best carrier attack A/C

[lesofprimus]

How can u say that the Ju 87E was a torpedo bomber when it never actually flew???

 

[Civettone]

Wasn't the F-22 a fighter before it flew?

Kris

 

[lesofprimus]

Nope, it was either an experimental or prototype..

 

[Civettone]

It was called XF. That means an experimental fighter

Kris

 

[lesofprimus]

So it wasnt a fighter, it was an experimental fighter, which is a completely different catagory.... Dont fuc*in mince words with me... Its moronic to say ANY aircraft that didnt fly combat sorties is the best of anything...

 

[syscom3]

Its moronic to say ANY aircraft that didnt fly combat sorties is the best of anything...

Unless the simulators showed it to be the best.

8)

(Hopes Les gets the joke)

 

[lesofprimus]

lmao...

 

[Civettone]

As neither the F-22, Typhoon, Raphale, Su-35/37 and JAS-39 have flown combat missions, does this mean they are worse than the P-51 ?

Kris

 

[syscom3]

As neither the F-22, Typhoon, Raphale, Su-35/37 and JAS-39 have flown combat missions, does this mean they are worse than the P-51 ?

Kris

In the middle 40's, neither of those airplanes were even dreamed of, so the P51 was the superior to the two.

Now lets keep this argument to the 30's and 40's.

 

[Civettone]

Syscom, as expected you don't get it. My point was that aircraft which have never flown combat missions can be the best and as such can be considered as the best. If we would be discussing 'most effective', that would have been another case.

Kris

 

[syscom3]

Syscom, as expected you don't get it. My point was that aircraft which have never flown combat missions can be the best and as such can be considered as the best. If we would be discussing 'most effective', that would have been another case.

Kris

An airplane which has never flown is an airplane thats never proven itself in the real world.

More than one paper airplane has proven itself to be crap once it takes off from the runway.

 

[Civettone]

A paper airplane is not the same as an actual serial built aircraft. Many turn out to be a failure once engaged in actual combat, many rise to the occasion.

Kris

 

[syscom3]

And how many of your Stuka's were built for carrier use and actually participated in a cruise at sea in the real world conditions?

 

[Civettone]

The Stuka can hardly be considered as a new design. It had proven itself before. Trying it out over North Sea would be a test for the aircraft carrier but not for the Stuka.
Do you know any carrier planes that took off and landed well on initital deck tests but failed at doing the same at sea?

Kris

 

[lesofprimus]

This argument is fuc*in stoopid.... The Ju 87 E never dropped a torp in action, so why are we blabbering on about it...

This needs to have a poll attached to it...

 

[syscom3]

This argument is fuc*in stoopid.... The Ju 87 E never dropped a torp in action, so why are we blabbering on about it...

This needs to have a poll attached to it...

Great Idea.

One for torpedo bombers, and one for dive bombers.

 

[lesofprimus]

Yup.... Someone other than myself gonna take the initiative on this one (two)??

 

[syscom3]

OK, I will start a poll for torpedo bombers up to 1942.

If people will send me a message on what types they want included, I will be happy to accomodate them.

Someone else needs to do one for the dive bombers.

 

[Civettone]

I'm not going to drag this discussion on but just for the sake of information ... there was also the Ju 87D-4 which was a land-based torpedo bomber. It also was the first to get those 20mm cannons.

But fair is fair, I don't know and in fact doubt if the Ju 87D-4 was an effective torpedo bomber.
Kris

 

[lesofprimus]

Ill take care of dive bombers.....