# Most effective planes of the early war years



## Glider (Jun 5, 2005)

We spend a lot of time and effort discussing which was the best fighter, bomber whatever of the war and the subject tends to drift towards the latter part of the war. P47N, P51K, Spit 14, 190D-9 etc. 

I would like peoples views on the most effective planes from the outbreak of war in 1939 up to but NOT including Dunkirk.

So remember that no spits are included, the Hurricane was less powerful for fuel and were earlier versions. 109's are almost certainly armed with 4 x LMG as D's E0 and E1's were the most common. 

If in doubt consider this to be planes that were in service and action in Europe before Dunkirk.

I am interested in Single Engine Fighters, Twin engined fighter, single engined bombers and twin engined bombers. The most effective in each category.

Idea's for starters.
How does the De520 compare to a Curtis Hawk, 109E1 or a Hurricane.
Is the Fokker G1 better than a 110, How does the Potez63 stack up
Is the Ju87 the best single engine bomber . It came unstuck in the BOB but before then?

All ideas and comments are welcome


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2005)

STUKA, STUKA, STUKA!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

Definately the Ju-87 and He-111 as bombers. Their effectiveness on any field of battle cannot be disputed. 

RAF 1st Squadron did a pretty impressive job in France with their Hurricanes, they even retrofitted armour to the cockpit which I believe was in all other Hurricanes thereafter. 

The combat reports of the early years have to be taken in light of Allied confusion caused by the shock and awe of the blitzkrieg.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 5, 2005)

I would agree with FBJ on that one. The Germans learned alot during the Spanish Civil War and took the lessons learned and put them to good practice. By the time they had started taking Europe, their pilots were veterans and experten.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

I have to agree, and add on...

The Ju-87, and I think its obvious why.....

The Bf-109 came outta Spain finely tuned and overwhelmed EVERYTHING else in the sky for what? 1 1/2 years??? German Aces from Spain facing off against Green Brit boys??? Where's the sport in that?

And a twist...

The Japanese A6M Zeke... Complete domination of the Pacific for 2 years... Japanese had aces in 1939 against the Russians... Some with as many as 30 kills by the time America entered the War... What a combo..

Give credit where credit is due...... The men who designed these things of greatness.... What vision...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

The IJAAF had fun burning over 80 I-16s over Khalkin-Gol.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Yup... For a loss of like 4 pilots.... Anyone got the kill ratio over Spain for the Luftwaffe???


----------



## evangilder (Jun 5, 2005)

Good point Les. I forgot about the Japanese early on.


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2005)

Sorry folks but the A6M is out as it wasn't ordered into production until July 1940. 15 Pre production prototypes were used in Manchuria which is still a bit late. The use of Pre Production Prototypes in action was a common practice in Japan.
In fact only just over 400 were in service at Pearl Harbour.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Damn I thought i was close, but i didnt reference.......

So then it was the what? Ki-27???

Hiromichi Shinohara had 58 kills by the time he died in Manchuria 8/27/39...


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

Remember your now trying to pit the Ki27 with fixed undercarrige and 2xLMG against much faster planes with up to 8xLMG, 1x20 and 4xLMG, or 4xLMG on a Me109.
Also remember that the Japs lost in Manchuria even in the air, it wasn't a one way street for them. The 153 and I16 were more than equal to the task.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

Early Pacific combat is alittle outta my league, but Id say that its all about the -109 and the -87... Not much comparison for the first years of the War.....

Till the Zero and the Spit....


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 6, 2005)

If "early" in this thread is defined as up to but not including Dunkirk, then we are talking about a year and a half prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

What about the Ju-88 which entereed service with the Luftwaffe in September of 1939? It may not have had the greatest impact on the Nazi war effort by mid 1940 but was a superb aircraft nonetheless.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2005)

Direct fuel injection was a considerable advantage in the early years. 
The Bf-109 E is therefore my favourite, closely followed by the Bf-110 (remember, it had a great loss to kill ratio prior to BoB) and Stuka. The Zero is great for the japanese, as is the Hurricane for the British and the I-16 for the soviets (actually the I-16 did very well in spain until they introduced their Bf-109..). Particularly the japanese G4M Betty is quite an impressive medium bomber in this timeframe...


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 6, 2005)

The spit was in action from the begining of the war! Why is it out? Anyway mine are:
Bf 109 E, Dewoitine D 520, Curtiss Hawk-this plane gave a really good account of itself-a German ace who's name i don't recall was shot down by one, and a small number of these prevailed over a larger force of 109 D s . Heinkel He-111, Stuka, Hurricane.


----------



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

yes i think the spit Mk.I should be included as she was in service before dunquirk.........

and i think this's really between the hurricane and -109E if the spit's excluded...........

and of course are we forgetting the wellington?? she was in service but didn't see and major action before dunquirk, but very few british planes did.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

How about the Betty Bomber (G4M-1)? It did run wild in the first few years of the Pacific War until it was found out it was a "Flying Cigar."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 6, 2005)

How about the Handley Page Hampden? Great plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> How about the Handley Page Hampden? Great plane.



I agree


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Zero didn't meet the Spitfire until 1943, over the skies of Burma. It's strange that a lot of people seem to think they met before then. 

And, damn it, the Mohawk has to have mention!


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

You probably wont like to hear this guys and say "he's off again about those bloody Swordfish"  but most effective plane in the early years the do it all Stringbag I am currently reading a brilliant book by Charles Lamb (War in a Stringbag) he served from before the war till 1945 in nothing but Swordfish from Europe too the Far East and he admits they where slow and vulnerable, the on board armaments of one syncronized Vickers 303 and a TAG operated Lewis gun where throw backs to WW1 and virtually useless. Their only real defense was outstanding maneuverability and the ability to take punishment but when used for the right missions they could and where incredibly effective.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

He's off again about those bloody Swordfish!  - No Track, I gotta agree!


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

There you are I told you some one would say it


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

Trackend, How many were in France?

Seriously fair point but I suspect that the Devistator was a better torpedo plane at the time.


----------



## Jank (Jun 6, 2005)

How about the Heinkel 111 or Junkers 88?


----------



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

as torpedo planes before dunquirk??


----------



## trackend (Jun 6, 2005)

Glider said:


> Trackend, How many were in France?
> 
> Seriously fair point but I suspect that the Devistator was a better torpedo plane at the time.



None Glider, 
How many Devastators in the early years of WW2 where in France?

You may be right Gilder that the TBD was a better torpedo plane but the thread is asking for the most effective not the best plane in the early years of the war. for me thats 1939 - 41 within those years I believe that the Stringbag was more effective, indeed it is a bone of contention that the Swordfish was the single most effective anti shipping plane of WW2 in terms of gross tonnage however having tried to verifiy it myself I believe it is extremley hard to quantifiy the exact figures or say that about any other specific aircraft also.
The Stringbag carried an 18" 1610lb torpedo I believe the TBD carried a 1000lb weapon I think punch helps as well as speed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

And remember, American torpedoes were Sh*t at the beginning of the war!


----------



## Jank (Jun 6, 2005)

No Lancaster. As effecrtive aircraft. The bloody thread is about effective aircraft. What aboutr the Heinkel 111 and Junkers 88?


----------



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

i'd say the he-111 was more effective than the ju-88........


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2005)

I surrender on the Devastator


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes i think the spit Mk.I should be included as she was in service before dunquirk.........
> 
> and i think this's really between the hurricane and -109E if the spit's excluded...........
> 
> and of course are we forgetting the wellington?? she was in service but didn't see and major action before dunquirk, but very few british planes did.........


 I think you could say the D 520 was at least as good as a Hurricane 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

I still gotta go with the Bf-109... No other plane truley dominated.....


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2005)

Ill go for the 109 aswell, however the Stuka is a close second.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Bf-109 didn't really dominate. The shock and awe tactics made it seem that the Luftwaffe was unstoppable. Surprise is the greatest weapon of war. 
Remember that the Allied air forces were pulling away from the advancing panzers as well. 

If we're talking up until Dunkirk for fighters it's Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf-109. 

Bombers it's He-111, Ju-87 and Do-17.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

> The Bf-109 didn't really dominate.


I disagree pD... When Britian declared war on Germany, and met those -109's, the world of aerial combat changed forever.... .303's? HA!

The Brits, and later on America, always seemed to try and counter the Germans, starting with the -109... 
I wont dog ur Spit, because I favor it as well, but in the earlier stages of the War, it wasnt really the -109's equal.... Later is a different story...

Ur more into the ramification of things, so I wont preach to u, but Im sure u see the importance of leading a technological phase of warfare, and the advantages it creates... The -109 was fine tuned and proven combat effective by the time the Spit Prototype first flew...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

In the beginning of WW2, the -109 and Zero was the benchmark - everything else designed was made to counter it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

We kinda ruled out the Zero tho........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Bf-109 certainly was a remarkable feat of aircraft engineering and technological advancement. However, if anything the Bf-109 was improved to meet the bar that the Spitfire had set. 

The British learnt from the Germans in the armament sector. .303cal is laughable but not when there's eight plugging away at your tail. The E-3 of the Battle of France did not dominate over the Spitfire, the tactics of the Luftwaffe did. 

The first Spitfire flew in March 1936. By August 19th, 1939, 10 squadrons of Spitfire were present in the U.K. I will say, with ease, that up to Dunkirk the Bf-109 was, without a doubt, the most *effective* fighter. Nothing stood in it's way, even the bravery of the Allied air men couldn't stand in their way. 

The Germans generally set the bar in technology advancements which everyone else had to move up to but I don't believe that's so with the Bf-109, except with it's armament. 
Keep in mind though, the Bf-109 had a chance to be perfected in the Spanish Civil War. Combat experience allows the best improvements. If the Spitfire had been sent to the Spanish Civil War, it's pretty safe to say it would have had 20mm earlier.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2005)

yea, you're right, I guess I was exaggerating


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 6, 2005)

Good points there, PD.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

But the Spit was produced due to the lackluster performance of the Hurricane, and the eventual threat of combat with the -109....

Otherwise I generally agree with u on everything else u said...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Spitfire was designed to replace older planes, as the Hurricane was. The Spitfire and Hurricane were designed and produced around the same time. In fact the Spitfire was in competition with the Hurricane for a production deal with the MOD. 

Supermarine said that the Spitfire would be able to hold it's own against anything during the 40s. I don't know of any contact, if any, with Supermarine and the Bf-109 but I'm sure they got some combat reports from the Spanish Civil War, but I don't know.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

> In fact the Spitfire was in competition with the Hurricane for a production deal with the MOD


That I didnt know......

The Zurich Races in 1937 was the showcase for the beginnings of the -109... It broke records like a bull in a China Shop........

Do we have to compare the -109 ONLY to the Spit??? The -109 fought in Spain and Poland and France before the BoB, and owned everything else in the sky.... P.7 and P.11's??? 

1937-1939..... It was superior to EVERYTHING it flew against.. (before BoB and Spitfires) The Spit never did this.. The Hurricane never did this....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

Your post is exactly why I agree that it was the most effective fighter of early war years. I don't agree that it was the benchmark to which the RAF developed the Spitfire because it simply wasn't. 

The Spitfire and Bf-109 did meet over France but I know little of their combats. Yes, the Bf-109 did do all that before the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire didn't but you know that the Spitfire could have done all that. It also didn't do all that before the Spitfire, the Spitfire flew in March 1936 before the Spanish Civil War had even got into full swing. 

Spitfire against I-16, I-153, Pz.11c...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

Hmmm....
The first Spitfire proto flew in March 1936, but the first operational Spitfire with 8x .303's reached #19 Squadron RAF at Duxford in August 1938... When war broke out there were 306 MkI's in service... By Sept 1939 there were 11 Squadrons.... Over 10% of the 306 aircraft had been lost to accidents....
The first action for the Spitfire was on Oct 16th 1939, when #602 and 603 engaged Luftwaffe Bombers off of Scotland...

19 Squadrons used Spits by 1940, with a third of these being lost while covering the withdrawl at Dunkirk...

I see now with some research that the Spit really wasnt designed to combat the -109...


----------



## 16KJV11 (Jun 6, 2005)

I might be called crazy but I think that few aeroplanes accomplished what the Swordfish did in Taranto early in the war. Except maybe what the Stuka did in Poland. It has to be remembered that the both the Stuka and the Swordfish pilots met up against very light resistance from aircraft though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

> It has to be remembered that the both the Stuka and the Swordfish pilots met up against very light resistance from aircraft though.


And when they did, it was a quick victory for either fighter pilot...



> Except maybe what the Stuka did in Poland.


I agree 100%... The Stuka, as has been stated on the first page, is definatly the winner of this poll for me...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Stuka gets a lot of credit for the Blitzkrieg, it didn't carry it though. A line from Hitler after viewing a wrecked Polish artillery battery; "Did our Stukas do that?", Guderian replies "No, our panzers"...Hitler was shocked by that reply. 

What I'm saying is, for the whole picture, don't just come to the conclusion that the Stuka cut a clear path for the German ground forces to advance. 

It certainly was the most effective bomber of the early war years, it says something when Stukas attacked a French artillery battery by the River Meuse, covering Sedan, and they didn't destroy many guns but the fear alone made the artillery gunners never return...or maybe it was just because they were French...


----------



## 16KJV11 (Jun 7, 2005)

> or maybe it was just because they were French...


Oui Oui, or should I say, es muy verdad, or maybe, You got that right, mate!


----------



## 16KJV11 (Jun 7, 2005)

Anyone have any kudos for the P-40?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

No..


----------



## trackend (Jun 7, 2005)

I agree the Stringbag was easy meat when it was faced with fighters. it on ocassion got lucky out manouvering the enemy but you are quite right guys, although not as effective as the Stuka at dive bombing the Swordfish was suprisingly adept in this roll as well as its many others.
I have not got info of the exact angles of dive but the standard attack was for the pilot to stand on the rudder bar when diving and look over the top wing to see the target so googles and a helmet where vital bits of kit as the pilots bonce was in the slip stream it must have been pretty steep. Pull out was begun at around 500ft. Having said that it must have been the slowest dive bomber in the war as if the airspeed exceeded 200knots there was a distinct possibillity of folding the wings.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2005)

As far as I ama ware only a fw PR Spitfires felw in france. The normal fighters didn't.
I am interested on what peoples views are re twin engined fighters. 

Three that come to mind are the 110, Fokker G1 and the Potez 63


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 7, 2005)

The 110 was rubbish but from what I've read the Fokker wasn't too bad. Neither was the Whirlwind


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

Yes Glider, it seems that the Spit was held back from France for security issues... Air Chief Marshall Dowdings reluctance to send them to France probably saved the BoB........ 19 Squadrons instead of 10 woulda been the difference...


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2005)

To be honest I thought that the 110 did rather well in France. It was faster than any other fighter, better armed than any other fighter and had a decent range. Granted it came unstuck in the BOB but in France, Poland and Norway it may have been different.
Any views anyone?

Les I like the combat film. He may have got away with it if he hadn't reversed the turn.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 7, 2005)

Stupid RLM...they should have taken on the Fw-187, not the Me-110. The -187 was a much, much better plane.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

The RAF lost over half it's strength in the Battle of France. A few Spitfires were sent across the Channel to cover the Dunkirk evacuation but none were ever stationed in France until '44. 

Since this thread is up to Dunkirk and most *effective* we can't count the Spitfire. I've already agreed that the Bf-109 was the most effective fighter up to Dunkirk though. 

The Bf-110 did well against Air Forces that had weak aircraft and poor tactics. Once it met the RAF in full force the escort fighter needed it's own escort!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

> The Bf-110 did well against Air Forces that had weak aircraft and poor tactics. Once it met the RAF in full force the escort fighter needed it's own escort!


Hehe.......


----------



## delcyros (Jun 7, 2005)

The 110 is really not that bad. It succesfully participated in the escort, fighter, interceptor (Battle over the German Bay), recon and ground attack role on it´s own. It wasn´t until the BoB that it´s shortcomings have been known. Until Dunkirk it was the best versatile plane and therefore highly effective. Keep in mind that more planes fell to the guns of the Bf-110 than Bf-109 over Poland, Norway and the Benelux. Over France the Bf-109 and Bf-110 were about equal and at BoB most kills are credited to the Bf-109.
The G4M probably was extremely effective in the early years, it is credited with the sinking of two british battleships (Repulse and Prince of Wales, along with torpedobombers) and technically it was a good bomber. The Swordfish really was a star in the early years. Beside of Tarent, it safed the day for the Royal Navy by fortunately hitting the rudderroom of the Bismarck, rendering it´s maneuverability to zero. While the other two hits did not reduced the combat abilities of the ship, this lucky hit allowed the hunters to engage the Bismarck and seal it´s fate.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

I hate people with that attitude. It wasn't a *lucky* hit! The aircraft aimed at the Bismarck and hit the Bismarck. And don't start with "Torpedos couldn't sink the Bismarck though" because they could! The Bismarck was finally sunk by a torpedo from H.M.S Dorsetshire!

Lucky, fuck off.


----------



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

yes they were british, as such, it was skill involved, not luck.......


----------



## delcyros (Jun 7, 2005)

For this task I strongly suggest to reread the excamination reports of the Bismarck. No torpedo of a Swordfish carryable size could sink the Bismarck alone. None of the torpedo bulkheads of the Bismarck are destroyed, just one spot, hit by 14 inch grenade, probably by Prince of Wales, pierced the torpedo bulkhead. The Dorsetshire hits damaged the outer surface of the hull, not the watetight sectors behind the torpedo bulkheads.
And yes, it was a lucky hit, lucky in a sense that the rudder controll of any warship are sensitive to be jammed if directly hit (either, by a torpedo or pierced by AP-grenades). 
It is thinkable that repeated torpedohits (no less than 12) have under some circumstances (hit in the same sector, one torpedo gets through the whole and explodes inside the hull, just as in case of the Yamato or Scharnhorst) a chance to sink the ship, but not the few the Bismarck got.
I also suggest to read Nathan Okuns article about the protection system of the Bismarck. 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 7, 2005)

Well call it luck that it was a hit to the rudder then, preventing Bismarck from running any further.

Better?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2005)

Yea, that's BS - I aimed at the bow and hit the rudder?!? Lucky, no way!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 7, 2005)

So much for my feeble attempt at wit.


----------



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

dude, we sunk the bismark no matter what, no ammount of you saying it was luck will change the fact that we did, i don't know what you're trying to prove with this argument........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

Exactly. It wasn't luck at all. The Swordfish crews didn't just aim at the ship, they aimed at areas of the ship. Luck would be a Swordfish getting shot down then crashing aimlessly into the rudder and jamming it. 

It wasn't luck, it was skill and bravery of those Swordfish crews!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 7, 2005)

Anyway, this doesn´t reduce the Swordfishs efforts in this task. While flying a n obsolete biplane and attacking the most fearsome ship of it´s time! That´s what I call effectiffness....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

That's more like it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Well for the ontopic part of my post I will go with the Bf-109E as the best early war aircraft. She had decent armament and good performance. The Stuka also was very successfull at early war time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> dude, we sunk the bismark no matter what, no ammount of you saying it was luck will change the fact that we did, i don't know what you're trying to prove with this argument........



Now for the off topic portion.

For all intensive purposes I too believe the Brits sank the Bismark, however I have a film by Robert Ballard (who found the Bismark). Well he went back to the Bismark several years ago and found evidence that the Bismark was scuttled by her crew so as not to let the British sink her. She was dead in the water and the British were going to get sink her but they blew her up from internally. This is all from his mouth as well so, take it as you please.


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 9, 2005)

> Well for the ontopic part of my post I will go with the Bf-109E as the best early war aircraft. She had decent armament and good performance



Let's not forget the dewoitine D 520. If I'm not mistaken , it racked up a favourable kill ratio against the germans, and that with pilots who often had flown less than about 10 hours in that type of aircraft. It was slower but more manoevrable than the Emil and packed 4 0.30 calibers and a moteur cannon (firing through propeller hub) ...considerable in those days.

I read this on a site : Even though it was lower in terms of pure speed to the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, the Dewoitine D-520 outclassed it in terms of maneuverability. For this reason, the Dewoitine was considered one of the best aircraft at the beginning of the war and it could have had a similar career, or a superior career, to the legendary aircraft that is now the Spitfire, the Focke Wulf Fw 190 or the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The D-520 was created in 1936 by the French designer Emile Dewoitine.


----------



## Glider (Jun 9, 2005)

I am with Marseille. My choices for what there worth are as follows
Single engined fighter would be the De520,
Twin engined fighter the Fokker G1
Light bomber has to be the Stuka
Medium bomber the Wellington
Torpedo bomber Swordfish


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

marseille jr said:


> > Well for the ontopic part of my post I will go with the Bf-109E as the best early war aircraft. She had decent armament and good performance
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Big thing though: _*"Could Have Been"*_. Cant speak to well for the French for the whole war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Big thing though: _*"Could Have Been"*_. Cant speak to well for the French for the whole war.



YEPPERS!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I really like the google search there. Was that an actual search or did you make it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

Found it on the net, won't be too surprised though if it came out that way!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

marseille jr said:


> > Well for the ontopic part of my post I will go with the Bf-109E as the best early war aircraft. She had decent armament and good performance
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. The D.520 is hugely underrated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

That it was! Wow - one thing the French did right!


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2005)

Three little things
1. The Bismark was scuttled but was 100% going to be sunk.
So as the crew of the Bismark did not think "I know theres nothing on the horizon lads lets pull the plug to piss off Adolf " but new their fate was sealed , she was a wreak from stem to stern and would have been pounded to little bits she was unquestionably sunk by the British.
2. The lucky shot was probably just that the sighting device used on Stringbags consisted of a bar across the pilots line of sight with a row of lights each light represented 5knts so you find the speed of the target attack from the beam align the target with the correct light eg 20knts from the portside 4th light from the nose on the left hand side release your torp at 500-1000yards and bingo a hit however it was not that accurat that you could hit a ships stern on purpose. that said once she had been found lucky hit or not it was only a matter of time before her destruction.
3. (back on thread) I like Gliders list but I think id have the BF109 rather than the DE520 the 109 demonstrated it's abilitys right across europe and beyond where as the 520 had a very short span of combat operations before being excluded from the scene it was indeed a good plane but in my opinion did not operate long enough to show it's superiority over the 109


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 10, 2005)

ROFLMFAO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

It may have been a fine plane but it did not do much. For what its worth though it did fair quite well when it was used.



> When Germany invaded France on May 10th only GC I/3 was equipped with the D.520, with 79 planes. They met the Luftwaffe on May 13, shooting down three Henschel Hs 126s and one Heinkel He 111 without loss. GC II/2, GC III/3, GC III/6 and GC II/7 later received their D.520, and all took part in the Battle of France. A naval unit, the 1st Flotille de Chasse, was also equipped with the D.520. GC II/6 and GC III/7 converted to the D.520, but had been formed too late to see action.
> 
> By the time of the armistice at the end of June, 437 D.520's had been built, and 351 of these had been delivered. In that time they had 108 confirmed kills and 39 probables, losing 54 to enemy action. As French resistance collapsed in the middle of June, GC I/3, II/3, III/3, III/6, and II/7 flew their aircraft to Algeria. Three more from of GC III/7 escaped to Britain, and 153 machines remained in France.
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/d/de/dewoitine_d_520.html



Comparison of the Dewoitine D.520 and the Bf-109E

*Dewoitine D.520C.1* 

*Description *
Role Day fighter 
Crew one, pilot 

*Dimensions *
Length 28 ft 8 in (8.7 m) 
Wingspan 33 ft 6 in (10.2 m) 
Height 8 ft 5 in (2.6 m) 
Wing area 172 ft² (16 m²) 

*Weights *
Empty 4,608 lb (2,090 kg) 
Maximum take-off 6,129 lb (2,780 kg) 

*Powerplant *
Engines Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 
Power 930 hp (690 kW) 

*Performance *
Maximum speed 329 mph (529 km/h) 
Combat range 
Ferry range 777 mile (1,250 km) 
Service ceiling 

*Armament *
Guns 1x 20 mm cannon
4x 7.5 mm machine guns 
Bombs

*Messerschmitt Bf-109E*

*Type*: Single-seat fighter
*Origin*: Bayerische Flegzeugwerke

*Engine*:
Model: Daimler-Benz 601Aa
Type: Liquid Cooled Inverted V12
Number: One Horsepower: 1,150hp

*Dimensions:*
Wing span: 32 ft. 4.5 in.
Length: 28 ft. 8 in.
Height: 8 ft. 10 in.
Wing Surface Area: N/A

*Weights:*
Empty: 4,440 lb.
Maximum, Loaded: 5,520 lb.

*Performance:*
Maximum Speed: 357 mph at 12,300 ft.
Maximum Climb: 3,100 feet per minute
Range: 412 Miles
Service Ceiling: 36,000 ft.

*Armament:*
Two 20mm MG/FF mounted in the wings with 60 rounds per gun
And
Two 7.9mm MG 17 mounted above engine with 1,000 rounds per gun

In all actuallity the Bf-109 is still superior to the D.520. It is more superior in performance, engine rating, and armament. The only thing the D.520 had going for it was the range being superior to the the 109.

Still all in all I will agree that the 520 was underated.


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2005)

Thats cruel Fly funny    but cruel


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

trackend said:


> Thats cruel Fly funny    but cruel


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

trackend said:


> Three little things
> 1. The Bismark was scuttled but was 100% going to be sunk.
> So as the crew of the Bismark did not think "I know theres nothing on the horizon lads lets pull the plug to piss off Adolf " but new their fate was sealed , she was a wreak from stem to stern and would have been pounded to little bits she was unquestionably sunk by the British.



Very true. She was going to go down. She was a wreck! I think it was more of a "Lets not let the Brits have her".


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

Umm, don´t be too sure in this.
Because I believe it is not that far off topic (since the actions, originated in the Swordfish launched fluke hit lead to the complete removal of Atlantic surface operations and therefore were in anyway highly effective for the curse of war) we should discuss it. 
I know, I am going to be misunderstand but I should tell a little about it:
A survivor of Bismarck, whom I had the opportunity to ask, 
told me that the Zitadelle (e.g. the protection system) of the ship was intact in the time he left the ship. This is confirmed by almost all books, I read. The ship was in no seaworthy condition, but it wouldn´t have been sunken by the RN actions. Fact is that the KGV and Rodney as well as several cruisers wrecked the upper parts of the ship by firing from almost point blanc range. The ship was on fire and silenced. In this way, it can be said that the ship was no more an active combat unit. However, it wasn´t an effective combat unit prior to this because the rudder controll was out of action and therefore, the ship had no controll of the course (it proved to be difficult to hit anything if the ship changes continously direction). But it was scuttled by it´s own crews initiative (beside of what some germans might say mostly because they wanted to leave the ship in order to survive). Even additional torpedo hits wouldn´t have a big chance to sink her. Repaeted hits could do so (around 45 torpedos have been fired on the Scharnhorst, no less than 12 hit the ship, same torpedo protection system). 
Excaminations of the wreckage confirmed this. In order to sink the ship at least 12 of 24 protected, watertight compartments must be filled with water. Actually only 1 took water at the moment the ship was abandoned.
The extensive gun bombardment from close range could pierce the heavy 320 mm KC main belt but not the sloped, 100 mm Wh armor behind it. Even a Yamato class gun would have almost no probability to do so ( except from direct 90 degrees impact at below 2000 ft. distance). The torpedo protection system would ensure protection against torpedoes up to 60 cm warhead class except for bow and stern hits or flukes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> trackend said:
> 
> 
> > Three little things
> ...



AGREE! EVERYBODY SING! \/ 

Sink The Bismark
Johnny Horton

In May of l941 the war had just begun
The Germans had the biggest ship, they had the biggest guns
The Bismark was the fastest ship that ever sailed the sea
On her deck were guns as big as steers, and shells as big as trees.

Out of the cold and foggy night came the British ship, the Hood
And every British seaman, he knew and understood
They had to sink the Bismark, the terror of the sea,
Stop those guns as big as steers and those shells as big as trees.

We'll find that German battleship that's making such a fuss,
We gotta sink the Bismark cause the world depends on us. We'll hit the decks a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
Yeah, and when we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down!

The Hood found the Bismark, and on that fatal day
The Bismark started firing fifteen miles away
"We gotta sink the Bismark!" was the battle sound
But when the smoke had cleared away, the Mighty Hood went down.

For six long days and weary nights they tried to find her trail.
Churchill told the people, "Put every ship asail,
For somewhere on that ocean, I know she's gotta be
We gotta sink the Bismark to the bottom of the sea!"

We'll find that German battleship that's making such a fuss
We gotta sink the Bismark cause the world depends on us
We'll hit the deck a-runnin' boys and spin those guns around
And when we find the Bismark we gotta cut her down.

The fog was gone the seventh day, and they saw the morning sun.
Ten hours away from homeland the Bismark made its run.
The admiral of the British fleet said, "turn those bows around,
We found that German Battleship and we're gonna cut her down!"

The British guns were aimed and the shells were coming fast,
The first shell hit the Bismark, they knew she couldn't last
That mighty German battleship is just a memory.
"SINK THE BISMARK!" was the battle cry that shook the seven seas!

We found that German battleship that was making such a fuss.
We had to sink the Bismark cause the world depends on us.
We hit the deck a-runnin' and we spun those guns around, yeah, and when we found the Bismark, we hadda cut her down!


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2005)

Very yohoho FBJ i hoped you all joined in  

Delcros I think you,re talking through your scuttles. 
It interrupted operations for how many days? 
There has never been and will never be an unsinkable ship. 
If the RN had sailed up 500 yards away and pumped all the main armament of two battleships broadside after broadside into it I can assure you irrespective of what protection systems the Bismark had, it would have sunk as it was before this was completed the crew scuttled her. To intimate that it was unsinkable and could only be sunk by scuttling. Not really sensible is it. be fair Del. 
Excluding even that supposing the RN had left it afloat what would have happened. 
The Kreigsmarine nip out with a couple of tugs get her in tow and take her back for a quick whiz over with a tin of Hammerite or Dulux non drip.?  
"Mother put on the kettle I have a Headache" . YE GODS!!!


----------



## delcyros (Jun 10, 2005)

No, trackend, I wouldn´t go so far and say that the Bismarck was unsinkable. This wouldn´t be true. In fact, the Bismarcks protection system is sensitive against hits from high angles at greater distances ( in this way, it was more sensitive than the contemporary Roma or KGV-class). It´s protection system was optimized for close distances , just the game, the RN played with her. Under no circumstances a 16 inch or 14 inch grenade from even 50 yards could send her down to the bottom of the ocean.
This is confirmed by Nathan Okun´s excellent comprehensive analysis of the Bismarcks protection system. 
The Rodney would have a pretty chance to blew up the Bismarck if it can hit the boiler rooms from 24.000 yards or the magazines from 26.500 yards and more distance. 
The Swordfishs did a great job. They knocked out parts of the ship which had not it´s otherwise good topredo protection (the rudder controll at the stern).


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 10, 2005)

Interesting discussion, boys.

And FBJ, that mag cover is funny as hell!


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2005)

Del you are in dia need of a humour transplant take two of these \/ three times a day if things dont improve come and see me next week


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> And FBJ, that mag cover is funny as hell!


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 10, 2005)

I am glad to see my reference to the D520 enjoys some approval. 



> Big thing though: "Could Have Been". Cant speak to well for the French for the whole war.



Yeah, but there were barely D520's in service by the time Them Germans struck. And the few that were available were flown by pilots who often had only 5 hours flying experience in it. And yet it notched up a favourable kill ratio against the experienced Luftwaffe pilots flying the Emil. It simply was a promising plane that came too few, too late ... and a good looking one too !!!


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 10, 2005)

> In all actuallity the Bf-109 is still superior to the D.520. It is more superior in performance, engine rating, and armament. The only thing the D.520 had going for it was the range being superior to the the 109.




you forgot manoeuvrability in favor of the D 520. And i wouldn't be too sure about the armament. It had only one cannon but it was centered in the middle (cfr emil - friedrich). I also read it could dive well and without locking up the controls too much.

so that leaves us with topspeed (climb?) + engine rating vs range + manoeuvrability. They seem pretty well matched. And still the unexperienced pilots français racked up a favourable kill ratio... it definetely was underrated!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

But as said, "could of been," but agreed, it was a good airplane. Werner Molders was shot down by one I believe.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 10, 2005)

Yep, he was indeed. And the pilot that shot him down was also shot down and killed by another Emil , if i'm not mistaken.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 10, 2005)

too few too late!! it was designed in 1936 how much time did they need!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> too few too late!! it was designed in 1936 how much time did they need!!



Well it was French


----------



## plan_D (Jun 10, 2005)

The Spitfire first flew in March 1936, it wasn't much older than the D.520.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2005)

It wasn't French (thank god)


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 11, 2005)

> too few too late!! it was designed in 1936 how much time did they need!!



Premier vol: 2/10/1938; Production: 3/12/39; Livraison: 1/02/1940

translated : first flight at 2nd october 1938, production started in december 1939, first deliveries in february 1940. (First drawings were made in 1937 btw.)

On espérait l'équiper d'un moteur de 1300cv..

They hoped to equip it with a 1300HP engine ... but that never happened (910 was all it got)

Il abbatit néanmoins près de 150 avions ennemis pour une perte de 85

It knocked out almost 150 ennemy planes for the loss of 85 of their own (against the much more experienced germans)

seuls 36 étaient en service le 10 mai 1940, un nombre tout à fait insuffisant pour faire face à la toute puissante Luftwaffe

Only 36 were in service on 10 may 1940, absolutely not enough to face the powerful luftwaffe on equal terms.

Dans les opérations militaires et la courte période qui vit la France et l'Allemagne s'affronter dans les airs, le D-520 se révéla supérieur au Messerschmitt Bf 109-E3 pour ce qui est de la manoeuvrabilité, mais inférieur quant à la vitesse maximale

in the short period France and Germany contended in the air, the D520 revealed itself to be superior in terms of manoeuvrability to the BF 109 E-3, but inferior in terms of top speed.

Amen


----------



## delcyros (Jun 11, 2005)

I must admit, that the D-520 is a beauty.
But this thread goes for the most effective plane of the erly stage of war and even a record of 150 kills is not that impressive, compared to the Bf-109 or Hurricane. Keep also in mind that almost all single engined fighter planes have a positive loss to kill relation (including the polish P-11 fighter).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

The development of the D.520 started in 1936. So in the time that the British developed the Spitfire and the Germans developed the Bf-109 the French could not speed up there progress on the D.520.

I am sorry if I am being biased here I think the D.520 was an underated aircraft as you stated and she did well for the time she was in service but I just dont like French planes.



> Design of the Dewoitine 520 started in November 1936 at the private design firm led by Emile Dewoitine. Trying to address problems in earlier designs, he created a fighter using only the latest techniques and engines. The new design was to be able to reach 520 km/h, and became known as the "520". Only months later the firm was conglomorated into one of a number of design-and-manufacturing pools, in this case SNCAM. Still known as the D.520, work on the design continued at the new company.
> 
> The first prototype D.520 flew on October 2, 1938, powered by the new 890 hp (660 kW) Hispano-Suiza 12Y-21 liquid-cooled engine. The plane managed to reach only 480 km/h in flight tests, much slower than expected. Most of the problem seemed to come from greater than expected drag from the underwing radiators, so these were merged into a single radiator under the fuselage. After minor damage in a landing accident the engine was upgraded to a newer -29 and included exhaust ejectors for added thrust, along with an adjustable prop. These changes were enough to allow the plane to reach its design speed.
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/d/de/dewoitine_d_520.html



With the War looming in 1939, you would have thought the French would have ordered more aircraft then they did....



> Flight tests went fairly well, and a contract for 200 production machines to be powered by the newer -31 engine (later replaced by the -45) was issued in March of 1939. A contract for an additional 600 planes was issued in June, but this was reduced to 510 in July.
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/d/de/dewoitine_d_520.html



And a bit too late.....



> With the outbreak of war in September 1939 a new contract brought the total to 1280, with the production rate to be 200 machines per month from May 1940 onward. The Aeronavale then ordered 120 for their own use. Another Armée de Air order in April 1940 brought the total to 2250, and increased quotas to 350 a month.
> http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/d/de/dewoitine_d_520.html



Sorry guys but the French here botched this one up again, they have a habit of it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2005)

Yea, that and the manufacture of French Surrender Flags...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Very true. They are now making 2 models of French Army knives to issue out to there troops.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 11, 2005)

Stars and Stripes pacifier


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Yeah I thought those were funny.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 11, 2005)

I still think the Dewoitine is in the best of the bunch. Think of the number in service and how many they shot down. They saw some action my friends!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

The D.520 was deffinatly underated but as for the early war years I still have to go with the Bf-109E and the Hurricane. In all actually both of these aircraft would send the French flying for safety over a period of time. The D.520 was the solution for the French who took to long to develop the aircraft. It was still a fine aircraft though, dont take me wrong.


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 11, 2005)

> I still think the Dewoitine is in the best of the bunch



Exactly. Not the best, but among the best. Most pilots only had flown about 5 hours in the aircraft and still managed to hold their own against numeriorically superior germans with months/years of experience in their emils. If the D520 wasn't on par with the Emil, this couldn't have happened unless all french pilots were Marseilles and Nowotnys... which obviously wasn't the case.

But consider this. Against the Emil it had its manoeuvrability and range to make up for the speed and engine rating shortcomings, but against the spitfire ... it definetely lost it's manoeuvrability advantage. I think this might perhaps be a reason why that the spit can be hailed as best dogfighter in the early stage of the war, despite my penchant for the BF 109. What do you guys think of this deduction?



> Design of the Dewoitine 520 started in November 1936 at the private design firm led by Emile Dewoitine



Mmmmm. I read on different french sites development started in january 1937. I'd guess that french sites will be more accurate as it's a french plane.



> Sorry guys but the French here botched this one up again, they have a habit of it



Yes. Not that a whole lot D520's would have changed the outcome though.



> But this thread goes for the most effective plane of the erly stage of war and even a record of 150 kills is not that impressive, compared to the Bf-109 or Hurricane



Only 36 were in service on 10 may 1940. You can't expect that pilots who barely knew the plane would rack up 1000's of aerial victories with so few planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 11, 2005)

marseille jr said:


> Quote:
> Design of the Dewoitine 520 started in November 1936 at the private design firm led by Emile Dewoitine
> 
> 
> Mmmmm. I read on different french sites development started in january 1937. I'd guess that french sites will be more accurate as it's a french plane.



there is an element of truth in this however do not just go by this, always look for several sources when getting data, are sites in english always right about english planes?? no.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

Well you know every site I hae been to says 1936 development started. Maybe they are wrong, will I ever know, problaby not because I was not on the design team of the aircraft, but I go with the common rule here.

I agree with what you say though about being among the best but not the best.


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 12, 2005)

> Well you know every site I hae been to says 1936 development started. Maybe they are wrong, will I ever know, problaby not because I was not on the design team of the aircraft, but I go with the common rule here.



D520 dont la conception avait débuté en 1937
http://henry.chez.tiscali.fr/nn/D520.html

Un projet modifié, désigné D.520 en référence à la vitesse exigée, est soumis en janvier 1937
http://caea.free.fr/fr/coll/d520.html

Both French sites state it was 1937. I regret we will never know the exact truth, but I'm inclined to 1937 here.

In trials on 4/21/40 with a captured Bf 109E3, the Bf109 was 20 mph faster due to the higher power of its engine, but the D.520 had superior maneuverability and handling.
http://members.aol.com/bogdanovaslava/Bulgarian_D520.html


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

What's the point in all this. Everyone has agreed the D.520 was under-rated and that it's 'among the best'. It's hardly an effective plane of the early war years. 

The mention of the kill ratio, the FAF got a 26:1 kill:loss ratio with Brewster Buffaloes. Does that make the Buffalo a good plane? I think not. 

The French would have been better with Hawk-75s than D.520s. The Bf-109 was the most *effective* early war fighter. The Hurricane up to Dunkirk didn't have much to say in the matter, it shone through during the Battle of Britain. 

And 200 machines per month! My god, that's a disgrace. Britain was throwing out 1000 Spitfires and Hurricanes a WEEK during the height of production in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 13, 2005)

> The Bf-109 was the most effective early war fighter



Mmmm the Emil couldn't really outperform the spit (except with negative G manoeuvers but that was quickly solved) while the spit could easily outturn the BF 109. I don't think the Emil's pair of twin slow firing cannons would completely make up for this. The germans were just lucky to have battle hardened veterens and well proven tactics to account for so many british planes.

Still I have to agree with you to some extent. Personnally I've always considered the spit and the Bf 109 each others equal (until 1943). They were along with the D520 the best planes of 1937-1940 (omitting the first reisen versions).


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

First off, this thread clearly stated "...up to Dunkirk..." the Spitfire did *not* serve in France, it served to protect the evacuation at Dunkirk only. 

Secondly, effective doesn't mean technical ability. The Spitfire had *no* effect on the Battle of France because it wasn't there! I don't think you understand the term _effective_. 

Effective ~ Adjective;

1. a) Having an intended or expected effect
b) Producing a strong impression or response

Up to Dunkirk the Spitfire did not have the oppurtunity to create a strong impression. The Bf-109, however, did have the oppurtunity and created the largest impression of any fighter in the early war years. 

There's no real need for a discussion on the technical ability of either aircraft as the Spitfire Vs. 109 debate has been raging for many a decade. 

The Spitfire and Bf-109 were both superior creations to the D.520. The Hawk-75 was better than the D.520 as well, this plane would have put much better service in as it out-performed the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 13, 2005)

I don't understand why some find the stereotype of french soldiers running away funny.
Are you saying that if you were in a war you would stand and fight? 99% of soldiers would literally shit themselves, scream and run away or surrender when there was'nt an officer around to shoot them for desertion.

Oh, and not surpisingly it has been proven that only 1 or 2 % of soldiers shoot to kill in combat, they are too sickened to murder someone.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

99% of soldiers would run away? Do you want to provide evidence to back up that statistic?

By that simple statement you have disgraced every single man in history that has fought on a field of battle, that has seen his friends die, that has been injured in a conflict and that has ultimately paid the ultimate price, his life. 

All of those men that ran up those beaches, jumped out of those planes, ran across those fields, flew those bombers, sailed in those ships during World War 2 to secure your freedom of speech, you have insulted. You fuck-ing moron!

Who the fuck do you think you are!? Sure they were scared, who wouldn't be!? Those men were ALL scared but bravery isn't being scared, it's BEING scared and getting off your ass and doing the job anyway! You arsehole!

Now, for everyone else with a bit of sense here's an amusing website. 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Enjoy.  

Oh yeah, and Smokey, you're an arsehole.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 13, 2005)

Smokey said:


> I don't understand why some find the stereotype of french soldiers running away funny.
> Are you saying that if you were in a war you would stand and fight? 99% of soldiers would literally s**t themselves, scream and run away or surrender when there was'nt an officer around to shoot them for desertion.
> 
> Oh, and not surpisingly it has been proven that only 1 or 2 % of soldiers shoot to kill in combat, they are too sickened to murder someone.



I really don't believe either of these figures. Firstly, 99% would not do what you say. I have been in situations without officers where no one ran, shit themselves or screamed. It all comes down to proper training and discipline. There is pride and unit cohesion that keep the group together and alive. There were many time in WWII, Korea and Vietnam where the officer was killed and the senior NCO took over. No one ran away.

1 to 2% shoot to kill....bullshit. I can tell you from personal experience that when someone is shooting at you, you aren't thinking about that at all. You have a threat to your life, you are going to eliminate that threat. The best way to do that is ti get a good shot and make damn sure that the guy shooting at you doesn't get another chance.

I will however say that we do need to not bash other people's country's. We do have people here that are from France. I am not a fan of some of the things that the French government has done, but I have worked with ordinary Frenchmen and they were okay.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

We all bash each others country though. The French aren't all bad but they have to expect some abuse. Everyone gets abused by others. Canada gets it worse, but they deserve it...eh, NS?  


Awww, I'm only joking...


----------



## Smokey (Jun 13, 2005)

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

Enjoy.  


Shut up you militaristic shit head, you've just disgraced the human race with that statement. You're just the kind of bozo that people like Joseph Heller were satirising.
Tell your patriotic militaristic guff to the person shit ing himself in the trench next to you and he'll stick his rifle up your arse, raise you over the top, and let someone who is just as shit scared have some target practice.
You are truly scary.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

Why, thank you, I do liked to be feared from time to time. Go actually get in a trench and shout off about how scared they all are and the Officers and NCOs will pull you off the line and stick in you in a hospital. 

Now, I advise you to get off your Red Commie arse and stick your beret wearing haiku writer fuck wit head into some books and research the militaries of the times. 

Being scared is one thing, being scared and running away is another, being scared and staying is yet another. 
While I shake the hands of veterans and thank them for all they've done for me, you sit there and be a little pussy faggot and tell them how scared they all were and they would have ran away without their officer...what about the officer, what was keeping him in check? You moron. 

Now, I hope you have enough sense to not reply because this was a good thread. Your faggot ways are going to ruin it. Keep your own self righteous head up your own arse and take some Leary treatment "Shut the fuck up!"

I apologise to all others for the disruption and my out-burst.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 13, 2005)

I don't know if that was directed at you, plan_d or me. I am not about to claim that I wasn't afraid, we all were. The point is that discipline was in play at well. In my four years, I never, ever saw ANYONE run away. It was not fear of being shot by our officers, who by the way, would not do that. We all propped each other up and helped out. 

Don't try and get inside the mind of someone who has been on the line getting shot at. You have no idea. Tone down the personal attacks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)

Smokey said:


> http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
> 
> Enjoy.
> 
> ...



And what's your background that makes you such an expert on this?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

Well, Flyboy, it all started in the early 20th Century when this man called Marx wrote this book and...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Well, Flyboy, it all started in the early 20th Century when this man called Marx wrote this book and...


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 13, 2005)

> The Spitfire and Bf-109 were both superior creations to the D.520



different, not superior. The Dewoitine had top notch manoeuvrability, handling and armament for its time and was small and thus difficult to hit.



> 1 to 2% shoot to kill....bullshit



Yeah, I can't believe that either.
But This is getting way off topic and drenched in foul language...
Amen!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)

Yep we should get back on course.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 13, 2005)

Agreed!


----------



## Smokey (Jun 13, 2005)

Plan D, u complete moron, its mutual comments like yours on both sides that start wars.
You are a tool of the powerful few, and don't even know it


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)

Jeez, why cant people take a hint 

Smokey, you are causing disruption to the thread, which up till now contained nice discussion...im not even sure why you started it. If you have a problem with something someone has said, tell an Admin, or PM the guy who offended you. Whatever, dont lash it out in the public forums. This is your last warning, otherwise I will dish out yellow cards. I dont want to have to lock out _another_ thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2005)

Smokey said:


> Plan D, u complete moron, its mutual comments like yours on both sides that start wars.
> You are a tool of the powerful few, and don't even know it



You know Comrade, you're entitiled to your opinion, but insulting remarks will not get you far here!


----------



## Erich (Jun 13, 2005)

Smokey you are out of line ...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jun 13, 2005)

Yes he is. Time to put the lid on it Smokey, as you've been advised to already. Consider youself warned. 

I'm not a real fan of the yellow cards. Red is my favourite colour.


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 13, 2005)

Will folk's clam down here or it's spanky bot-bot time again  

Hot Space


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Smokey said:


> I don't understand why some find the stereotype of french soldiers running away funny.
> Are you saying that if you were in a war you would stand and fight? 99% of soldiers would literally s**t themselves, scream and run away or surrender when there was'nt an officer around to shoot them for desertion.
> 
> Oh, and not surpisingly it has been proven that only 1 or 2 % of soldiers shoot to kill in combat, they are too sickened to murder someone.



Hey I dont know a single soldier that I served with that screamed and ran away. I was scared just as anyone else but you know what I flew out side of the protective wire of my FOB every day for a whole damn year. I dont call that running. Oh and by the way, everytime I got shot at I shot back to kill. Yes I was scared but you know what *it was me or them and I was going home.*

And now that that was said I agree we need to get back on topic.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 13, 2005)

ALERT!!! ALERT!!!! THERE IS MASS BLINDNESS IN THISA THREAD!!!!

THIS IS WHAT Plan D SAID WHEN I POINTED OUT HOW SCARED SOLDIERS ARE. NOTE THAT I DID NOT CALL SOLDIERS DISGUSTING COWARDS. Plan D PRESUMED THAT. 



plan_D said:


> 99% of soldiers would run away? Do you want to provide evidence to back up that statistic?
> 
> By that simple statement you have disgraced every single man in history that has fought on a field of battle, that has seen his friends die, that has been injured in a conflict and that has ultimately paid the ultimate price, his life.
> 
> ...



AND WHAT WAS GOING ON THROUGHOUT HIS DELIGHTFUL POST? HE WAS INSULTING ME!!!!! YES HE INSULTED ME FIRST!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)

You were warned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

I was just mainly adding my two sense. I try not to get out of hand here and I am not going to now. I was not implying anything Smokey just making a remark.

Damn CC I do need my stuff fixed I wish Horse would get back with me, I feel so hopeless.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 13, 2005)

Weve been contacting him but heard nothing as yet. I think youll probably just have to wait for a while.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 13, 2005)

Smokey, one more off-topic outburst like that and you will be shown the door. Knock it off, NOW.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Yeah I am waiting out, dont worry.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 13, 2005)

Yeah, I was just annoyed at Plan D misconstruing my original post, and then insulting me


----------



## kiwimac (Jun 13, 2005)

Everyone simply needs to calm down. Smokey, you are entitled to your opinions but perhaps you need to consider that others have theirs as well. You will NEVER convince anyone if you are so quick to judge.

As for the rest just Calm down, eh! or I'll start dishing out the yellows!

Kiwimac


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

I think its under control Kiwi.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 13, 2005)

All that happened was that I was misunderstood by Plan D, who judged me too quickly and then insulted me. 
I've seen loads of misunderstandings on other forums, but this is the first one I have been involved in. 
I can see how these misunderstandings/arguments develop so quickly when you only have text based communication, like on a forum.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2005)

Yes it has happened quite a bit. When you do not see the person and talk to them directly you can easily misunderstand them.


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 13, 2005)

Damn and I was gonna spam the hell outta this thread as well to get you lot to change the subject as well  

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Jun 13, 2005)

Ok. 

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Jun 13, 2005)

How, in any way was the D.520 superior to the Spitfire? The Hawk-75 was better than the D.520...just face it, del.


----------



## Hot Space (Jun 14, 2005)

I don't think either was better then the Spitfire - even the MkI except for it's guns.

Hot Space


----------



## plan_D (Jun 14, 2005)

I think we've largely excluded the Spitfire from this discussion because it didn't see fighter service over France until Dunkirk. This discussion is "...up to Dunkirk...". 

However, since I see the moment to educate and inform...here I go; 

The Hawk-75A-4 or Mohawk.IV in British service was superior to the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed and armament. It carried six Browning .303cal instead of the Spitfire IAs eight. It only achieved 323 mph when the Spitfire I achieved 362 mph. 
The Mohawk.IV was superior to the Hurricane also in everything but armament. The MOD seemed to under-estimate the Mohawks abilities and sent it off to the far corner of her empire, to Burma. 
When the Mohawk became the P-40 Warhawk the speed increased that was so desired by the RAF and USAAF was achieved but at a large cost. Everything else on the plane was lost and the P-36 was left forgotten in the CBI. 

The Hawk-75As were France's most successful plane during the French campaign. They scored Europe's first aerial victories on the 8th of September, 1939, shooting down two Bf-109Es. 

The Hawk-75s over France were largely A-1s and A-2s. They had little A-3s and no A-4s. Had they possessed A-4s the story in the air might have been even more in the Mohawks favour than it already was. 
The RAF took many of the deliveries sent to go to France. These were all A-4s and when retrofitted with RAF equipment were re-designated Hawk-75A-9s but were still called Mohawk.IVs. 

With the FAF they scored 190 kills to eight air losses and six lost to AA. 

http://curtisshawk75.bravepages.com/


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2005)

I'm with you on this one D, especially after reading Steve Hinton's recent pilot report on a restored Hawk. Very under-rated aircraft that was considered obsolete at the start of the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2005)

Im will Plan_D on this as well. I am just not convinced about the D.520.


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 15, 2005)

I am.

The Dewoitine wasn't superior to the spitfire, but it could held it's own against the bf109 emil, as that would have been a range/manoeuvrability Vs. engine's HP battle.

Imagine the D520 with a better engine. It was to have at least 150 HP extra, but the engines were unavailable so they put the obsolescent 920 HP engine in it. It would have decimated the Bf 109's ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 15, 2005)

I agree. It was a good plane let down my lack of power and the fact it was French. I think it probably had a lot of development potential.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

I read somewhere the other day about Seafires easily burning Vichy D.520s over Morroco. I'll try and find it again...


----------



## Smokey (Jun 16, 2005)

That could be because the Spitfire pilots had alot of experience, while the Vichy pilots had little/no experience.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2005)

It could be but the Seafire was also superior to the D.520 because they were converted Spitfire Vb.


----------



## marseille jr (Jun 16, 2005)

dewoitine d520 pilots sometimes had about 5 hours flying experience in the D520 when they entered combat ...

Of course the spit V was superior to the D520 .... That's a generation gap!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2005)

marseille jr said:


> I am.
> 
> 
> Imagine the D520 with a better engine. It was to have at least 150 HP extra, but the engines were unavailable so they put the obsolescent 920 HP engine in it. It would have decimated the Bf 109's ...



Key word out of this here post: *Imagine*. It didn't and there for it was not superior and I dont think it ever would have. By the time the French even thought about doing something like that the F was on its way out and the G was in development, and through all this the Fw-190s were rolling off the assy line.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2005)

The P-36 was superior to the D.520 and they're in the same area of development. They both also had under-powered engines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

I agree the D.520 was underpowered and underated but there is not much that one can that can prove to me it was better then the Hurricane and the Bf-109E. The last 2 aircraft are the best early war fighters and the Bf-109E had the upperhand, until the Spitfire can up.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

I must really love the Hurricane and not know it. Everytime I see a picture of one I feel all gooey inside.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2005)

She was the real hero the BoB not the Spitfire.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

yes CC i thought you always liked the hurri???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 17, 2005)

I do. Great plane, you cant not like it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 17, 2005)

this is true.........


----------



## Pisis (Jun 17, 2005)

I wonder nobody have mentioned Czechoslovak built Avia B.534 B-35... Overall best planes of the 1939/40, almost equal to 109's but didn't get the chance to show their potential because of the Munich clerk... Bastards!     

Hurri is one of my "most favorite" planes, if not the first one!  


Cheers,
Pisis


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2005)

Bah! The P-36 was better than the Hurricane Mk.I and it was more effective in the Battle of France.


----------



## Pisis (Jun 18, 2005)

Yeah, that one depicted is a personal acft of a Czechoslovak ace Alois Vasatko - the holder of Croix de Guerre with seven palms, 2 Gold and one Silver Star and member of Legion d'Honneur - he managed 15 kills on that one in the BoF campaign. Later RAF Wing Commander, holder of the DFC, DSO and leader of the Cs. Fighter Wing. Killed during a mission 23rd of June, 1942 over Channel in a mid-air collision with a Focke Wulf from III./JG7...

S!






---
Sorry, can't do other.


Cheers,
Pisis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Pisis said:


> I wonder nobody have mentioned Czechoslovak built Avia B.534 B-35... Overall best planes of the 1939/40, almost equal to 109's but didn't get the chance to show their potential because of the Munich clerk... Bastards!
> 
> Hurri is one of my "most favorite" planes, if not the first one!
> 
> ...



Nobody has mentioned it because they are not even near the best aircraft of the early war years!  

I am sorry I do not wish to offend you but the Avia B-534 and the B-35 (later renamed B-135) were no where near the best planes of of 1939 to 1940.

Please read your own post: "almost equal to 109's ". If they were almost equal to Bf-109E's then they were not the best. I am 100% sure B-36, Hurricanes, Bf-109's, Bf-110's and the Spitfires were better. The Luftwaffe captured about 350 Avia B-534's and used them for glider tugs. Some were used as night fighters until they were replaced by Bf-109's.

There is no way that a Bi-Plane from 1933 such as the B-534 could compare to these aircraft.

*Avia B-534 was Czech-built fighter. German forces captured about 350 planes (including Bk-534). There were concentrated at the airfields of Merseburg, Erding near Munich and several others, whence they were distributed to Luftwaffe units and offered to the satellite states. Luftwaffe organized a conversion course (so-called Avia Lehrgang) in Herzogenaurach. The ex-Czechoslovak fighters were used mainly as training machines with A/B Schulen and the Jagdfliegerschulen both on German and occupied soil. Some of the aircraft were used for special purposes (see carrier-capable Bk-534), especially a group of B-534 playing the Polish PZL-11c fighters in the "Kampfgeschwader Lützow" propaganda film.

Both the 3./JG 70 and 3./JG 71 based in Friedrichshafen were converted to Avias for night fighting use between July 1939 and the beginning of 1940, when they were reequipped with Messerschmitt Bf 109's.

The towing-gear equipped B-534s were initially alloted to the DFS 230 Staffel der Luftwaffe /1-10. In occupied France they served with the Henschel Hs 123 aircraft for training and then being moved within framework of the Lastenseglerstaffel to the Eastern Front, where they served as the tugs for DFS 230A troop/cargo gliders, supplying the encircled gruond troops. The dates mentioned suggest sorties to the Stalingrad pocket, but the pictures point rather to the encirclement of Germans at Demyansk a year earlier.

Repairs for German B-534 and Bk-534's were provided by Kunovice plant and, also, partially the Olomuc depots.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/b-534g.html*

*Avia B-35*

*Wingspan*: 10.85 m. 
*Lenght:* 8.55 m. 
*Wing area:* 17.00 sq. m. 
*Weight:* 1920/2450 kg. 
*Engine:* Avia-Hispano-Suiza-12 Ycrs 890 hp. 
*Max. Speed:* 547 km/h 
*Ceiling:* 9000 m. 
*Range:* 500 km. 
*Armament:* 1 x 20mm gun* 
2 x 7.92mm machine-guns 
*Notes:* Single seat monoplane and fighter. 

*Avia B-534*

*A/C Type*: Day Fighter
*Engine(s): *Avia-built Hispano-Suiza 12 Ydrs
*Eng. Pwr:* 850-hp, Liquid-cooled, Non-F.I.
*A/C Crew:* Pilot
*Maximum Speed:* 245 mph @ 14,435 ft
*Maximum Ceiling:* 34,600 ft
*Country:* Czechoslovakia Service Entry Date: May 1937


----------



## Pisis (Jun 19, 2005)

No offend done, ok. But when I say ALMOST, I simply mean almost. So here is what I mean.

B-534 wheren't equal to 109's eg. in speed (for example, they were slower then even Do 17!) but they had one of the best turning climbing performance of that time. Unfortunately, with so weak arrament and armour, they weren't as effective as they could be.

534's had some scores against Hungarian Fiats Cr-42, and in services of Axis Slovak State they hadn't been declassed against the Russian fighters on the Eastern Front.

Also Bulgaria became some Avias from Germans. They used them against American bombraids(!)

It is believed that a Slovak ace Cyprich (Iron Cross holder) had shot down a Hungarian Ju-52 in 1944 on an Avia B-534 during the times of Slovak Uprising. It is believed as a last bi-plane victory of the war.

But when talkng about equality to German fighters, I meant generally the Avia B-35 B-135. They could been equal opponents to the German 109 E's. With maximum speed of 535 km/h, 8500 m climb rate and engine performance 625 kW it wasn't a bad fighter though. However, only 12 exemplaries were built.

They were sold to Bulgaria, where tehy had some victories against american B-24's on the well-known operation "Tidal Wave" (bobming oil plants in Romanian Ploesti).

Hope this explains it. 


Cheers,
Pisis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

I understand what you are saying but shooting down slow bombers and Ju-52's is not shooting down Bf-109E's.


----------



## Pisis (Jun 19, 2005)

Yes, that's true. In the fighter vs. fighter combat (dogfight) Messer had no concurence. Until the Spit came!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

The Spitfire was around from the start of World War 2. The Hurricane could give the Bf-109E a run for it's money, as could the P-36. That said; over Poland, Norway, France and Lowlands the Bf-109 was the superior plane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire was around from the start of World War 2. The Hurricane could give the Bf-109E a run for it's money, as could the P-36. That said; over Poland, Norway, France and Lowlands the Bf-109 was the superior plane.



That is true. The Spit was around actually before the 109. It just was not the main fighter until after the BoB.

And as for the 109 and the areas of combat I agree also.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2005)

I am afraid that I must disagree with those that say that the P36 was better than the Spit or even the Hurricane (although thats closer). It had advantages certainly but it was too slow. If the Spit got into trouble it could almost leave combat at will, due to its extra speed and trade that for tactical advantage. If the P36 got into trouble he couldn't leave combat and was in serious trouble.
The ability to dictate combat makes the Sptfire a clear winner in my book.


----------



## Glider (Jun 20, 2005)

Apologies for not including this in my previous post but in the discussion about the 109 vs the 520 or Hurricane it should be remembered that in the battle for France the vast majority of 109's only had 4xLMG giving the 520 and Hurricane a significant advantage in firepower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2005)

Glider said:


> I am afraid that I must disagree with those that say that the P36 was better than the Spit or even the Hurricane (although thats closer). It had advantages certainly but it was too slow. If the Spit got into trouble it could almost leave combat at will, due to its extra speed and trade that for tactical advantage. If the P36 got into trouble he couldn't leave combat and was in serious trouble.
> The ability to dictate combat makes the Sptfire a clear winner in my book.



I don't know Glider, I think the P-36 could leave the combat 2 ways....

Where I have to somewhat agree with D on this is the -36 could dive and turn...(and I'm going to put my neck out and say that I think it might be able to out dive early 109s, Spits, and definitely Hurricanes).

As we all know if the early Spits dove straight, the engine died. I think its been established the -36 could out turn early -109s and were probably at par if not better than the Hurricane. And don't forget - The P-36 had that beautiful round engine that was almost indestructible, a major advantage over the other 3!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Also I think they were inmplying that the P-36 was better then the other aircaft in the Battle for France not that it was overall better then the Spitfire.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The P-36 was superior to the Spitfire Mk.I in everything but speed and armament. The P-36s top speed was 311 mph, the Spitfire Mk.I had 362 mph. The Spitfire could almost always leave combat but that's basically all it's ever going to be able to do. The P-36 could chase Spitfire Is off time and time again. 

The Hurricane could out-turn the P-36 as well but the speed advantage was only a few mph, with the fastest I've seen as 328 mph for the Hurricane Mk.I. The Curtiss P-36 was a 1934 design, it could get to 15,000 feet in 4.8 minutes!

The Mohawk.IV or Hawk-75A-4 was faster than the P-36 at 323 mph, that's almost as fast, if not faster, than the Hurricane I. It was faster than the Zero 21 though, that only had 317 mph. It was actually more powerful than the Spitfire, with the Wright-R-1820 producing 1200 hp but unfortunately the increased weight in the Hawk-75A-4 made it's time to 15,000 feet reduce to 6 minutes at 2820 fpm. 
The Hawks over France were only A-1 through A-3, they were less well armed than the Bf-109E and were considerably slower but they could out-manuvre them at all speeds and altitudes and could take much more damage. The first kills in Europe were claimed by Hawk-75s, two Bf-109Es on the 8th September, 1939. 

In Burma their service is little known, the IJN and IJAAF claimed many Hawks down but it was often against aircraft that were no longer air worthy and from a squadron that didn't exist anymore! Overall the Japanese claimed more Hawks than were even out in the CBI. I will try and find more information from the CBI because they were a match for the Zero 21 if used properly, the Zero could out-climb and out-turn at low speeds but the Hawk-75A-9 was superior in every other aspect.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I just would not have thought the P-36 coudl outmaneauver a Spitfire Mk.1 though.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

It could but the Spitfire was sooning jumping up and beyond the Spitfire I, by the V the only thing the Hawk-75 had left was it's turn. It sort of became the Zero, only the Zero is famous for being good during early war years and the P-36 just isn't famous.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

So the P-36 was the allied Zero. No punn intended!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

Yes, only the Japanese had the myst surrounding their Zero whereas everyone knew about the Hawk-75. The Japanese knew all about it because they had been fighting them over China for a long time. 
The Hawk-75A-4 and Zero 21 were both comparable aircraft, the Hawk-75 was always on the back foot though as the entire Allied contingent in Burma was retreating. 

The Japanese greatly over-claimed the Hawks though.


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2005)

FJ and plan D I have to stick to my guns. If a fighter can leave combat when it likes and by definition rejoin it when it likes, then it has the initiative. Any fighter with the initiative has the advantage. Examples are numerous

I would always stick with the plane with the initiative, as you have options and are on the offensive. If you are always or even mainly on the defensive then in the end, you lose.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

Glider said:


> FJ and plan D I have to stick to my guns. If a fighter can leave combat when it likes and by definition rejoin it when it likes, then it has the initiative. Any fighter with the initiative has the advantage. Examples are numerous
> 
> I would always stick with the plane with the initiative, as you have options and are on the offensive. If you are always or even mainly on the defensive then in the end, you lose.



While I agree with your statement, I think the dive performance of each aircraft needs to be examined. I think the P-36 might be able to outdive the Spit, -109 and Hurricane and with that it met the criteria for the ability of leaving combat at least against those aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

The Fw-190D could outdive most of its opponants to get away and it did not have the innitiative.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Fw-190D could outdive most of its opponants to get away and it did not have the innitiative.



I think because it was outnumbered, in some cases flown by low-time pilots, and tactically did not exploit that advantage, maybe because of the first two reasons. Comments?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

No I agree on all your points.


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2005)

I don't know the numbers but the Spit has a 50MPH advantage so the P36 would have to dive like hell. Obviously I am aware of the cutting out problems of the Merlin at this time so it may well balance up.

One point though. Diving to escape gets you away, it doesn't mean that you can get back into the fray on your terms, plus of course, you may not have the height.

No , I will stick with the Spit


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

I am with Glider on this. I stick with the Spit over the P-36 but I will not be swayed from the Bf-109E as the most effective early war fighter.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The Hawk-75 could climb, dive and turn away from the Spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Hawk-75 could climb, dive and turn away from the Spitfire.



I'm with D but I'm going to try to find some Hawk -75 performance data.


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2005)

Take note that the comparison I saw was between the Hawk-75 and the earliest version of the Spitfire which wasn't the version that went into combat. By then new props had been installed giving a significantly better performance in particular in the climb.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

I have never seen a comparison between the P-36 and the Spit but I find it hard to believe.


----------

