs are brothers, Russia being bigger brother who protect little ones, and just stay for a while when doing so..  

Austria situation with Serbia was analoge to British involvement in war against Afganistan. You damn Austria for making steps against state for doing what now call terrorist harboring but do the same thing now with much less involvement and no ultimatum.
Serbia had option to choose to cooperate and stop anti-Austrian movements. Read Austrian ultimatum. You have not. All it asked to stop anti-Austrian nationalistic propaganda, stop terrorist organisation, and let Austrian judical authority present during trials of culprits of terrorists. There was no territory claim. There was no disarm your army request or such. Serbia refused, because Russia backed her. Both Serbia, and Russia know it means war with Austria, and if Russia enters, Germany will enter too. They choose the second scenario. I find it hard to blame, for Germans, not waiting stupidly until Tsarist army to mobilise, then French army to mobilise, and attack them. Instead, hit them first. Proper strategy, when you are big country surrounded by many smaller enemy who gang up on you, or are about to. Defeat them one by one. There is no law anywhere when you are about to be attacked, you have to sit down, with naive smile on your face.

There was way to avoid war, and this means, accept Austrian ulitmatum, which would not hurt Serbian soverignity too much (compare: US and UK lead coalition recently attacked and overrun Afganistan and Iraq for _suspect_ of harboring terrorists), and Russia stop mobilisation of her army. They were told in clear term by Kaiser Wilhelm this will lead war if not stop. 

If blame needs placed, it is at the doorstep of Tsar Nikolas II who wanted to solve internal political problems with glorious war. Such is the way of all dictators since long time.



parsifal said:


> I dont deny the French were dirty about the Franco Prussian war, bu they were closely allied to Russia, and Britain had given a long standing gurantee to Belgium since Napoleon. All these were known facts, yet Germany nevertheless chose to attack anyway. Tell me again Russia and france were responsible for the war. Who invaded who???????? What you are saying is, "why didnt the allies sit back and just let the central powers have their way with serbia?". Sorry, it doesnt work that way with allies working as allies.



Yes, Germany was ally of Austria. Russia was mobilising against Austria. Basic - you damn German and Austrian for not being stupid letting them fire first shot. In no law one who is about to be attacked has to wait until attack actually commences, he can defend himself against agressor - in this case this was Russia.



> And all this doesnt get around the fact that Germany andf Austria, allies of their own, fired the first shots, caused everyone to react by their reckless acts, and comitted overtly agressive acts like invading Belgium....which make them guilty of initiating a war of aggression. Paint your story any way you want, you cannot erase that fact, and thats what should damn both Austria and Germany to the scrap heap of history in my opinion.



And who buys England entered war _because of Belgium_? England entered war because it suited her, because she feared her colonies, which she overrun with military force just like any other invader before - Swiss, German, Russian, French, you name it.

I read World War I newspapers. Actually, I must say, they present more respecting view of war than your the old war propaganda you repeat. They have respect of enemy. They do not blend facts, or place blame. "Scrap heap of history" - this is where opinion like this belongs. You may like to place blame, but it is without facts, it is without moral highground. I suggest you study to work of Professor Blackadder! 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk37TD_08eA_

It is aimed to place blame, not to understand events that lead to World War I. Great power of WW1 stood on a gunpowder magazine. And this magazine was largely built by the French. Russia was just careless kid who went to play with matches in it.



parsifal said:


> As to how I would break up Germany, the model for that exists in the post wwii occupation of the country. instead of occupying just parts, the allies should have occupied the whole country, dissolved whatever pissant government was in place maintained military administration until the country was rebuilt, the general staff dissolved, and the scourge of German militarism excorcised. It was possible 25 years later, after unconditional surrender was achieved, why not in 1918.



Because, in 1918, not like in 1945, there were an intact and effective German army, on foreign soil. With many million men, who had strong opinion of this suggestion. 
Pipe dream of humiliating enemy - just that. Needs more to realize... realization which was, after four years of war, impossible for the entent. Even more "hawk" Enente leaders realized that, so such is the terms of WW1 peace treaty. 

Turkey was far less state in power, but were far more successfull by simple hinting of resistance. By 1918 central power undoubtedly lost war, but were long way from unconditional surrender, or occupation.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> My opinion: The treaty was a failure because it was too easy on the germans. From ther, the makings of the second war were all of germany's making (well, except for Allied complacency). They chose to rearm, chose to abrogate the treaties that they had accepted, they gobbled up country after country, installed a meglomaniac as their leader, planned and prepred for war. None of these were forced on Germany. they chose this path. What the allies were guilty of was, firstly to trust germany and secondly to lack the will to enforce the weak treaty that they had helped create.
> 
> This , strangely enough has at least passing relevance to the topic. By following an essentially opportunitic pathway, the germans failed to plan and prepre for a long war the second time around. This affected their outputs and productivity and damned them to fighting a "poor mans war" the second time around. The allies prepred their nations for the long term haul and reaped benefits, eventually, from that approach.
> 
> ...



I think you are simply a German-hater. Why, I do not know. But words like "plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood" shows you are little more than a hate filled man, spilling out hate on this board. I am not sure why moderators allow it. I tried to look at it different, as different opinion, perhaps different culture, but it seems you are only hear to give room to such feeling of your, no matter what the topic.. I cannot read any topic interests me because of this display of hate anymore... I try to read up artylerry, some very good posts, actually, but only parsifal keep going on how uttless idiots German were because of their 17 cm long distance gun.. I keep readin Erich Hartman topic, again you parsifal starts tirade about how every German soldier was without honor.. now I read this topic, again it get side lead by your trolling and World War I propaganda repeat about "Hun" and Hun evil ways. I am very bored with this. You simply seem to exist because of your hatred, and this board is your vessel of channel this hatred. My ancestor fought German, for liberty, but I do not understand such hate even. Yet I can see history - which I love - in balanced way. Understand why country this or that did this or that. I like to understand the reason. I like to discuss. But then, always same guy, come and posts:

"Because they are evil, do not you get it?"

I see again and again that you have nothing more to communicate, than hate speech, put into various forms, rationalised in various matter. What is the reason, parsifal, why are you behaving so hateful? Actual, I am more interesting hearing of this reason than your dreams of doing something that will never more than pipe dream of few extremeist nationalist. There are such in every country. But lucky, very few. There is Klu Klux Klan in US, British "defence" nazis now in UK streets, neo nazi rallies in Germany, Russia, Slovakia.. I think you are one of them, those who spread hatered, and incite hate, place blame and downplay long enemy nation. But I can find only one thing common in these people. Not ideology. But frustration.

Thankfully, nations of Europe reconciled, and learned not to step on each other feet by now..


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 5, 2011)

ps. In my opinion, all the great wars between post-napoleonic era until the end of World War II was result of France not being able to swallow to be the "second fiddler" in Europe, the new situation that created by unification of Germany. A new centralized state emerged that was greater in populace, and resource, and equally well centralised as France. France that was up to that the "great evil" of Europe, driving all European wars in past 300 years since Italian wars to Napoleon. French ambition to be the first was at the root of all great wars: France was not accepting situation of great powers. It was turned when Schumann and de Gaulle realized it is simply no longer realistic political ambition. Accepting that lead to liveable compromise after 1945, and birth EU. But it took three times invasion of France to them to get the point.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 5, 2011)

Tante

I do not hate Germans. I have family that are germans. But I do not forget which country was responsible for two world wars, and ultimately which country caused the deaths of roughly 50 million people, including roughly 10 million of their own (thats not my judgement, its the judgement of others, I just happen to agree with it). Thats distasteful i know, but it wasnt me who attempted to raise Versailles as an unequal and unfair treaty, or me that attempted to protray germany as the innocent victim in the war

I am not a neo nazi, or any other extremist that you care to try and pin on me or imply that i am. I have family and love of country and military service, I believe in the ideals of democracy and fair trial (which is a major difference between you and i. whereas, I may not agree with what you say, I would defend unto death your right to say that, you may not like what i say, but rather than defend my right to say it, would attempt to use the system to gag me somehow....so much for your belief and support of free speech and democracy IMO) . I defended the rights and freedoms of my country, and am proud that my country does not suffer so many of the afflictions that hound the nations of Europe thes days. I have grandfathers and countrymen that paid a heavy price for our complacency and german aggression, so I am sorry if that offends you. I have many friends who are holocaust survivors (or their descendants) , and they say that I am a defender of their rights to be heard, and the protection of what is left to them (but no I am not a nazi hunter either....just a voice that speaks for them and knows some of them). This includes making sure that their torturers, the reason for their suffering, are made never to forget. I do this because the Europe you so love, and think utopian has forgotten the price of the peace they now enjoy, and try hard to twist the truth of the past. 

But I do not allow this to taint my judgement of the technical or apolitical issues. Looking at artillery, or aircraft, or campaigns requires a more analytical approach to that. But neither do i subscribe to the view that all things German are as near to perfect technically or operationally as is humanly possible. I applaud those parts of things german that were successful, and criticise those that are not so good. I do the same for all th nationalities we talk about. it just so happens that in the post war era so much hype and tripe has been generated about the German experiences, that it becomes necessary to correct these propaganda pieces again and again. I cant help that it you find that offensive or distasteful. I'm not going anywhere, and Im not asking you to go anywhere either, but if you find my comments so distasteful, then dont react, dont read them. Because you certainly wont stop me no matter how much you demonstrate against me. And people will decide for themselves whether they want to read what I say, or not. Thats not up to you my friend. And the mods will decide whether I am in bvreach of the codes that drive this place (I can tell you now we are both in breach because we are so far off topic its not funny....but then I was not the one to start accusing others of being a neo-nazi or a member of the national front or a member of the klu klux Klan either) 

I do not believe that countries should be easily forgiven for that kind of crime, or allowed to explain away or discount the misdeeds done in the name of their nation. Germany has many misdeeds that she must be held to account for, and for a very long time because of the magnitude of her crimes , but unlike some I dont allow that murderous past to be forgotten or denied. Forgiven, yes, forgotten not for 1000 years, as long as the claims made by some of its leaders to dominate and terrorize the rest of Europe.

Are other countries guilty of waging aggressive wars? you bet. Has Britain and france waged aggressive wars, yes of course they have, but not so much in recent history. Its a question of degree, however. Just because france has aspirations for European dominance is a world away from actually attempting to carry it out using illegal means, or means likley to cause mass destruction. Looking after national interests is acceptable. Using limited force to achieve a greater good is acceptabl;e. Using maximum force to counter pure evil is acceptable. But using your states power to initiat evil, or mass murder, or aggressive war, is not acceptable. and there lies the difference. 

When your national interests are perceived to be total domination of your neighbours, mass murder on an industrial scale, the instigation of aggressive offensive wars, thats where i draw the line. Were the french responsible for waging offensive wars of mass destruction against other european nations, were the british since 1900? no, and No. Were the Germans responsible for waging wars of aggression and mass destruction in the 20thcentury. Yes, twice in fact. Should they be allowed to forget that. No. Should we forget that. No. I have 50 million reasons to support that position, which is why I can say what i say and not draw too much ire from the controllers of this site (however we are so far off topic now that we will be told to get back on topic very soon i expect...I am ready and keen to do that any time, incidentally). I am not vilifying the germans as a people when I remind them of their forefathers crimes or the crimes committed in the name of their nation. I am standing for the truth about what Germany, as a nation is guilty of, and will never resile from that position. That kind of clarity and truthfulness is actually healthy for the modern Germany, because as a nation they will never make the same mistake again whilst they are not allowed to forget or rewrite their past 

You should learn to deal with that, then we can move on.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 6, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Germany, unlike Britain was not very reliant on oversea import. France was not, too, but much of France was occupied or devastated during war. German internal supply problem was rooted in men and animal taken from farm. They, however, secured vast area of Soviet-Russia by 1918.. a very different situation than say 1917. And Germany was not starving during war - this came after war, as result of post-war Allied blockade.



Complete fabrication. 

Germany suffered worse from the blockade than the UK ever did. See Chickering's history of the German Army on how rationing affected front line soldiers from 1917 onwards.



> It is simple fact of history that Allied attacks did not achieve much - they pushed back German to their starting lines of their offensive. Just like German offensive earlier secured as much territory.
> Study maps of conflict. Highly recommend for you. Western frontline was on the Belgium-France border.



Your buying into the widely discredited stab-in-the-back myth, much repeated in Germany in 1919, again in the mids 20s, again in 1933 and then by far-right elements post 1945. 

The Allied final offensive pushed back the German front line 40-60 miles in two weeks, with little indication that Germany could stop it. 

The German army was crippled in terms of morale (offensive spirit particularly) as well as suffering material deficiencies. Simply put, Germany could not sustain its army in the field and the high command knew it. 


Germany's allies vanished over the four months prior to armistice. First the Bulgarians, then the Ottomans, then the Austro-Hungarians.



> And who buys England entered war _because of Belgium_? England entered war because it suited her, because she feared her colonies, which she overrun with military force just like any other invader before - Swiss, German, Russian, French, you name it.



Which English colonies were affected or even threatened by Germany? England entered the war to satisfy her European treaty obligations, which in turn satisfied her Europe strategy of the previous 250 years: to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe.



> Because, in 1918, not like in 1945, there were an intact and effective German army, on foreign soil. With many million men, who had strong opinion of this suggestion.



Ah, truth by repetition. 

The Dolchstoss legend has been so widely discredited its a wonder that you'd bring it up at all.


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

Tante Ju, 
You have lost the argument as soon as you start offensive name calling as your credibility goes into free fall.
John


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> ps. In my opinion, all the great wars between post-napoleonic era until the end of World War II was result of France not being able to swallow to be the "second fiddler" in Europe, the new situation that created by unification of Germany. A new centralized state emerged that was greater in populace, and resource, and equally well centralised as France. France that was up to that the "great evil" of Europe, driving all European wars in past 300 years since Italian wars to Napoleon. French ambition to be the first was at the root of all great wars: France was not accepting situation of great powers. It was turned when Schumann and de Gaulle realized it is simply no longer realistic political ambition. Accepting that lead to liveable compromise after 1945, and birth EU. But it took three times invasion of France to them to get the point.



Ummm. 
France had her imperial aspirations ended at Waterloo.
Every European country was ambitious, its just that some were more successful in Empire creation than others.
The French were leading figures in the post war Treaty of Rome and have chosen to live within Europe in peace.
If you look at all the alliances / treaties within Europe over the centuries we have all been in bed with each other at some stage.
That's the biggest irony of all.
John


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 6, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Tante
> 
> I do not hate Germans. I have family that are germans. But I do not forget which country was responsible for two world wars, and ultimately which country caused the deaths of roughly 50 million people, including roughly 10 million of their own (thats not my judgement, its the judgement of others, I just happen to agree with it). Thats distasteful i know, but it wasnt me who attempted to raise Versailles as an unequal and unfair treaty, or me that attempted to protray germany as the innocent victim in the war



Sir, you are dead wrong on all account. Causes of World War I has great literature, and few have extremist views like yours anymore. The overwhelm majority of historians understand these reasons - France's wish for revenge, build up of two great coalitions, pan slavic movements destabilise Balkans, English German naval race etc. What you present simply ignores these, has vision of tunnel. Historians discredit your view. 

You keep twist and simplify that history to propaganda piece. What you argue is Versailles was a correct treaty, because you connect it to deaths in World War II. All fault of Germany of course. I fail see, however, how is roughly 15 million victims of Japanese - Chinese war has anything to do with Hitler. That war started even before there was German army, LOL. And how do you blame Germany for 250 000 victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in American Japanese war - again total no connection with European war, wheter you want to blame that all on Germans (which I am far more ready to believe than the propaganda about cause of World War I). How are Italian death in World War II you blame on Germany? Hmm. Just few examples how you propagadize things for hate..

Your claim that Germany was sole responsible for World War I is war propaganda. It has been discredit complete by generations of historians, and now few believe in such extreme, biased, and simple version of history of World War I, where there is one bad guy, the Hun, and good guys stood up against. This was WW1 Entente propaganda garbage, and I feel pity for you if you believe it.



parsifal said:


> After the second Punic war, the romans decided to destroy Carthage, and as legend has it, plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood. perhaps the Romans of that time knew something that we have forgotten



I would like believe you. But you have stated your wish pure and simple above. Your mask fallen, and now you try to put it back. But I do not forget what your desire of ploughing one country with salt means. You propagate here extermination of race as good solution. Keep dreaming.



parsifal said:


> I am not a neo nazi, or any other extremist that you care to try and pin on me or imply that i am.



Your words sound like one. When one propagates . Opinion of events - sure, discuss. But when I put your record together, when I see in every topic you go on accusation of German and German only, this BS about 'collective guilt' (yes, nice demokrat you are) and especially now you say that you find it tempting solution to demolish "Carthage", exterminate populace, sell them as slaves, and plough land with salt so that nothing grows, and dream about how this would be to be applied to Germans, then you will have EXTREME hard time me believe you as a not hater, and a democrat, and not an extremist. Your own words were weighted against you. I suggest instead of try to "explain" you should apologize.



parsifal said:


> I have family and love of country and military service, I believe in the ideals of democracy and fair trial (which is a major difference between you and i. whereas, I may not agree with what you say, I would defend unto death your right to say that, you may not like what i say, but rather than defend my right to say it, would attempt to use the system to gag me somehow....so much for your belief and support of free speech and democracy IMO) .



Like I said: I would believe if you have not display pure bloodthirst and advocated razing one country. I do no believe people who say one thing, clear manner, and then deny it. You said it what you said. Maybe you regret now say it, but not what you said I am sure. I am also sure that if somebody would start talk about how it would be nice to raze YOUR country would create some 'controvery'. And I think you just love that controvery creating, because then people pay attention to you. 

In most country, freedom of speech is not without limits. Hate speech is illegal and is strongly punished by law. This is the democracy, there are rules, and the apply to everyone. What you descirbe is anarchos. Even if you do not like rules, most have accepted this as standard of good living together, where you excercise rights without hhurting other people rights. Nobody gave you "carte blanche" to insult other people, judge them, or present twisted hate propaganda, that is NOT your "democractic right". It is not democratic right to keep arranging the facts, silent about some, so the goal is to incite hate or place you in moral high ground.

And do not play the martyr, nazi sympatizer David Irving also try this. "Oh I was gagged.. oh there is no free speech". Trial means your words will be weighted against you. You have put up your defence, but I find you guilty of hate speech. You have went far away from simply express opinion - we can discuss cause of World War I, in topic about World War I. We can even discuss "guilty nations" - in its own topic. But stop kidnap threads with this again and again. You seem to be in conflict with a lot of people on this board, so perhaps - time to think really hard.



parsifal said:


> I defended the rights and freedoms of my country, and am proud that my country does not suffer so many of the afflictions that hound the nations of Europe thes days. I have grandfathers and countrymen that paid a heavy price for our complacency and german aggression, so I am sorry if that offends you. I have many friends who are holocaust survivors (or their descendants) , and they say that I am a defender of their rights to be heard, and the protection of what is left to them (but no I am not a nazi hunter either....just a voice that speaks for them and knows some of them). This includes making sure that their torturers, the reason for their suffering, are made never to forget. I do this because the Europe you so love, and think utopian has forgotten the price of the peace they now enjoy, and try hard to twist the truth of the past.



Yes, thank you, nobody asked you to be our judge or mentor. Europeans can judge themselves. We do not need people who grant themselves this right, especially if they have plenty of "butter behind their ears". I think Europe has gone further than everybody to deal with dark issues of the past. So did America - there were many problems with civil rights, racisms, things like that for US. But it is also exemplary how that great country dealt with those problems, on its own, by its own people, by its own long democratic institus.YOUR COUNTRY HAS NOT. So clean up your own porte, before you go advise others how to clean up theirs...



parsifal said:


> But I do not allow this to taint my judgement of the technical or apolitical issues. Looking at artillery, or aircraft, or campaigns requires a more analytical approach to that. But neither do i subscribe to the view that all things German are as near to perfect technically or operationally as is humanly possible. I applaud those parts of things german that were successful, and criticise those that are not so good.





parsifal said:


> it just so happens that in the post war era so much hype and tripe has been generated about the German experiences, that it becomes necessary to correct these propaganda pieces again and again.



I see point yours. Yes, perhaps German military prowness overstated by many; however, understating it is equal mistake. I also see that trying to avoid one extreme, you fall into other. Equal unhealthy.



parsifal said:


> I do the same for all th nationalities we talk about.



No, you simple do not.



parsifal said:


> I cant help that it you find that offensive or distasteful. I'm not going anywhere, and Im not asking you to go anywhere either, but if you find my comments so distasteful, then dont react, dont read them. Because you certainly wont stop me no matter how much you demonstrate against me. And people will decide for themselves whether they want to read what I say, or not. Thats not up to you my friend. And the mods will decide whether I am in bvreach of the codes that drive this place (I can tell you now we are both in breach because we are so far off topic its not funny....but then I was not the one to start accusing others of being a neo-nazi or a member of the national front or a member of the klu klux Klan either)
> 
> You started (again, like in many threads before) this guilt BS and placing the blame. Do not blame others for having strong opinion about this. Your provocative posts attract response. If you wish to discuss the "German guilt", I suggest you open your own thread for it. And not pollute every thread with this..


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 6, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I do not believe that countries should be easily forgiven for that kind of crime, or allowed to explain away or discount the misdeeds done in the name of their nation. Germany has many misdeeds that she must be held to account for, and for a very long time because of the magnitude of her crimes , but unlike some I dont allow that murderous past to be forgotten or denied. Forgiven, yes, forgotten not for 1000 years, as long as the claims made by some of its leaders to dominate and terrorize the rest of Europe.



I think you are pointing finger because until you do so, you feel that you do not have to talk about your own country misdeeds. When you start talking about those things too, I believe you. Not until. Its always the most guilty one who is loudest.



> Are other countries guilty of waging aggressive wars? you bet. Has Britain and france waged aggressive wars, yes of course they have, but not so much in recent history. Its a question of degree, however. Just because france has aspirations for European dominance is a world away from actually attempting to carry it out using illegal means, or means likley to cause mass destruction. Looking after national interests is acceptable. Using limited force to achieve a greater good is acceptabl;e. Using maximum force to counter pure evil is acceptable. But using your states power to initiat evil, or mass murder, or aggressive war, is not acceptable. and there lies the difference. When your national interests are perceived to be total domination of your neighbours, mass murder on an industrial scale, the instigation of aggressive offensive wars, thats where i draw the line.



And your point is? Justify why you ruin thread after thread with this guilty nonsense? Who asked you to do this? I see thread after thread taken off topic, the common nominator is always you. That is bad enough, but to me, continue hate propaganda and this 'how much I want to destroy Germany like Roman did to Carthage' is where you VERY stepped over the line. This must stop. Do not cry for your democratic rights, 



> Were the french responsible for waging offensive wars of mass destruction against other european nations, were the british since 1900? no, and No.



Why only "other european nations" and why only from 1900? Waging offensive wars of mass destruction in other places against other people do not count? Or do you consider these people not to have the same rights as europeans?



> Were the Germans responsible for waging wars of aggression and mass destruction in the 20thcentury. Yes, twice in fact. Should they be allowed to forget that. No. Should we forget that. No.



Yes. We should also not let others to cover behind these historic facts.



> I am not vilifying the germans as a people when I remind them of their forefathers crimes or the crimes committed in the name of their nation. I am standing for the truth about what Germany, as a nation is guilty of, and will never resile from that position.



In simple terms, you are set out to provoke trouble, play a role nobody asked you to do so. And derail treads, again and again. 



> That kind of clarity and truthfulness is actually healthy for the modern Germany, because as a nation they will never make the same mistake again whilst they are not allowed to forget or rewrite their past.



My opinion that modern Germany go into lenght like no other not to forget into past. What I say to you, is when your country does even half that to face its own past, then we might talk about you having any moral right to judge others or play their 'mentor'. Because right now, it is somebody who cannot write try to teach is how to write.. so no thank you. And hate speech is not tolerated. Be it against German, French, whoever. If you expect people stand by and watch you communicate hate speech, you are very wrong, sir.

ps. I am sorry to take this long reply, but this hate drivel really makes me angry. I do not tolerate hate ideology in any form, directed for anyone.. hate ideology is reason for all suffering. If parsifal wants to discuss his, he can take to private message.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

All I can suggest tante, is that if you feel so offended by the contents of my posts, then dont read them, dont respond to them. Its not up to you judge what i say, you are welcome to post your own comments and facts as you see them. i am not going to back away or change the way i post, some people enjoy them, some people think they are quite reasonable. So if im not going to change, and you find them offensive, perhaps you shouldnt put yourself in that position in the first place.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 6, 2011)

@parsifal. I think it is good suggestion. I put you on ignore. Then I save myself the trouble of your very greatly concerning speech. It seems waste of time to spend time reading badly biased, badly research and hateful posts. I keep seeing that more and more people start to come to this conclusion. Thank you for making it easier decision for me, too.



Jabberwocky said:


> Complete fabrication.
> 
> Germany suffered worse from the blockade than the UK ever did. See Chickering's history of the German Army on how rationing affected front line soldiers from 1917 onwards.



I am not knowledgable of writings of Chikering. Perhaps you can highlight what facts he has. Maybe then it will be more clear what you call 'complete fabriqueation'. As for UK - nation relied on import of food. Germany not. By 1917, British food stock was down to few weeks of reserve. Well known fact.



Jabberwocky said:


> Your buying into the widely discredited stab-in-the-back myth, much repeated in Germany in 1919, again in the mids 20s, again in 1933 and then by far-right elements post 1945.



No. You try to mix up stab-in-the-back myth, which goes simply that jews, bolshewiks etc. undermined Germany by conspiracy etc. This is myth of course. But it is fact that German collapsed politcally (both foreign, ie. Allies lost, and internal). Internal problems did not help war making capacity, nor did mutiny of navy. I do not think they are sole reason, but in already bad situation - Allies giving up, hope for a victorious conclusion of war was went, it may have been final push on scale. That is said, Army was still intact and well capable of effective resistance - to seek peace was political decision.

Also warning. DO NOT TRY TO LINK ME to far right elements again. It is underhand tactic and will have consequence.



Jabberwocky said:


> The Allied final offensive pushed back the German front line 40-60 miles in two weeks, with little indication that Germany could stop it.



So did the German advance so much in spring 1918 offensive. There was little indication that Entente could stop it. Then German reached end of supply line, and offensive gradual halted. It simple nature of non-motorized warfare. There was simply nothing suggest that German army was about to collapse in 1918. All it was done to push it back a bit. 40-60 miles advance may seem a lot to generals of trench warfare, but in practical side? German were retreating toward supply, Entente from it, and frontline shortened. You also seem to forget they were still in Belgium - France border. Territory could be traded any time - it had no importance for German. Problem was that march forward 50 miles was not going to change anything in big picture of things. What parsifal suggest, that march into Germany and force unconditional surrender was simple pipe dream for Entente or anybody else.



Jabberwocky said:


> The German army was crippled in terms of morale (offensive spirit particularly) as well as suffering material deficiencies. Simply put, Germany could not sustain its army in the field and the high command knew it. Germany's allies vanished over the four months prior to armistice. First the Bulgarians, then the Ottomans, then the Austro-Hungarians.



You can present a source, too? Quote German general who said.. 

What German high command (Luddendorf) knew was that war could not be won, but there was no doubt on the other hand that peace could be made. The suffering of morale is true, but at same time it is noted that Entente morale for offensive was already crippeld two years ago. We know French soliders simply refuse to attack. Mass executions were ordered by Petain to restore order. In short, the German were at the end of their will to make offensive, but so were the Entente. I completely agree with you about importance of German allies falling out. This was imho most important part that German throw in towel, too. 



Jabberwocky said:


> Which English colonies were affected or even threatened by Germany? England entered the war to satisfy her European treaty obligations, which in turn satisfied her Europe strategy of the previous 250 years: to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe.



Balance of power is just another way of say: so nobody can fiddle with our imperial interest, divide and rule etc. Britain prime interest was exploiting the colonies, their resources, and maintain cheep resource and sea links for trade. German naval buildup was seen as a real threat to this, I find it odd you deny this - English German naval race - being reason stand against between German and British Empires. Its a given. This is why French - British stand against and rivaling slowly stopped and become an Allience. "satisfy her European treaty obligations" yes sounds very nice, but everybody know this was pretext for war between alliance blocks.



> Ah, truth by repetition.
> 
> The Dolchstoss legend has been so widely discredited its a wonder that you'd bring it up at all.



Stop ad hominem, final warning. Nobody believes Dolchstoss, you simply misconstruct it, a silly nazi theory about jews and bolshewiks being to blame to dismiss a fact, that forcing out a total victory over German by military means was pipe dream, even if things were starting to look bad and worse for German. Entente knew this full well, most of French entente leaders would want a LOT more. Why do you think they gave up those dreams? Because they were practical possibility?




Readie said:


> Ummm.
> France had her imperial aspirations ended at Waterloo.



Are you sure it was France and Napoleon? Napoleon's - or I should say: Napoleon I - imperial aspirations were ended at Waterloo, not France. The Bourbon were restored again, but then came another Napoleon, who had anything but not imperial aspirations. I suggest little reading on him. He went on to touch everything from Russia, Mexico, US civili war, Northern Africa, entered arms race with Britain until he finnaly burned himself and miscalculated with the Prussian. Wikipedia is good start, good article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III



> Every European country was ambitious, its just that some were more successful in Empire creation than others.
> The French were leading figures in the post war Treaty of Rome and have chosen to live within Europe in peace.
> If you look at all the alliances / treaties within Europe over the centuries we have all been in bed with each other at some stage.
> That's the biggest irony of all.



Yes I agree. This complex relationship I think tend to confuse overseas students of European history. I believe if you study European history, you quickly learn that yesterdays enemy is tomorrow ally. Which makes difficult to see things very black and white.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 6, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I think you are simply a German-hater. Why, I do not know. But words like "plough salt into the very earth on which the city stood" shows you are little more than a hate filled man, spilling out hate on this board. I am not sure why moderators allow it. I tried to look at it different, as different opinion, perhaps different culture, but it seems you are only hear to give room to such feeling of your, no matter what the topic.. I cannot read any topic interests me because of this display of hate anymore... I try to read up artylerry, some very good posts, actually, but only parsifal keep going on how uttless idiots German were because of their 17 cm long distance gun.. I keep readin Erich Hartman topic, again you parsifal starts tirade about how every German soldier was without honor.. now I read this topic, again it get side lead by your trolling and World War I propaganda repeat about "Hun" and Hun evil ways. I am very bored with this. You simply seem to exist because of your hatred, and this board is your vessel of channel this hatred. My ancestor fought German, for liberty, but I do not understand such hate even. Yet I can see history - which I love - in balanced way. Understand why country this or that did this or that. I like to understand the reason. I like to discuss. But then, always same guy, come and posts:
> 
> "Because they are evil, do not you get it?"
> 
> ...



Tante Ju you just recieved an infraction for this. You will not call other members names or insult them in such a way. When you start to attack the member, you lose all credibility in your argument. Keep to the topic without personal attacks.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

_I think it is good suggestion. I put you on ignore. Then I save myself the trouble of your very greatly concerning speech. It seems waste of time to spend time reading badly biased, badly research and hateful posts. I keep seeing that more and more people start to come to this conclusion. Thank you for making it easier decision for me, too._

Thats a good decision Tante. Just remember, however, that i am unconcerned by your comments, and made no such agreement in return


_So did the German advance so much in spring 1918 offensive. There was little indication that Entente could stop it. Then German reached end of supply line, and offensive gradual halted. It simple nature of non-motorized warfare. There was simply nothing suggest that German army was about to collapse in 1918. All it was done to push it back a bit. 40-60 miles advance may seem a lot to generals of trench warfare, but in practical side? German were retreating toward supply, Entente from it, and frontline shortened. You also seem to forget they were still in Belgium - France border. Territory could be traded any time - it had no importance for German. Problem was that march forward 50 miles was not going to change anything in big picture of things. What parsifal suggest, that march into Germany and force unconditional surrender was simple pipe dream for Entente or anybody else._

According to the Deuxieme Bureau the germans were calculated on the 27 March to posses 85 divisions for their offensive. of which 62 were considered combat ready. A contemporay German high command corroborates this assessment, and further reports that of the remaining divisions, approximatrely half could not be considered combat ready because of malnourishment. They were starving and considered unable to stand up to the rigours of an offensive battle. So much for Germany being self sufficient in food in 1918. 

By 27 June, the numbers of combat ready divisions on the western front had fallen to just 39 divisions, and the French intelligence service noted thatmany of these formations had lost their most experienced troops, including the stosstruppen. Replacements were insufficient to fill all gaps in the ranks and consisted mostly of underaged, inadequately trained replacements.

According to martin Marix Evans (1918, year of victories), "the germans were becoming increasingly anxious at the level of allied resistance and the casualties they (the Germans) were suffering. The army high command determined that they could not recommence offensive action until the 20 july but in the end this proved an impossible target, and the offensive was not restarted. 

Moreover sickness rates per division in the German army were very high, about twice as high as in the british army, due mostly to systemic malnourishment in the German Army at this time."

Part II of this excellent book is entitled "The Allied counteroffensive - the German army destroyed. The ANZAC Corps was involved in these counterattacks at this time, and represented one of the elite formations used to spearhaed and destroy the rearguards of the retreating Germans. Just as an example, lets look at one smal counterattack In the counterattack at Hamel. The Australian commander, John Monash demonstrtrated how well and how complete the Australians now understood the principals of warfare. Monash put his plan to his army commander Rawlinson in June. He requested and received a tank Brigade for support, the 5th tank Brigade to support the single division committed. The assault Infantry battalions rehearsed and trained for several weeks with the Tank Corps men, so that the tanks and the infantry worked as a close knit team and had a good understanding of each other. The 5th Tank Brigade, equipped with the new and far more reliable new MkV tanks far more reliable than those used at bullecourt, and now adequately supported by proper maintenance. Monash arranged to to use his artillery in counterbattery fire assisted by observation balloons and FOOs. The command structure for thje attack was simple and efficient. The artillery was to be used also as a smokescreen and as a creeping barrage to support the attack. The Infantry were detailed to support the armour, not the other way round. Each Infantry Company was to advance independantly, behind the cover of an tank. The Infantry were carrying machine guns and grenades and a heavy amount of ammunition.

The battle went ahead on the 4 July, with some 8 companies of American troops also participating (with reluctant agreement from Pershing). The battle was a complete success. Despite some stiff resistance from the german defenders (2 VCs were won that day), the ANZACs killed or captured 4310 Germans in less than 93 minutes. Australian casualties were 731 killed, and 319 wounded. It was a marked demonstration of just how far the Australians had developed their fighting techniues. The British published the battle plan in a brochure and used it for the remaineder of the war as a model for a set piece battle. Gains of territory unheard of previously had been achieved....close to 6 miles in places. The best appraisal possibly can be found in the records of the enemy. The German second army HQ commented on the allied success that day, and how the germans had proven unable to counter the offensive effectively. It was the beginning of the end for the German army. 


_What German high command (Luddendorf) knew was that war could not be won, but there was no doubt on the other hand that peace could be made. The suffering of morale is true, but at same time it is noted that Entente morale for offensive was already crippeld two years ago. We know French soliders simply refuse to attack. Mass executions were ordered by Petain to restore order. In short, the German were at the end of their will to make offensive, but so were the Entente. I completely agree with you about importance of German allies falling out. This was imho most important part that German throw in towel, too. _

Err no, by the second half of 1918, the french had staged a recovery, and were counterattacking effectively. For example, Foch used the french XX Corps of the 10 army to counterattack after 2nd Marne to recapture Soissons, and trhen clear the Germans entrencehed along the river. The frenchmen performed very well in this operation, before being relieved and rested by the American forces. The Germans were essentially kicked from pillar to Post by this series of attacks, delivered in rapid succession to each other. 



]


----------



## BikerBabe (Sep 6, 2011)

...arguing on the internet is like trying to nail a fart to the wall:
You spend an awful lot of energy on nothing, and in the end you've gotten nowhere.


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 6, 2011)

parsifal my friend,

why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians the waffen _SS_?


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 6, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> parsifal my friend,
> 
> why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians the waffen _SS_?


I would say the people are represented by their heads of government. Politicians are usually elected by the people they serve.


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> parsifal my friend,
> 
> why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians the waffen _SS_?



We were discussing WW1 Ratsel. 

John


----------



## Readie (Sep 6, 2011)

BikerBabe said:


> ...arguing on the internet is like trying to nail a fart to the wall:
> You spend an awful lot of energy on nothing, and in the end you've gotten nowhere.



Yep, quite right BB, trying to get a point across to those who refuse to listen is equally futile.
Collective denial is a great way to deal with very uncomfortable issues isn't it.
Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> We were discussing WW1 Ratsel.
> 
> John


why punish the entire German population for the actions of a few radical politicians.


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 6, 2011)

But Ratsel, who put the politicians in power?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 6, 2011)

the people. based on whatever the politics stated at the time. are the people resposible for the politics actions later? Think back to your own US history before an answer.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

Because ultimately it is the people who are responsible for the government they select. The Nazis, or the Kaiser could do little without the support of their people.

Moreover this shoe fits everybody. Why did 4 million common Poles have to die because and milions more suffer because of the actions of the germans, or Holland, or Russia. This is a defence tried many times and failed many times. The root cause of the suffering is because an agressive and violent war had been initiated. By whom?????? The taboo "G" country


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 6, 2011)

my friend, that makes no sense. its like saying becouse of past American goverment actions all the victoms of the 9/11 terror attacks got what was coming to them. for others, please I only use that as an example. every single person who died (except fot the terrorists) were heros in my book.


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 6, 2011)

Messy1 said:


> But Ratsel, who put the politicians in power?



I gave it some idea.. elections put politicans to power. But if I start to wonder.. Hitler party union I think got around 35% of the votes. That is with participation of probably 50-60-70% of votable population. This is how election works.. of course system are different in many countries, I do not know exact German voting system in Weimar, but I suppose - 21 years plus voting limit sounds right? Even voting system is different, none require 100% votes to get a place of representative, they all "help" and distort a bit for candidate who got most votes. Typical in Anglo Saxon countries he gets effect of all votes (Winner takes all theory), even if he just got half of votes plus one. In contental, typical it less favours winner of votes, but it also distorts. I am not aware exact system in Weimar Germany.

How many people in Germany of ca. 60 million had over 21? Say - 2/3 if I assume year tree is equal in spread?

So you have about third of two thirds of two thirds. what is that - 14 % of population perhaps? And how many were die hard nazi of that, who would vote Hitler to get war, and how many disillusioned democrats, socialist, worker party etc who voted to get a job?

Then I gave some more though. Who fought WW2? 18-25 years old are chief draft into typical army.. at least in early war. If they were 25 in 1940 when drafted into army, this means they were 18 or less when Hitler came power 1933. They could not vote about Hitler or other lead German at all.  Yet there is some who blame them for fighting a war they had no political choice in. Tsk tsk. And it reminds me of saying, war is fight by naive young for greedy old men..

ps. I do not even touch who "elected" Stalin, Mao Ze Dong or Pol Pot, or Ghaddafi etc.

ps2. Apply this to WW1 and it gets even more funny. Half the population (woman) did not even have vote about things at all.

So, I have "mild" issue with how whole population is responsible for actions of political leaders. It is same idea Hitler followed, when he placed blame for example for all jews because of the seen wrongdoings of a handful of bolshewik jews. People who agitate for collective guilt just follow the same ideological trap as this Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin and co. did. Collective guilt is wrong, and it only leads to suffering and injustice, period. It is stample of most dark times and most backward states, and most cruelty in human history.


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

WARNUNG ! get back on topic


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

Looking a little further at events in late 1918, and whether the German Army was effectively resisting allied offensives...

This is an extract, a summary from the Official Australian War Memorial archives in Canberra 


"_On 14 July 1918, the German Army launched its last great attack on the French in the area of the Marne River, east of Paris and on either side of the major city of Rheims. The French had anticipated this move and had held their front line lightly. Then, as the Germans went forward, they encountered strong French reserves and were repulsed. On 18 July the French, accompanied by fresh American divisions, counter-attacked. This Franco-American advance drove the enemy back towards his main supply railhead. Taken by surprise, the Germans began to pull back and a major offensive against the British in Flanders was called off as reinforcements were sent south. It was a turning point on the Western Front. The great German offensive had faltered and was not resumed. The initiative now passed back to the Allies and it was decided that a major British attack would be made east of Villers-Bretonneux. It was thought that because of constant Australian harassment there, the Germans’ morale was low and their fortifications weak.

The Battle of Amiens, fought between 8 and 11 August 1918, marked the beginning of the British advance that culminated in the Armistice of 11 November 1918. The preparations for the battle included unprecedented security in order to achieve maximum surprise. The Canadian Corps was secretly moved to the Somme area and took over the southern half of the Australian front line. The Australia Corps was concentrated between the Canadians and the Somme River while the British held the line north of the river. The infantry moved into their assembly positions in the small hours of 8 August. A dense fog gathered and unseen aeroplanes droning above drowned out the noise of the tanks that would support the infantry. The fog was still dense at 4.20 am when the artillery barrage opened fire and the advance began.

These early attacks were carried out in dense fog with infantry and tanks moving in what they hoped was the right direction. The first objective was seized by 7.30 and some German positions were bypassed and then attacked in the rear. Most of the German field artillery was overrun and quickly captured. By 8.20 the fog had began to thin and fresh troops resumed the advance_". 


Charles Bean, the Australian official historian wrote:

_"A little later the mist suddenly cleared, and for a moment all eyes on the battlefield took in the astonishing scene: infantry in lines of hundreds of little section-columns all moving forward – with tanks, guns, battery after battery, the teams tossing their manes". 

Charles Bean, Anzacs to Amiens, Canberra, 1948, p.471_


When the fog lifted German guns opened up at the tanks and put many out of action, but the Australian infantry kept going and soon overran most of the guns. The greater part of the final objective for the day, the old outer line of the Amiens defence system, was captured. The Canadian and French attacks had gone as well as those of the Australians and penetrations of up to 25 kilometres of the German front south of the Somme had been achieved within a few days of the offensive as the german defences were swept away in dramatic fashion. 

This was a victory that far surpassed any previous success of the British Army on the Western Front. The Allies had inflicted over 75000 unrecoverable casualties on the totally demoralized german forces. 4th Australian Division alone had captured more than 13,000 Germans were made prisoners and more than 200 guns captured. The French had taken 3500 prisoners. 

General Eric von Ludendorff, the German commander, later wrote of 8 August 1918:

[It] was the black day of the German Army in this war. ... The 8th of August put the decline of that [German] fighting power beyond all doubt. ... The war must be ended. 

Ludendorff, quoted by Charles Bean, Anzac to Amiens, Canberra, 1948, p.473

The advance continued on the following days with the Australians taking Etinehem, Lihons and Proyart. Australian casualties for the offensive, mainly from 9–12 August, were 6,000 killed and wounded with total Allied casualties (some of whom later returned to battle) of just 22000.

I fail to see how it can be said the german army by this stage was effectively resisting the allied counteroffensive. Sure they may have staged a partial recovery in the latter stages of 1918 as the winter weather set in, and some manpower previously wounded was returned to units, but as ludendorf states, from the 8th August on there was no recovery for the germans.

The allies should never have accepted the weak treaty of versailles. Pershing was absolutely right. Unconditional surrender should have been the allied terms. nothing less. That and the full occupation of germany itself in 1919 (the modern equivalent the romans ploughing salt into the soil of carthage) would have left no doubt as to who had won, and prevented the myths that led to Hitlers rise from ever gaining traction.

What a lost opportunity......


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

I am wondering if you guys even know what the original poster posted ? get back on topic or this thread is history


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

sorry erich did not see your warning until after i had posted


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

well, if I can attempt to tie what we have been talking about to the thread topic, the way WWI was ended, and the way that the treaty was circumvented by the Nazis, dictated the nature and strength of the LW in the second war. The Luftwaffe took on the strength and form that it did, because of these historical roots and preconditions, at least in part.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2011)

For those who would like to continue the 1918 discussion in an appropriate thread, i have created a new one here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/world-war-i/1918-year-offensives-30213.html#post818918


----------



## parsifal (Sep 7, 2011)

For those that want to bang on about war crimes and national war guilt, ther are a number of threads you can repose to:


Here are a few that I could find with all of 30 seconds of searching

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/osama-bin-laden-dead-28935-13.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/war-crimes-trials-effective-23907.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/day-war-europe-65-years-ago-6116.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/daylight-v-night-bombing-27026.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/battle-nanking-26567.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww...rmed-war-crime-actions-1939-1945-a-22972.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/trial-max-wielen-23606.html


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/churchill-execute-hitler-without-trial-21940.html


You will see, that whilst there was talk of executiuon without trial and the notion of collective resposnsibility, in the finish the Allies, only extended the principal of national culpbability to the point of who was responible for the war. after that only individuals were indicted, whilst a program of de-nazification and de-militarization was initiated in all the allied controled sectors.

For those wishing to compare the allied processes of justice to those employed by the Germans, i could not find any threads or relevant topics in this forum. As a starting suggestion, I would suggest people do a search of just one word: Lidice. 

From there we cannot afford to discuss this issue any further. Suggest you guys either latch on to one of the relevant threads, or start your own. I will not be responding to any comments regarding this issue on this thread


----------



## Njaco (Sep 7, 2011)

Lets get back to flying. This is starting to get far too political - especially in a thread asking which side would you fly for.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 7, 2011)

I sincerely apologise for my indiscretion. I was attempting to give people appropriate alternatives to air their views on the sidetrack issues that have arisen, not hijack the thread yet again. I thought that was clear in my last post, but apologise if its overstepped the mark


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 22, 2011)

Depending on the mission requirements, time of day, targeting and route parameters etc, selected aircraft form most major involved nations. I won't bother to explain this, cause nodoubt it'll inflame - Nuff' Said.


----------



## Terri-Tsu (Sep 23, 2011)

Weren't the Brits the first to come up with Air Craft Carriers and Radar? I know I heard that somewhere..? or am I wrong? lol


----------



## evangilder (Sep 23, 2011)

Technically, the first aircraft carrier was the USS Birmingham.

Photographs of the World's First Aircraft Carrier - Nicholas Jackson - Technology - The Atlantic


----------



## peterpro (Sep 24, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> Forgotten? which model do you mean.



Sorry for confusing you there,razor.By fighters i mean the Axis as combatants and not BF-109 itself.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 24, 2011)

Terri-Tsu said:


> Weren't the Brits the first to come up with Air Craft Carriers and Radar? I know I heard that somewhere..? or am I wrong? lol



hi terri tsu and welcome

Notwithstanding the above, the brits are generally credited with development of the first operational aircraft carriers. Whilst there were a number of experiments conductted by a number of Navies from before WWI, the first true carrier was HMS Argus. She was the first ship able to launch AND recover aircraft, which is the true definition of an aircraft carrier. A ship only capable of launching aircraft is not a true carrier

Theories about radar were first developed in the late 19th century by a German named Hentz. There were further developments from that time onward, with the main technological advances in the militarty application of radar flip flopping between Britain and Germany. Nearly all the major powers conducted research into the field, but it was the germans and the british that led the way in the period 1930-40. Germany developed the first seaborne radars, whilst the british developed the first air defence system on a national scale that used radar. Radar played a critical role in the battle of Britain.

There is a lot of disagreement in this place, but most contemporary histories agree that the allies enjoyed some considerable advantage in radar applications as the war progressed. A significant technological advance for the allies was the invention and use of the cavity magnetron, which allowed wavelengths for allied radars to be shortened which inturn increased their range and definition. The allied superiority is generally linked to this shorter wavelength, called centimetric radar. The axis developed centimetric radar as well, but it came somewhat later.

Radar is not of great use, unless the military organi zation develops effective means to utilize it. The US Navy suffred a number of humiliating defeats around the island of guadacanal in 1942, at the hands of the Japanese, despite the fact that they (the US) was equipped with radar, and the Japanese were not, and the fights were fought at night. Theoretically the Japanese should have been defeated, because they were not equipped with this technology, but in reality the US lacked the expertise and military organization on their ships to use this advantage effectively.

Conversely, the british inflicted a number of heavy defeats at sea over the Italians. The principal reason was that the Royal Navy had radfar, PLUS the organization abord their ships to use that advantage. 

Some nations had radar, but failed to use it correctly. For example, the German navy possessed some very good radars on their ships, but tended to keep these radars switched off, for fear the electronic signatures would give away their positions at sea. There was some truth to that, but keeping your radars off was a bad idea generally, because you could not see what was coming at you, and prevented evasive action being taken generally


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 25, 2011)

The Allies. How could any person of any nationality alive today, knowing what is now known about the Axis, justify choosing to fly for the Axis?


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The Allies. How could any person of any nationality alive today, knowing what is now known about the Axis, justify choosing to fly for the Axis?



Simple answer Steve, is none. Other than a few with odd political leanings trying to relive the past.
Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2011)

I would not want to fly for the cause, but I would love to have flown for the Luftwaffe with its aircraft (for the purposes of the aircraft alone because I love the aircraft.) 

That is what I voted before. Call it trying to relive the past and crucify me if you wish, I really don't care. I am sure someone will construe my words in which ever way they wish. 

Of course if I had been alive back then I would have flown for the allies as it was a just cause, and well I am American. If I had been German, well I would flown for the Luftwaffe with honor, as any pilot from any nation would have. Call it "odd" political learning's as well if you wish.


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would not want to fly for the cause, but I would love to have flown for the Luftwaffe with its aircraft (for the purposes of the aircraft alone because I love the aircraft.)
> 
> That is what I voted before. Call it trying to relive the past and crucify me if you wish, I really don't care. I am sure someone will construe my words in which ever way they wish.
> 
> Of course if I had been alive back then I would have flown for the allies as it was a just cause, and well I am American. If I had been German, well I would flown for the Luftwaffe with honor, as any pilot from any nation would have. Call it "odd" political learning's as well if you wish.




The LW aircraft are just machines and very good machines too.
Its the paraphernalia that goes with them that is disturbing.

Does this not worry you too Chris?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

I dont think choosing which side you would fly for should have much to do with the politics of the nation. For me, it would be where you would relate to the people the best. Each nationality is different, with differing priorities and emphasis. I dont begrudge those that voted for either side. thats not what my arguments in this place are about. I would want people to be free to say what they like. i amy not agree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it.

What upsets me about these internet discussions, is that unlike the research papers of formal univerities, people can (and do) say anything and some others will believe them. i believe that through these means of "proagandised" history, history is in fact being rewritten to suit a new generation of revisionists, generally younger,angrier amd uninterested in the truth.

Its up to us to defend their right to say it, but to keep the truth out there as achoice for people.


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I dont think choosing which side you would fly for should have much to do with the politics of the nation. For me, it would be where you would relate to the people the best. Each nationality is different, with differing priorities and emphasis. I dont begrudge those that voted for either side. thats not what my arguments in this place are about. I would want people to be free to say what they like. i amy not agree with what they say, but I defend their right to say it.
> 
> What upsets me about these internet discussions, is that unlike the research papers of formal univerities, people can (and do) say anything and some others will believe them. i believe that through these means of "proagandised" history, history is in fact being rewritten to suit a new generation of revisionists, generally younger,angrier amd uninterested in the truth.
> 
> Its up to us to defend their right to say it, but to keep the truth out there as achoice for people.



Wise words Michael. Thank you

There is a lot or 'revised' history going around in Europe and it irritates the f*** out of me.

Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> Does this not worry you too Chris?



If you mean in the men that flew the machines? No it does not worry me. They flew for their country and as any would do. Were the Nazis wrong? Of course they were, but the average German pilot was flying for his nation as any pilot would do.


----------



## Readie (Sep 25, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you mean in the men that flew the machines? No it does not worry me. They flew for their country and as any would do. Were the Nazis wrong? Of course they were, but the average German pilot was flying for his nation as any pilot would do.



You misunderstand my point Chris.

I realise that the average German sailor, soldier and airman was only doing what he allied counterpart was doing.Fighting.

The paraphernalia I am referring to are the symbols of hate.
For instance I think that the swastika is completely inappropriate on restored LW aircraft and the unhealthy interest some people have (all nations I might add) in SS insignia etc. This worries me as do the scum in the EDL and NF etc.

This is just my opinion and not a springboard for a round of argumentative posts.

John


----------



## Njaco (Sep 25, 2011)

This is where some may learn that, as Chris said, LW pilots were mostly far and removed from politics.

In 1940, JG 53 was ordered to paint red stripes across the noses of their 109s because their CO had married against orders. In addition to the stripes, they also removed the swastika. Pretty gutsy.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 25, 2011)

The swastika pre-dates the Third Reich as a runic symbol. Many symbols used by the Nazis were from the occult.

Two years ago, I was part of a 9 ship formation flying to the US Memorial Day festivities across the southland. Part of the Condor Squadron has aircraft painted to look like German aircraft from the second world war because they pull mock dogfights and they can't have Americans shooting at Americans. To keep the historical accuracy of the Luftwaffe squadron they are painted with teh same markings and the swastika. For the photo shoot, I was in the back of one of the German marked aircraft. Yes, a Jew was riding in an airplane with a swastika. It was a historically accurate paint scheme and not a symbol of condoning what happened.

From almost everything I have read, the Luftwaffe pilots were chivalrous and were not supportive of any racist ideology. In fact, one of the Stalag Lufts was to be inspected by the SS, who were looking for Jewish POWs. The Luftwaffe drove them off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> The paraphernalia I am referring to are the symbols of hate.
> For instance I think that the swastika is completely inappropriate on restored LW aircraft and the unhealthy interest some people have (all nations I might add) in SS insignia etc. This worries me as do the scum in the EDL and NF etc.
> 
> This is just my opinion and not a springboard for a round of argumentative posts.
> ...



No, I do not take your post as anything other than opinion and no offense is taken either.

As to answer your question. No, I don't have a problem with the swastika. It is only a symbol and nothing more. It is a part of history and I have no problem with it being put on restored aircraft or equipment, especially in museums. 

I also do not have a problem with SS insignia or anything like that. I would not display them or wear them or anything, but I am a WW2 Militaria collector. I collect uniforms, equipment and insignia from all sides including the 3rd Reich. I own many original WW2 German uniforms, quite a bit of insignia and other equipment. (I collect however from many nations including the US and the UK.) I have no problem buying the artifacts and displaying them with the rest of my collection. I believe these things should be preserved and displayed so that people may learn from these things. As soon as we ban such symbols people will forget. I myself would like to someday open a non profit museum of some sort. 

Please don't take me wrong, I don't believe that people should should display these signs on modern day T-shirts of flags and parade around showing hate toward people, but I don't believe in banning and displaying them. I for instance will hang my 3rd Reich Flags in a display with the rest of my 3rd Reich collection, of course right next to it will be the Allied collection as well. It is a WW2 display, not a display of my beliefs as I do not agree with what the Nazis stood for. 

Here is a link to a Militaria thread that we have here. There are some pics from my collection. I hope you can understand what I mean by this.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/militaria-collecting-15242.html


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

I guess the protests about voting for the axis air forces dont relate to the personnel doing the flying, rather, it goes to some of the people doing the voting. It seems inevitable that some guys would vote that way for all the wrong reasons.

For the record, this is my position.....its an intensely personal choice which way people vote, and we should not interfere with that. As far as the actual flyers of the period, most were not politically active, though some were. They cannot avoid the label that they supported a pretty evil regime, and that regime tainted their reputations to the extent of affecting their honour. Collectively, Germany was responsible for waging an aggressive war, but only to the extent of establishing national responsibility, not individual responsibility. Once national responsibility is established, it becomes possible to track down and bring to justice those individually responsible for war crimes.

that whole process has led to approximately 30 war crimes trials, of which about 2/3 were actually convicted. Thats not collective responsibility (apart from establishing national war guilt) and from that it cannot be argued that many individuals of the Luftwaffe were actually guilty of political involvement with the nazis. What I will say is that fighting for a soul-less cause like the Nazis, robs these men of their honour, which is sad, since most of these men were honourable men (and there is a difference). 

(EDIT: In fact there were more convictions and trials than that. The main trial, the International Military Tribunal (or IMT) indicted 24 individuals. There were 12 death sentences, 7 imprisonments, 2 died or committed suicide, and 3 acquittals. as there were four main charges brought to the court, some individuals were acquitted of some charges and indicted on others. In additiona there were Miltary tribunals, or camp trials, of which the following is a summary:

The Dachau Camp Trials: 40 officials were tried; 36 of the defendants were sentenced to death on 13 December 1945. Of these, 23 were hanged on the 28 May and 29 May 1946, including the former commandant Martin Gottfried Weiss and the camp doctor Claus Schilling. Smaller groups of Dachau camp officials and guards were included in several subsequent trials by the U.S. court. On 21 November 1946 it was announced that, up to that date, 116 defendants of this category had been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

The Mauthausen Camp Trials: 61 officials of this camp were tried by a U.S. military court at Dachau in March/April, 1946; 58 defendants were sentenced to death on 11 May 1946. Those executed included the commandant of the SS-Totenkopfverbände.

The Flossenbürg Camp Trial: 52 officials and guards of this camp were tried between 12 June 1946 and 19 January 1947. Of the defendants, 15 sentenced to death and 25 to terms of imprisonment.

The Buchenwald Camp Trial: Between April and August, 1947, 31 defendants were found guilty. Of these 22 were sentenced to death; 9 to imprisonment.

The Mühldorf Camp Trial, five officials were sentenced to death by a U.S. war crimes court at Dachau on 13 May 1947 and seven to imprisonment.

The "Dora"-Nordhausen Trial: On 7 August 1947 it convicted 15 former SS guards and Kapos (one was executed). The trial also addressed the question of liability of Mittelwerk V-2 rocket scientists). 

There have been some criticisms of the legal processes followed after the war, but my opinion is that they were as fair as they could be. The allied (and Soviet) responses to the spectre of Nazi attrocities was measured and restrained, in the legal sense at least. Certainly prefereable to Stalins idea of sumarily shooting 100000 officers without trial, something Churchill was violently opposed to..... 



What I will say is that in my opinion there were more than 20 war criminals in Germany at the end of the war, but a lot less than the numbers of LW pilots that served the regime. We will never know exactly how many there actually were.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 25, 2011)

".... What I will say is that fighting for a soul-less cause like the Nazis, robs these men of their honour, which is sad, since most of these men were honourable men (and there is a difference). "

Many outstanding German warriors were the sons of Lutheran pastors (Michael Whitman, and Rudel, to name two). Adolf Galland was French Huguenot by 
blood-line.

I doubt these men were soulless. Parsifal - the Red Menace that stalked the German proletariat from 1918 onwards was a real and menacing threat to Christians -- more so for Protestants than Catholics. Communism is godlessness - and for Christians communism can be equated with the anti-Christ.

I am not making allowances for Nazis but I am reminding readers that many Germans turned to and supported Nazism as the only bulwark against Communism. Unless you have had to make that choice - you would be wise to hold moral judgement. The abuses of global communism far outstrip the abuses of the Nazis 
state. Sober second thought, please. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

Hi Mike

I didnt say the men were soul-less...it was the nazi regime that was lacking in soul. its a rhetorical reference, alluding to the nazis complete lack of principal really.

I dont have to make moral judgement, in fact i make strenuous effort not to. i rely on the findings of the courts set up for that purpose who found Germany, as a nation was guilty of waging aggressive war, and as a result of that its personnel could then be held accountable for criminal activities. not everyone, but some of them.

As for

"_I am not making allowances for Nazis but I am reminding readers that many Germans turned to and supported Nazism as the only bulwark against Communism. Unless you have had to make that choice - you would be wise to hold moral judgement. The abuses of global communism far outstrip the abuses of the Nazis 
state. Sober second thought, please"_.

That is in fact making a moral judgement based on personal beliefs. Whereas the Germans have been found guilty of waging an aggressive war, and some of its personnel indicted for offences carried out in the name of that aggression, no such indictment has ever been levelled against the Soviets. A legal defence, i admit, because i agree that the Soviets are guilty of some heinous crimes. but the difference is this, whereas the Germans have had moral judgement already passed on them in a court of law, the Soviets have not. We can make our statements about the germans without recourse to passing moral judgement....thats been done for us....but we cannot make our statements regarding the Soviets except if cross a line and start making our own moral judgements, based on our own prejudices and preconceptions. 

Somebody needs the courage to place Stalin and his cronies on trial. If they did, I would be the first to applaud.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 25, 2011)

You quote me: "... "I am not making allowances for Nazis but I am reminding readers that many Germans turned to and supported Nazism as the only bulwark 
against Communism. 

Not just the *Soviets*, Parsifal, the* COMMUNISTS *- Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot .....

Nazism is _tribal_ at heart. Communism is phony-baloney _brotherhood_ of working blahbbidy-blah-blah world take-over.

*You* place more credit in "the courts" than I do, Parsifal. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

Its not that I have a great deal of faith in the courts, its just that the alternatives are even less appealing. Its all we have to make reasoned, legal judgements. We need to respect its authority and function, because the alternatives are far worse.

The law is supposed to be based on two things, the law of statute, and the law of custom, or common law, but ultimately both these legal bases' are linked to what society expects....its moral judgement if you like, about right and wrong. Judgements that deal with moral issues, must, necessarily cling more tightly to these principals because laws at the end of the day are about what the majority considers to be right, and judgements on moral issues have to be rooted in what the majority thinks is right. Any judgements based on any other principal are starting to enter the twilight zone, or are meaningless because they just let off so much hot air.

So determining if communism is right or wrong would depend on what society....in this case the worldwide community thought of those political systems.


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 25, 2011)

I think Natzism is nowerdays used wrongly as a convenient name for far right, as much as Communism for the far left when Tyrany wise they are nearly identical in killing all who disagree and their justifying arguments for rationalising said killings. 
Except for how they appeal to their public, and how/what they say, both take away rights both generally prefer themselves as The religion - unless they are relgous based, in which case they demonise act much more evilly with malice without concience. 
Everyone says or likes to think "I'm not a ___, but ..." or "How can you say such a thing, were never go that far ..." until after the fact or future hindsight educates them to the truth that they did go or do that.

The rightwingers going further outwards (there seems to be no real or actual leftwingers, just shades of right), of the Northern American Continent uses Commie this and Natzi that too much in the wrong context. I feel this is very dangerous and is not a game of the namecalling as it appears to be accepted as nowerdays i.e; American Republicanist comparing American Democrats to the Communists/Stalinists.

Things like this is partially leading to rising racism, politism/politicalism, nationalism and the eventual prospect of christian fundamentalism, and it will act just as bad as they say those old evil enemies did; like a new age Spanish Inquisition with tech, say, within 30 to 70 years time. 
In which case I'll burn at the stake for being a non believer - kcuF em, kcuf em all who tread the path to the darkside of humanity.

In another parallel universe, in a galaxy far far away, 'The Salvation Army' is armed, and it is an army, but they still have the same black uniform, with the same silver piping and the same 'SA' motiffs, and the same cut of uniform style.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 25, 2011)

"... determining if communism is right or wrong would depend on what society....in this case the worldwide community thought of those political systems."

Oh really - right or wrong is "relative", Parsifal. Female circumcision might be "right" in Somalia and "wrong" in Sydney ... that's what you're saying.
Honor Killing might be "right" in Lahore but "wrong" in London.

It's called "relativism", Parsifal, and it's a fatal disease ... check yourself in man ....


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 25, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> The Northern American Continent uses Commie this and Natzi that too much I feel, itself partially leading to rising racism, politism/politicalism, nationalism and the eventual prospect of christian fundamentalism (and just as bad as they say old enemies are) within say, 50 to 80 years.


There are very different mindsets in the various regions of North Anerica and to make that blanket statement is wrong.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 25, 2011)

I would fly for the Axis as I like the planes. How about you?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

what alternatives would you suggest....that we impose the white mans burden on these people and summarily shoot anyone who oposes us. I would be opposed to that, if that is relativism then i am guilty as charged. 

Colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, call it what you like, is no more successful than communism, and in some instances just as bloodthirsty. 

Imposing our wills on other peoples, allegedly for their benefit is not going to work. Imposing our will, for our benefit, is sometimes necessary, such as in Iraq. But it is not the way to achieve lasting change. Neither are the courts. The courts, the rule of law, can deal with the major offenders, if the national will is there. In a few isolated situations there are International tribunals that can deal with crimes against humanity....war crimes if you like, but if the national morality of a community is bankrupt, such as in Somalia, this cannot be effective either, unless and until that society is changed. You dont do that at the end of a gun, or by imposing summary law not based on the will of that people, though these may be necessary as temporary measures to facilitate the lead back to societal strength. You may need to occupy and temporarily impose such measures, but in the end, it is the nation building intiatives (a part of which is the imposition of the rule of law, another is the development of education and another employment) that will solve these issues. 

It will be intersting to see what happens in Libya as trhese very issues will come up for that country in the next few years


----------



## Njaco (Sep 25, 2011)

I would like to ask everyone to get back on topic as this is turning a bit political.


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 25, 2011)

Wrong statement, I certainly hope I/it will be pbfoot, I just can't help this gut feeling I've had ever since the War on Terror started... like being back under the Cold War feeling of when's it going to happen, what will be the result, that sort of unassuming niggle yer know, that inexorbinately grows overtime...

I've edited it a bit more pbfoot with minor additions to clear up any logical (to me) problems.
Apologies (if you believe me or not)

If given the choice, I'd fly in these for love, curiousity and their abilities/personalities;
Spitfire Mk IXe, Bf.109G6, Mitsubishi J2M4, Yokashuka (spelling) D4Y, P-51C, B-17F, Avro Lancaster, F8F2 Bearcat, Ki-44-II-Otsu (and later Ki-84-Ib Hayate) Kyushu J1W1 Shinden.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 25, 2011)

Yeah, if its the gear that floats your boats, then the choices become harder. its another way of saying what is the best aircraft to fly and survive. 

In that case I think i would most like to fly the Mosquito NF XII with Serrate and AI mk VIII or higher. Best missions would be flying low level nightime intruder missions


----------



## Readie (Sep 26, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No, I do not take your post as anything other than opinion and no offense is taken either.
> 
> As to answer your question. No, I don't have a problem with the swastika. It is only a symbol and nothing more. It is a part of history and I have no problem with it being put on restored aircraft or equipment, especially in museums.
> 
> ...



I can understand anyone's interest in history..after all that is what we are here for. 
Displaying your (or anyone else who has a personal collection) WW2 private collection is your right. Personally, I would not have any SS insignia or equipment in my home, and again that is my right of choice. I would, however, fill the place with parts of Spitfires / Merlin's given the chance. I have no doubt that some people would find that odd and offensive.
I'm torn between historical accuracy and and an undeniable feeling of repulsion with the swastika. I feel the same about the Klu Klux Klan hoods and the trappings of the Vatican.
Interestingly, I have read unfavourable comments about the Frenchman and his unearthing of the WW1 tank that got hit and buried at Cambrai. Is it a war grave or is it right to dig it up and display it so people can learn more?
The same goes for locating the Titanic and the battleships in which so many men died. Do we find them and open a window? or leave them be?
Best wishes with your museum project Chris.
Cheers
John


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 26, 2011)

If I was going to have to fly and fight, I'd want the aircraft that gives me the greatest chance of survival.

Countless hours on flight sims have let me know I'll never really be a fighter pilot, so I'd have to go for bombers or recon.

In that vein, I'd choose the RAF and a de Havilland Mosquito. By preference, I'd prefer photo-reconnaissance.


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 26, 2011)

I need my coffee Readle; thought you were implying.. 
I think you answered your own question as soon as you asked it; if because it was not found due to bombardment mud splattering or whatever etc, was burried or hid it from recovery, if the tank stiill has any of its crew inside and or human remains under, on or around it then it is a war grave.
If it was an lost tank, an unknown war grave then the farmer can be initiallly forgiven for digging it up unless he carried on by a immoral margin after finding any remains, loose parts surrounding it shouldn't matter, unless they were partially attatched still to the main 'tomb' componant/area.

Parsifail; I wouldn't fly the best of each because that be boring, because it is a hyperthetical question on the past using our own knowedges and opinions as guidance; and I can choose unlike when you do sevre, you have much less choice and even less time to decide upon them (generally).


----------



## Readie (Sep 26, 2011)

razor1uk said:


> I need my coffee Readle; thought you were implying..
> I think you answered your own question as soon as you asked it; if because it was not found due to bombardment mud splattering or whatever etc, was burried or hid it from recovery, if the tank stiill has any of its crew inside and or human remains under, on or around it then it is a war grave.
> If it was an lost tank, an unknown war grave then the farmer can be initiallly forgiven for digging it up unless he carried on by a immoral margin after finding any remains, loose parts surrounding it shouldn't matter, unless they were partially attatched still to the main 'tomb' componant/area.
> 
> Parsifail; I wouldn't fly the best of each because that be boring, because it is a hyperthetical question on the past using our own knowedges and opinions as guidance; and I can choose unlike when you do sevre, you have much less choice and even less time to decide upon them (generally).



I'm not implying anything, just expressing my opinion.

www.tank-cambrai.com

The unearthing of such a rare survivalist like Deborah will always a row. Imagine if the legendary 7th fuehrer Berlin bunker was found now.
Personally, I think that everyone concerned has acted with dignity and respected the fallen.It is a somewhat unnerving machine to visit, but I recommend it.

Stay here Hotel Beatus

Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2011)

Readie said:


> I can understand anyone's interest in history..after all that is what we are here for.
> Displaying your (or anyone else who has a personal collection) WW2 private collection is your right. Personally, I would not have any SS insignia or equipment in my home, and again that is my right of choice. I would, however, fill the place with parts of Spitfires / Merlin's given the chance. I have no doubt that some people would find that odd and offensive.
> I'm torn between historical accuracy and and an undeniable feeling of repulsion with the swastika. I feel the same about the Klu Klux Klan hoods and the trappings of the Vatican.
> Interestingly, I have read unfavourable comments about the Frenchman and his unearthing of the WW1 tank that got hit and buried at Cambrai. Is it a war grave or is it right to dig it up and display it so people can learn more?
> ...



That is your choice. The day that we "remove" all these symbols is the day that the world forgets. Again I am not saying they should be displayed on buildings and so forth. I work on an old 3rd Reich Airfield. The swastikas are all removed as they should be, same with all the public buildings throughout Germany. To keep them on the buidlings would be offensive. But on a restored aircraft in a museum, or a uniform that is displayed in a museum? No, it should be there. 

Also remember that uniform in my collection with the swastika on it, is not hurting anyone. It is an artifact. It is no different than the British Colonial Uniform in a museum about the British Colonies in India. I am sure the Indian people don't really care for it, but it should be available to the public to see and view. It is history...


----------



## Readie (Sep 26, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is your choice. The day that we "remove" all these symbols is the day that the world forgets. Again I am not saying they should be displayed on buildings and so forth. I work on an old 3rd Reich Airfield. The swastikas are all removed as they should be, same with all the public buildings throughout Germany. To keep them on the buidlings would be offensive. But on a restored aircraft in a museum, or a uniform that is displayed in a museum? No, it should be there.
> 
> Also remember that uniform in my collection with the swastika on it, is not hurting anyone. It is an artifact. It is no different than the British Colonial Uniform in a museum about the British Colonies in India. I am sure the Indian people don't really care for it, but it should be available to the public to see and view. It is history...




Chris, I have been cutting down the gum tree in the back garden mulling about our posts. 
You are right, Museum items artefacts should be correct and authentic.
I may not like it very much, but that's too bad. History is history warts and all.
As you know, I am fully aware of the travesties of the British empire...I rather suspect that the only surviving items are in London.
Thank you
Regards
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2011)

I think we are actually more closer to agreement on a lot of things than we both realize. Believe it nor we are both on same side. We are both just to damn stubborn to communicate it properly.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 26, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> If I was going to have to fly and fight, I'd want the aircraft that gives me the greatest chance of survival.
> 
> Countless hours on flight sims have let me know I'll never really be a fighter pilot, so I'd have to go for bombers or recon.
> 
> In that vein, I'd choose the RAF and a de Havilland Mosquito. By preference, I'd prefer photo-reconnaissance.



I was thinking the same myself, except I would want it to be a USAAF Mosquito. The USAAF paid better than the RAF. There is a reason for the Brits complaining about "Overpaid, Oversexed, and Over here". 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is your choice. The day that we "remove" all these symbols is the day that the world forgets. Again I am not saying they should be displayed on buildings and so forth. I work on an old 3rd Reich Airfield. The swastikas are all removed as they should be, same with all the public buildings throughout Germany. To keep them on the buidlings would be offensive. But on a restored aircraft in a museum, or a uniform that is displayed in a museum? No, it should be there.
> 
> Also remember that uniform in my collection with the swastika on it, is not hurting anyone. It is an artifact. It is no different than the British Colonial Uniform in a museum about the British Colonies in India. I am sure the Indian people don't really care for it, but it should be available to the public to see and view. It is history...



I agree that history must be accurately preserved and readily available to the public. I once worked in a building formerly adorned with swastikas. I think it admirable that modern Germans have sacrificed a part of the right to free speech and expression because of their personal horror and remorse for acts of which they are not responsible. The Germans have made a choice they could through lawful procedure reverse, and have not. Making the display of symbols of hate unlawful is something that will never happen in the USA. We Americans have fellow citizens that still display and revere some symbols from our history that many feel are symbols of hate and intolerance. The problem is not the symbols of hate, it is the hate in the hearts people that create, use, and reuse symbols of hate for expressing hate.

Steve


----------



## Readie (Sep 26, 2011)

Back to the thread, albeit briefly....
Who would I fly for?

Being 6' 5" and *** stone, I would have to say that my choice is limited to those whose aircraft I could fit it


----------



## PeanutNavy (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm going with allies, Because of the awesome epic planes they crashed up....i definetly would want to fly a Spitfire


----------



## Njaco (Oct 1, 2011)

> Because of the awesome epic planes they crashed up.....



Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure I understand.


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

PeanutNavy said:


> I definitely would want to fly a Spitfire



Good man. Who wouldn't?

Cheers
John


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 20, 2011)

Anonymous said:


> These nationalistic arguments are stupid. We don't engage in them at IL2skins!


Pretty big words for an anonymous user! No one has forced you to visit this site!


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 20, 2011)

I would fly a p-47 M variant for the U.S.! The spit was a beautiful plane but did not have the legs,survivability,or diving speed of the P-47. Not to mention the 8-.50's in the wings which if brought down on you would shred an aircraft in seconds! The U.S. may not have won the battle of britain but before you run us down too far just remember who made the daylight raids over germany and took all the high casualties bombing the 3rd reich back into the stone age!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Pretty big words for an anonymous user! No one has forced you to visit this site!



He was not originally an anonymous user. He was removed from the site, and therefore is "anonymous".



Arossihman said:


> The U.S. may not have won the battle of britain but before you run us down too far just remember who made the daylight raids over germany and took all the high casualties bombing the 3rd reich back into the stone age!



You might want to think about what you post before posting. Making such statements as that will not win you very many friends on the forums. 

The victory over Germany was a unified allied effort. All of the allied nations took great casualties to defeat Germany. Bomber Command lost over 44,000 aircrew during the war. The US 8th Air Force lost approx. 26,000 aircrew during the war. I believe total number of USAAF casualties were around 89,000, I am not sure what the total number of RAF casualties were.

I don't like to use Wikipedia as a main source, but it is almost 2 in the morning here. My football game is over and I need to get to bed, so I will resort to it...

_Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes.[clarification needed][24] A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I.[24] By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe, had 350,000 aircrew during the war, and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs.[24] Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders. [25]

*Taking an example of 100 airmen:[26]

55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
two shot down and evaded capture
27 survived a tour of operations*

In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bomber_Command#Casualties

My point being here, before making such remarks, learn a bit more about the subject. Not trying to be an ass or anything, but a wise thing I have found is if you want to really study the subject and the war itself, you will have to put national views aside and try to be a bit less biased. All of the Allies did their part to win the war and took great casualties. It is debatable if any of the allied nations could have done it alone. 

Now carry on...


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2011)

I forget who that anonymous guy was now. Gosh im gettin old....I forget a lot these days


----------



## Readie (Nov 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> All of the Allies did their part to win the war and took great casualties. It is debatable if any of the allied nations could have done it alone.



You have hit the nail on the head there Chris.
Well said
John


----------



## Arossihman (Nov 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> He was not originally an anonymous user. He was removed from the site, and therefore is "anonymous".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Meant no disrespect just wanted to make sure the 8th air force boys and all the others get credit along with the valiant warriors of bomber command! Eithe rway it was a group effort and we all needed each others mutual support or failure was a very real possibility......brothers in arms!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2011)

Arossihman said:


> Meant no disrespect just wanted to make sure the 8th air force boys and all the others get credit along with the valiant warriors of bomber command! Eithe rway it was a group effort and we all needed each others mutual support or failure was a very real possibility......brothers in arms!



We give credit to everyone here. 

The warriors who fought in the air, no matter which nation...


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 21, 2011)

I would fly for the axis. I root for the allies, but since one man cant change the course of an entire world war, id fly for the axis. of course our side would lose, but i like a challenge. give me a 109, 190, zero, c.202, heja, or iar 80 and put me up against the latest and best allied types. i would like to see how long i survive and how good i do before my eventual demise


----------



## Readie (Nov 21, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> I would fly for the axis. I root for the allies, but since one man cant change the course of an entire world war, id fly for the axis. of course our side would lose, but i like a challenge. give me a 109, 190, zero, c.202, heja, or iar 80 and put me up against the latest and best allied types. i would like to see how long i survive and how good i do before my eventual demise



Blimey.

If you want a challenge the RAF had some pretty appalling aircraft to fly up against the Luftwaffe.

John


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 21, 2011)

yeah that too. if i were to fly for the glorious ol' brits, tell them to put me in a defiant. im not sure of the more appalling aircraft you may have in mind, so if so, then give me the worst youve got. Suicidal, some may call me.  since you are from england readie, i should tell you that if i were to choose a side thats based on showmanship, honor, integrity, and respect for thine's enemies, id side with the english/commonwealth.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2011)

I have not yet committed myself to which side i would fly for. My all time favourite piston engined aircraft never flew operationally, and i would have dearly liked it to have done so. I am an absolute fan of the CA-15 Kangaroo, and would have loved to have seen it produced and used in a combat role. So I guess I am gunning for a prototype that never flew operationally. 

My second favourite would be a Mosquito NFII, flying over Germany 1944-5. A true hunter, and a joy to fly, from accounts that I have heard told. love the aircraft, love the legend


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 21, 2011)

'The British, Old Boy..." he said, running bryllcream into his hair with his fingers and twisting the end of his very trim, waxed moustache... 8)

Hard to say; I guess if it depended on aircraft types, I would rather be more specific and state that I would have loved to have had the flying career of Eric 'Winkle' Brown, who holds the world record for most types flown in his log book. He test flew just about every LW type evaluated by the Allies _and_ every Allied type as well, not to forget the odd Japanese machine along the way.


----------



## tbfighterpilot (Dec 17, 2011)

I would fly for the allies in the pacific or Europe. Pacific:
F4U, F4F, F6F, F8F, SB2C Helldiver, TBD, TBM
Europe:
P-51, P-40, B-17, B-24, Spitfire, Hurricane, Tempest, P-47, P-38


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2011)

The greatest quote I can repeat on a family oriented forum came from Billy Hovde - an ace of the 355th during WWII and got Migs with the 4th in Korea.

At the 67 Fighter Aces Reunion in New Orleans, I was in a group with Galland, Rall, Olds, Zemke, my father, Hovde and Ralph Parr. A local TV cameraman and talking head stuck their microphone under the noses of some pretty good fighter pilots and asked them - "waht makes a great fighter pilot".. all of the interviewees including my father talked about situational awareness, tactical position, relative strengths of the aircraft, etc.

The guy stuck his camera under Billy's nose which was well into the bag of scotch simply said "you can't want to live forever".

Billy got his DSC taking an understrength squadron of 51's over Berlin Dec 5 1944, into an attacking force of 70+ Fw 190's plus top cover of ~ 15 Me 109s. he personally shot down 5 plus shared one with his wing man, in all the 358 FS got 12 and completely broke up the attack before they could hit the 3rd BD B-17s he was covering.

American fighter pilots were 'brash' but one doctrine that exists today is 'Attack' - no matter what the odds. You can debate forever the training, the quality and quantity of the aircraft - but they had incredible courage which is not always accorded to the escorts..


----------



## parsifal (Dec 18, 2011)

That says it all IMO DG


----------



## Readie (Dec 19, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> 'The British, Old Boy..." he said, running bryllcream into his hair with his fingers and twisting the end of his very trim, waxed moustache... 8)



Top hole old bean. Fly for blighty, King and country.
John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 21, 2012)

Allies, Pacific Theater: F2A-1 2, F4F-3, FM-1 2, F6F, F4U, PBM, PB2Y, PBJ, PB4Y, SB2Us SBD: Obviously anything in blue or black (Black Cat PBY). Besides I don't like the cold. It's just too cold when its cold. anywhere above 75 degrees F. Northern Europe is way to cold. Did I mention I don't like the cold?


----------



## futuredogfight (Jan 30, 2012)

What side is Finland (remember they fought Germany from 1944-1945)


----------



## parsifal (Jan 31, 2012)

Finn flyers are flying for Finland. Finland was Axis at one time, and then was an allied nation. But she wasnt both at the same time.

Which is more than can be said for the Italians after 43, or the Yugoslavs, or the French/Dutch/belgian/Norwegians for that matter, who fought for both sides at the same time (not the same person, obviously)


----------



## futuredogfight (Jan 31, 2012)

Then I fly for the Finns


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 31, 2012)

"... Finland was Axis "

Please clarify Parsifal. Do you mean Finland was an Axis Alliance signatory, or, that Finland first fought on the Axis side.

I somehow remember Finland in a different role than Romania or Hungary.

MM


----------



## futuredogfight (Jan 31, 2012)

Finland is Finland. They took up Germany's offer cause they didn't want to be invaded and they wanted to retake the lost land.


----------



## Readie (Feb 1, 2012)

futuredogfight said:


> Finland is Finland. They took up Germany's offer cause they didn't want to be invaded and they wanted to retake the lost land.



Excuses excuses... Hobson choice more like !
John


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Finland was Axis "
> 
> Please clarify Parsifal. Do you mean Finland was an Axis Alliance signatory, or, that Finland first fought on the Axis side.
> 
> ...



Finland had a complicated war. They started out neutral, were invaded by the soviets (with tacit aquiesence by the Germans), surrendered, joined the Axis alliance as a "co-belligerent" (which in my book is putting a nicety on the fact thet they were now Axis) two weeks after the beginning of Barbarossa. They were much more independant than any of the other Axis partners, and absolutely refused to allow Germans into certain, more populated areas, such as Karelia. In particular they refused any german attacks onto Leningrad from Finn soil. The Germans were generally restricted to deployments north of the Arctic Circle, though there were Finn troops stationed and actively engaged in that sector as well. 

Finally, like they did to all their allies, as the walls came down around Hitlers empire, he behaved in his usual erratic fashion and decided he needed yet another enemy. Finlands abandonment of the germans was sealed when they were betrayed by the germans, who attacked them after the Finns asked the Germans to leave the country, following the ceasefire with the Finns had been forced to accept with the soviets, 

The Finns never declared war on the US, and whilst they declared wars on the British, never attacked them (though they were attacked by the brits in Kirkenes, and in attacks against Finnish shipping). The Finns steadfastly refused to allow the Germans based in Finland to carry out any attacks on allied shipping in Neutral waters. The finnish war was strictly aginst the Soviets, and finland only ever wanted to get waht was theirs back, not to embark on a war of aggression or conquest. 

So, to answer your question, the Finnish situation was unique, but for a while they were still Axis belligerents. I think of all the Axis powers, the Finns fought the most honourable (if unusual) of wars, being the plaything of nearly all the major powers at one time or another. One story I particularly like from the Finns....a finnish soldier was persoanally singled out as an iron cross recipient, for his conspicuous bravery in saving the lives of 18 strident SS men. He politley refused, citing his overt Jewish heritage as the reason why he could not accept. Talk about sticking it to the nazis!!!!!!


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 2, 2012)

Exactly!!


----------



## DVH (Feb 2, 2012)

I may be a Brit, and the spit is a beauty, but the USA had the coolest aircraft, and the most diverse set of fighters. Were I to be in the thick, I,d feel safest in a P51.


----------



## Readie (Feb 3, 2012)

DVH said:


> I may be a Brit, and the spit is a beauty, but the USA had the coolest aircraft, and the most diverse set of fighters. Were I to be in the thick, I,d feel safest in a P51.




cough, cough, splutter....


----------



## futuredogfight (Feb 4, 2012)

New info on Finland. They were axis co-belligerent from 1941-1944 and they were also an Allies from 1939-1941, then Allies again in 1945. Crazy huh?


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Feb 16, 2012)

I would go for Great Britain. They did a good job getting the mission accomplished in the obsolete Gladiators, Swordfishes, and the Albacores. Later in the war, they came out with the greatest variety of aircraft (in my prospective).

Thanks,
Sam


----------

