GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
plan_D said:
I WILL make one worse, just to trump his...
You have been warned.
Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I WILL make one worse, just to trump his...
You have been warned.
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
I told you.
That post was so bad, it got me two UNconfirmed kills. *Edit*~Though editing the one preceding it gave me less, a mere 0.02 unconfirmed kills...
Yes, that is a post; if you quote it, you will see that it consists of a simple "space."
That post was so bad, it got me two UNconfirmed kills. *Edit*~Though editing the one preceding it gave me less, a mere 0.02 unconfirmed kills...
Yes, that is a post; if you quote it, you will see that it consists of a simple "space."
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
Do I get an iPod mini as a prize for my accomplishments?
But yes, I am proud.
But yes, I am proud.
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
Damn you!
In order to help you remember, I've added a special something to my siggy.
In order to help you remember, I've added a special something to my siggy.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Geeze Udet,
I just don't know where you come up with this crap...
So I'm nearly twice your age, and have met a lot of WWII aces and non-ace pilots. I grew up around Navy, USMC, and some USAAF pilots, and heard many stories of the war. I also heard tales of WWII aircombat from British and Canadian pilots when I was very young. I also have several relatives (most now dead) who fought in WWII. I've only spoken to a few German pilots, and only one Japanese pilot.
That is your opinion. My opinion is that, aside from a few clear exceptions, most German technology did not advance very much during the war. They started out with an initial advantage, but slowly lost that advantage in most areas as time progressed. The primary exception to this would be in tank quality.
Hmmm... I think the Allied soldiers had a superior war machine behind them. As for superior tactics... I don't think that applies at all. As for superior weapons, this was true in some places, and not in others. But where it counted most, it was generally true.
I totally disagree. Had Germany geared up it's war machine in 1940 or even 1941, they may well have won WWII. But instead they waited until very late 1943 or even 1944 to do so.
And through most of the war, especially w.r.t. the air war, the Germans were defending which is a GREAT ADVANTAGE FOR THEM!
Well, I agree, in general this is true. With a few notable execptions (such as Italy), the soldiers of all sides fought valiently.
As for the quality of German soldiering... I think it was sustained in the early years by amphetamines, which can work well for the short term but this cannot work over time.
I agree about the leadership.
As for the VVS... You mean 1941 and 1942 right? During this time, the German pilots racked up huge numbers of kills against much inferior aircraft. By 1943 they were not doing quite so well, and by 1944 the tide had turned.
You are talking about the VVS? They may have been "brave", but that does not mean much when you are facing 109's and 190's in Yak-1's and Lagg-3's and Biplanes. Something like one-third of German kills scored on the E. Front in 1941 and 1942 were against bi-planes and non-military aircraft. And the USAAF did achieve an equivalent level of success against the Luftwaffe' in 1944 - mostly against planes parked on the ground because the pilots would not come up to fight. And the Luftwaffe' aircraft were never so obsolete as the Russian aircraft encounterd in the early E. Front war.
You are saying the German's had to cover more territory than the USA? The USA also had to fight from the Arctic circle to mediteranean. From the coast of France to the Sea of Japan. From the mountains of Burma to the Soloman islands. Yes it only had to fight two air-forces - but those were airforces prepared for war from the start - Germany faced airforces which were not prepared. And Germany never had to build an Navy. The US efforts in building its Pacific fleet dwarf the entire German war effort.
No I don't think that. I think it was competitive with anything the Germans could field, except maybe the 262. But it did so over Germany! It was able to take that competitiveness to the Germans, no German plane could do that against the Allies, even as far back as the BoB.
I never said the Allied pilots were superior to the German pilots, so I don't know where your getting this crap from.
I think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory. Yes he was lucky to be alive, but he was more lucky to escape capture. Most German aces were shot down behind their own lines, making it much less likely they'd be captured if they survived.
Of course it is luck. But the fact is most pilots did survive the initial damage to their planes. The question was could they crash land their plane or survive bailing out. I really think you need to research the histories of some WWII aces. You will see that most of the double Aces and beyond got shot down at least once, ESPECIALLY THE GERMAN ACES!
Sure, because the chances of surviving being shot down in a Heavy Bomber were not very good. On average, well more than half the crew died when a bomber was shot down. In a fighter, the odds were not nearly so bad as in a bomber.
I doubt this is true. Had the night war gone on much longer, Allied radar equipped night fighters would have become extremely effective. The P-63 for instance. Allied radar had intrinsic advantages over German radar and in the end this would have meant much superior night fighters. This never happened simply because the war did not last long enough and the German night fighters were never really that effective. They certainly were not stopping the British night bomber offensive - they weren't even slowing it down much!
You totally mis-understand me. A big part of the Allied advantage was indeed the productive capacity of both the USA and the British. But a big part of it was also the breadth of the industrial base. Over time, Allied technology had to surpass German technology simply because the ceiling was higher because the base was broader.
=S=
Lunatic
I just don't know where you come up with this crap...
Udet said:
So I'm nearly twice your age, and have met a lot of WWII aces and non-ace pilots. I grew up around Navy, USMC, and some USAAF pilots, and heard many stories of the war. I also heard tales of WWII aircombat from British and Canadian pilots when I was very young. I also have several relatives (most now dead) who fought in WWII. I've only spoken to a few German pilots, and only one Japanese pilot.
Udet said:
That is your opinion. My opinion is that, aside from a few clear exceptions, most German technology did not advance very much during the war. They started out with an initial advantage, but slowly lost that advantage in most areas as time progressed. The primary exception to this would be in tank quality.
Udet said:
Hmmm... I think the Allied soldiers had a superior war machine behind them. As for superior tactics... I don't think that applies at all. As for superior weapons, this was true in some places, and not in others. But where it counted most, it was generally true.
Udet said:
I totally disagree. Had Germany geared up it's war machine in 1940 or even 1941, they may well have won WWII. But instead they waited until very late 1943 or even 1944 to do so.
Udet said:
And through most of the war, especially w.r.t. the air war, the Germans were defending which is a GREAT ADVANTAGE FOR THEM!
Udet said:
Well, I agree, in general this is true. With a few notable execptions (such as Italy), the soldiers of all sides fought valiently.
As for the quality of German soldiering... I think it was sustained in the early years by amphetamines, which can work well for the short term but this cannot work over time.
Udet said:
I agree about the leadership.
As for the VVS... You mean 1941 and 1942 right? During this time, the German pilots racked up huge numbers of kills against much inferior aircraft. By 1943 they were not doing quite so well, and by 1944 the tide had turned.
Udet said:
You are talking about the VVS? They may have been "brave", but that does not mean much when you are facing 109's and 190's in Yak-1's and Lagg-3's and Biplanes. Something like one-third of German kills scored on the E. Front in 1941 and 1942 were against bi-planes and non-military aircraft. And the USAAF did achieve an equivalent level of success against the Luftwaffe' in 1944 - mostly against planes parked on the ground because the pilots would not come up to fight. And the Luftwaffe' aircraft were never so obsolete as the Russian aircraft encounterd in the early E. Front war.
Udet said:
You are saying the German's had to cover more territory than the USA? The USA also had to fight from the Arctic circle to mediteranean. From the coast of France to the Sea of Japan. From the mountains of Burma to the Soloman islands. Yes it only had to fight two air-forces - but those were airforces prepared for war from the start - Germany faced airforces which were not prepared. And Germany never had to build an Navy. The US efforts in building its Pacific fleet dwarf the entire German war effort.
Udet said:
No I don't think that. I think it was competitive with anything the Germans could field, except maybe the 262. But it did so over Germany! It was able to take that competitiveness to the Germans, no German plane could do that against the Allies, even as far back as the BoB.
Udet said:
I never said the Allied pilots were superior to the German pilots, so I don't know where your getting this crap from.
Udet said:
I think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory. Yes he was lucky to be alive, but he was more lucky to escape capture. Most German aces were shot down behind their own lines, making it much less likely they'd be captured if they survived.
Udet said:
Of course it is luck. But the fact is most pilots did survive the initial damage to their planes. The question was could they crash land their plane or survive bailing out. I really think you need to research the histories of some WWII aces. You will see that most of the double Aces and beyond got shot down at least once, ESPECIALLY THE GERMAN ACES!
Udet said:
Sure, because the chances of surviving being shot down in a Heavy Bomber were not very good. On average, well more than half the crew died when a bomber was shot down. In a fighter, the odds were not nearly so bad as in a bomber.
Udet said:
I doubt this is true. Had the night war gone on much longer, Allied radar equipped night fighters would have become extremely effective. The P-63 for instance. Allied radar had intrinsic advantages over German radar and in the end this would have meant much superior night fighters. This never happened simply because the war did not last long enough and the German night fighters were never really that effective. They certainly were not stopping the British night bomber offensive - they weren't even slowing it down much!
You totally mis-understand me. A big part of the Allied advantage was indeed the productive capacity of both the USA and the British. But a big part of it was also the breadth of the industrial base. Over time, Allied technology had to surpass German technology simply because the ceiling was higher because the base was broader.
=S=
Lunatic
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
wow some very good points there............
cheddar cheese
Major General
GermansRGeniuses said:
Im sorry GrG, its been done. brad has done that before...I remember it well, Crazy replied with "This, a post of EPIC proportions, is one that is sure to shatter boundries of our very beliefs"
Sorry to shatter your bubble, but its true
cheddar cheese
Major General
Nope, it was a simple space. brads excuse was "I forgot what I was going to say"
P51ace 16
Airman
what is it with the frikin spitfire The mustang is so much better
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
How many mustangs were fighting in the Battle of Britain P51ace 16?
Now you see why the Spitfire is so well known and if it could do that much damage to the Luftwaffe in 1940, imagine how good the developed versions were
Now you see why the Spitfire is so well known and if it could do that much damage to the Luftwaffe in 1940, imagine how good the developed versions were
cheddar cheese
Major General
The Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in every way except range...
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
I believe a saying was: "The Mustang can't do what the Spitfire can, but it does it over Berlin"
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
A
Anonymous
Guest
cheddar cheese said:
Or high speed manuverability - especially roll. Or sustained speed.
RG, good evening:
" think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory."
Getting shot down tells very little on the quality of a pilot. You know it well, many superb pilots got shot down and that did not imply, AT ALL, they were bad pilots! The point with mr. Yeager is that on interviews (tv documentals) he speaks with a big smile on his face, mocking the German pilots and their fighters, apparently forgetting one German pilot surpassed him in a dogfight on his "perfect" fighter and shot him down; as simple as that. I thought his attitude was even disrespectful towards his very own countrymen which perished by the dozens of thousands fighting Germany in the air.
Perhaps mr. Yeager has not seen footage of P-51 pilots getting their nuts barbecued under the fire of Bf109s and Fw190s, or if he has, it appears like he has forgotten everything.
As I have said before, the military build up of the USA on both theaters of war, Pacific and Europe, as well as the massive supplies of the Lend Lease shipped to the soviet union are an undisputed testimony of the might of the military industry of the USA.
Though comparing the military effort of Germany with that of the USA in the fashion you put is misleading.
Germany is a small nation with limited access to natural resources. A diametrally opposed thing happened in the case of the USA: a very large country, with a large population and access to large natural resources -i.e. the oil of some countries of latin america-.
What of the geography?
Germany located in the centre of the war map, with borders close to enemy nations. Its military industry within the reach of the heavy bombers of the enemy.
USA located the atlantic and the pacific ocean away from its two main enemies bordering only allied nations. Safe from any bombing raid and/or any significant sabotage, meaning its massive military industry would work at top capacity unhindered.
Those are only a few very fundamental differences between the military efforts of both Germany and the USA.
The geographic position of the USA allowed to plan its military production and to deploy its massive forces the way we know it did.
" think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory."
Getting shot down tells very little on the quality of a pilot. You know it well, many superb pilots got shot down and that did not imply, AT ALL, they were bad pilots! The point with mr. Yeager is that on interviews (tv documentals) he speaks with a big smile on his face, mocking the German pilots and their fighters, apparently forgetting one German pilot surpassed him in a dogfight on his "perfect" fighter and shot him down; as simple as that. I thought his attitude was even disrespectful towards his very own countrymen which perished by the dozens of thousands fighting Germany in the air.
Perhaps mr. Yeager has not seen footage of P-51 pilots getting their nuts barbecued under the fire of Bf109s and Fw190s, or if he has, it appears like he has forgotten everything.
As I have said before, the military build up of the USA on both theaters of war, Pacific and Europe, as well as the massive supplies of the Lend Lease shipped to the soviet union are an undisputed testimony of the might of the military industry of the USA.
Though comparing the military effort of Germany with that of the USA in the fashion you put is misleading.
Germany is a small nation with limited access to natural resources. A diametrally opposed thing happened in the case of the USA: a very large country, with a large population and access to large natural resources -i.e. the oil of some countries of latin america-.
What of the geography?
Germany located in the centre of the war map, with borders close to enemy nations. Its military industry within the reach of the heavy bombers of the enemy.
USA located the atlantic and the pacific ocean away from its two main enemies bordering only allied nations. Safe from any bombing raid and/or any significant sabotage, meaning its massive military industry would work at top capacity unhindered.
Those are only a few very fundamental differences between the military efforts of both Germany and the USA.
The geographic position of the USA allowed to plan its military production and to deploy its massive forces the way we know it did.
