GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
allied pilots are shit!!! germans had WAY better aces i mean for top allied ace to have 62 kills and top german ace to have 352 is too much and then the patriots say we were the best in the world BAH humbug
Aces
- Thread starter GermansRGeniuses
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
yeah, but the best ace in the world is no use if he's surrounded by under trained rookies
A
Anonymous
Guest
And look what the top German Ace shot down for the most part, transports and planes that were vastly inferior.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
ah, a annonumous poster, the mystery goes on..............
- Thread starter
- #5
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
yes but still that was in the ned of the war
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Plus you haven't made allowances for the number of FRENCH planes they shot down!!!!!! I mean lets face it they don't really count as fighter planes do they? you have to actually FIGHT to be named a fighter right?
cheddar cheese
Major General
nutter
Airman
german aces have high kill scores because most of those kills were on the eastern front against easy to kill russian planes. also germany put more empasis on getting kills while the allies believed in team work
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
Yeah the Russians did suffer alot of defeats in the air but all that stuff about Germans focusing on kills and the allies in teamwork??! i will admit that the Germans had good pilots but i think it had more to do with them being ruthless b******* and having excellent planes - the planes are more responsible for the kills rather than the pilots (i'm not saying these pilots were bad i'm just saying that if you put the most fantastic pilot in the world in a crap plane hes gonna get shot down!)
If you ask me it was the planes - not the pilots - that were the real aces. After all, the Poles were brilliant Spitfire pilots but in their own outdated planes the Germans murdered them
If you ask me it was the planes - not the pilots - that were the real aces. After all, the Poles were brilliant Spitfire pilots but in their own outdated planes the Germans murdered them
cheddar cheese
Major General
nice theory 8)
- Thread starter
- #11
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
nigga please! lol just kidding srry to black dudes/chicks if there are any but i had to say that and umm lets see ok if its the planes what would happen if Erich Hartmann got in a 'stang? it would be better but i mean allied pilots were ok in stangs but germans would be waaaaaaaaaaay better in them and its the pilot sure a plane can make or break someone but what about ppl in me262's that got killed by 'stangs,spits,and thunderbolts? see it is the pilot 
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
How many Germans do you know that flew in Mustangs? (anyway you sit anyone in a plane with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it and you've got a dangerous combination ) about the point you made about Me262s? they were actually very unstable aircraft and were prone to accidents...those that were shot down by Spitfires and Mustangs probably got shot in their fuel tanks full of fuel alot more unstable than the kind you find in ordinary piston engined aircraft and so exploded, plus German pilots (though very good) were not used to flying high-speed Jet aircraft wereas the Allies had been flying Spits and 'Tangs for years and knew how to dogfight
I stick by my point that it was the planes rather than the pilots that helped win the war
(anyway you sit anyone in a plane with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it and you've got a dangerous combination ) about the point you made about Me262s? they were actually very unstable aircraft and were prone to accidents...those that were shot down by Spitfires and Mustangs probably got shot in their fuel tanks full of fuel alot more unstable than the kind you find in ordinary piston engined aircraft and so exploded, plus German pilots (though very good) were not used to flying high-speed Jet aircraft wereas the Allies had been flying Spits and 'Tangs for years and knew how to dogfightI stick by my point that it was the planes rather than the pilots that helped win the war
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i gotta agree with you there....................
- Thread starter
- #14
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
yea but i still think thats bull and mustangs can be taken down easily.... just get a couple shots in the engine and youre golden and the
thats beacuse they didnt get the Schwalbe early enough and many aces stayed in piston planes
GregP
Major
Bronze whaler doesn't know much about aerial combat, does he? The planes? Give me a break. Study the subject for several years and THEN tell me its planes. If you can DO that, then you're STILL not a pilot.
The German planes were about as good as Allied planes were. At particular times, one model or another was temporarily better by a margin, but the pilots were the deciding factor in combat. Adolph Galland could have flown almost anything and would have scored well.
The Germans ran up higher scores because they flew until they either won or died while many Allied pilots roitated assignments when they had flown a certain amount of time or missions; mostly mission count.
Also, apparently several posters have not studied Hartmann's kill record. His kills were mostly against fighters, not Russian transports or bombers. He could shoot down 5 or 6 in one mission because the Russian fighter pilots were not used to watching behind themselves, and were terrified of his fighter when they saw it.
His best aptitude, however, was piloting skill. He couild fly right up to a precise point and get the kill, while most other pilots simply did not have the control of the aircraft taht he did. Barkhorn and Rall were superb pilots first and foremost, too.
The top three aces in history stayed with the Bf 109 even after the Fw 190 was available. Their reasoning was simple. They knew the Bf 109 and its quirks, knew how it flew, where the switches were, and knew exactly what the aircraft would do in any particular circumstance, and were intimately familiar with the armament. Therefore, they eliminated an unfamiliar new aircraft as a factor in combat by sticking with the old favorite.
The German planes were about as good as Allied planes were. At particular times, one model or another was temporarily better by a margin, but the pilots were the deciding factor in combat. Adolph Galland could have flown almost anything and would have scored well.
The Germans ran up higher scores because they flew until they either won or died while many Allied pilots roitated assignments when they had flown a certain amount of time or missions; mostly mission count.
Also, apparently several posters have not studied Hartmann's kill record. His kills were mostly against fighters, not Russian transports or bombers. He could shoot down 5 or 6 in one mission because the Russian fighter pilots were not used to watching behind themselves, and were terrified of his fighter when they saw it.
His best aptitude, however, was piloting skill. He couild fly right up to a precise point and get the kill, while most other pilots simply did not have the control of the aircraft taht he did. Barkhorn and Rall were superb pilots first and foremost, too.
The top three aces in history stayed with the Bf 109 even after the Fw 190 was available. Their reasoning was simple. They knew the Bf 109 and its quirks, knew how it flew, where the switches were, and knew exactly what the aircraft would do in any particular circumstance, and were intimately familiar with the armament. Therefore, they eliminated an unfamiliar new aircraft as a factor in combat by sticking with the old favorite.
kiwimac
Staff Sergeant
Right on Gregp,
Every pilot worth their salt will tell you that the plane only counts for just so much. Hartmann, Moelders, Galland, Barkhorn, Rall, even Rudel were called experten for a reason, they were bloody experts!
As well, as has already been mentioned, German pilots didn't have 60 or 120 mission limits before rotation back home. They simply flew until they died or were successful.
Kiwimac[/u]
Every pilot worth their salt will tell you that the plane only counts for just so much. Hartmann, Moelders, Galland, Barkhorn, Rall, even Rudel were called experten for a reason, they were bloody experts!
As well, as has already been mentioned, German pilots didn't have 60 or 120 mission limits before rotation back home. They simply flew until they died or were successful.
Kiwimac[/u]
bronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
I do know precisely what i'm talking about and i have studied the subject for years thankyou very much!
Lets go through you're rather flimsy arguments...
Many different squadrons throughout the war flew many different planes - its not as though as soon as the Spitfire became available that all RAF Squadrons were armed with them - some squadrons (particularly in places far from Europe) the pilots had to fly in aircraft far inferior to their opponents (3 outdated Gloster Gladiators were left to fight ridiculus odds in both Malta and Norway when in theory this knackered old biplane should have been out of service - do you think THOSe are marginal odds??) - to suggest that most planes were only 'marginally' better than their opponents is the comment of someone suffering from serve ignorance on the subject - on MANY different occasions aircraft in combat have been SEVERLY outclassed by their opponents to use one example of many i can choose: When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour other than a handful of Curtiss hawks and some other elderly obsolete aircraft (such as the Boeing P-26 'Pursuit' a woefully inadequte plane at that time) the US navy airforce was totally outclassed in the air - hence their rapid design of the Wildcat - as i say thats one of many i could use - whenever in these great battles in the sky two opposing airforces meet - almost every time without fail the force with the better aircraft no matter how 'marginal' the difference (if you knew anything noteworthy about aircraft from this period you would know that in a dogfight even a very small difference can mean victory) would be the victor.
Obviously its true that there were some exceptional pilots both German and Allied (GermansRgenious comments that allied pilots were shit is utter crap) but these were VERY rare most pilots depended on the type of plane they were in to save their lives - i've heard that said to me by surviving pilots themselves so please be careful before accusing someone of not knowing what they are talking about
And I think you have agreed with me to a point about the FW190 and the ME109 - alot of German pilots stayed with the ME109 because on many points it was a better aircraft...its simple logic really...if the FW190 was that superior to the ME109 do you suppose for one moment that the Germans would be lining up to risk their lives against allied pilots in a plane that was outclassed? i didn't think so
Lets go through you're rather flimsy arguments...
Many different squadrons throughout the war flew many different planes - its not as though as soon as the Spitfire became available that all RAF Squadrons were armed with them - some squadrons (particularly in places far from Europe) the pilots had to fly in aircraft far inferior to their opponents (3 outdated Gloster Gladiators were left to fight ridiculus odds in both Malta and Norway when in theory this knackered old biplane should have been out of service - do you think THOSe are marginal odds??) - to suggest that most planes were only 'marginally' better than their opponents is the comment of someone suffering from serve ignorance on the subject - on MANY different occasions aircraft in combat have been SEVERLY outclassed by their opponents to use one example of many i can choose: When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour other than a handful of Curtiss hawks and some other elderly obsolete aircraft (such as the Boeing P-26 'Pursuit' a woefully inadequte plane at that time) the US navy airforce was totally outclassed in the air - hence their rapid design of the Wildcat - as i say thats one of many i could use - whenever in these great battles in the sky two opposing airforces meet - almost every time without fail the force with the better aircraft no matter how 'marginal' the difference (if you knew anything noteworthy about aircraft from this period you would know that in a dogfight even a very small difference can mean victory) would be the victor.
Obviously its true that there were some exceptional pilots both German and Allied (GermansRgenious comments that allied pilots were shit is utter crap) but these were VERY rare most pilots depended on the type of plane they were in to save their lives - i've heard that said to me by surviving pilots themselves so please be careful before accusing someone of not knowing what they are talking about
And I think you have agreed with me to a point about the FW190 and the ME109 - alot of German pilots stayed with the ME109 because on many points it was a better aircraft...its simple logic really...if the FW190 was that superior to the ME109 do you suppose for one moment that the Germans would be lining up to risk their lives against allied pilots in a plane that was outclassed? i didn't think so
cheddar cheese
Major General
wow, not only interestng but there were some good points in there brilliant 8)
brilliant 8)
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
wow that's allot of reading 
but very interesting
but very interestingbronzewhaler82
Senior Airman
- 661
- Feb 19, 2004
sorry i do tend to go on abit when i get a bee in my bonnet over something... i.e gobby Americans telling me i don't know what i'm talking about
i do tend to go on abit when i get a bee in my bonnet over something... i.e gobby Americans telling me i don't know what i'm talking about 