Best Nightfighter of WW2

[Erich]

purpose ? I use them on a militaira site that I moderate. Usually smilies indicate non-sensitivity. I see that nearly 8/10ths of the posters on this forum pad the threads and the web-master needs to seriously consider deleteing many of them............

how about you for one add some good logical sense instead of one-liners. Ask questions instead of bizarre remarks. this will build trust especially for ones as myself which are older in years. I don't mind at all giving freely of my time here to educate the younger generation but I also expect respect in return.

verstehen sie ?

 

[kiwimac]

Erich,

Perhaps ... but as well as the aircraft themselves I personally find the 'what-if' questions very interesting. They are the questions that enable folk to put flesh on the bones of bare facts.

Like you I've spent a large number of years studying both WW2 German and Italian aircraft and as fascinating as I find them I still come back to the 'what-ifs'.

kiwimac

 

[kiwimac]

As for the one-liners, Erich, I believe that they have their place too. The building of community is as important as the running of an 'efficient' site, IMO.

Kiwimac

 

[plan_D]

I think the site is working well as it is, the one liners and even sometimes smilies make for entertainment. Anyway, kiwimac is it me, or has your sig got bigger?

 

[Erich]

Gentlemen I am the new guy and I am not here to change your ideas, just giving my opinions. I have just found the past 4-5 years that I have been moderating on 4-5 forums that what-ifs are good for argumentation that never ends that's all...........what-if's generally have the tendancy to dilute a serious thread to the base and the thread then flops. If we are going to start a thread of serious nature then let's not enter the what-if realm but state facts and back them up with solid references please.......

As for smilies yes they can be cute but also very distracting. Asnwering a comment from another poster with-out a line or two of text but with smilie only constitutes padding and that is quite unnecessary but childish.

v/r

Erich ~

 

[kiwimac]

Plan_D

You know, I think my sig HAS got bigger. I'll have to look into that.

Erich,

A number of the posters on this site have off-site friendships, as well the average age is on the young side.

Kiwimac

 

[MP-Willow]

Ok if we want a true fact based discussion and to come back to the topic athand, I do like this one, why not take the tp two in the poll, the P-61 and the Moss and compair them by the numbers and action reports.

I like the P-61 in that is was designed, but it entered the war latter so it had less targets in the air. But it did do a good job with night interdictions. I will post more if we wish to have a discussion that we can focus.

Smiles are just that a smile

 

[Erich]

kiwimac, I am begining to understand that. Would like to point out that many lurkers that I am aware of will not join any type of forums when things clearly get off of topic and become a personal vendetta, whether kidding or not. Again this is something to ponder.

MP-Willow I am a former member of the US night fighters association flying the P-61 A and B and have much to offer, but would like to see your materials on the P-61. intersting that several med units flying the Beau and later the Mossie NF compared their'old' Mossie mounts to the newer P-61's. Some intersting comparative calculations that were rendered. My feelings especially for the ETO 422nd and 425th nfs during the Ardenne battles is that the crews were still quite unfamiliar with night fighter vs enemy night fighter identification and on more than one mission the two units unfortunately shot down 1-2 Mossie intruders in their area of involvement..............the P-61 AI although an excellent radar apparatus failed on two many an occassion and following along the micro-fische reports of missions involved the P-61 crews radar seemed to have been confused with the haze and smoke plus weather elements during the month of December 1944. As many and ending to a mission was remarked "No-Joy". Jets in fact were claimed to have been foloowed, Me 262 as well as the Rocket Me 163 Komet but we know this was not possible as the Me 262 of Kommando Welter was in the starting phaswe and was in the area of Berlin to counter the Mossie LSNF threat to Berlin.

so with that please share what you have with us.............

 

[Lightning Guy]

I have received mixed reviews about the P-61. For example, when the P-38M was tested against the P-61 it was shown to be superior in virtually every category. On the other hand, I have read an article that suggested that more P-61s MIGHT have been able to stem the tide of the Bulge sooner since the Germans could move relatively freely at night.

 

[Erich]

probably not, although the German night fighter forces lost more nf's in December 1944 that other months in the war. 142 a/c by all causes. Mossies and P-61's also added to this overall score plus the result of RAF bombe return fire and night landing accidents and other bizarre occurances.
Ju 87's of the night ground attack force were encountered quite a bit but with mixed results as the p-61's had to drop their landing gear to take on the slow night movers. The Widows just simply overshot their targets and when coming around for another attack the Ju 87D's had already begun their decents/dives to attack Allied troops and road crossings then staying low concealed their get-a ways in the low ground haze and fog.....

~E

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well, I was referring to the P-61's skill in a ground attack role. The article I read suggested that had their been more P-61s on hand the Germans would have lost more tanks, fuel, and supplies simply getting into position to mount their attack.

 

[Erich]

well the P-61 was an excellent weapons platform as I mentioned earlier and the night ground attack role it excelled. impressive stats for the two ETO squadrons of MT destroyed and bridges and road crossings wiped out including many loco's.............this was all in 1945 in the interior of the Reich

 

[Lightning Guy]

And if there could have been a couple of more sqaudrons (or at least enough spares to keep the two existing ones at full strength) the Bulge might not have made it as far as it did.

 

[plan_D]

I don't think so, the opening stages of the Bulge were in bad weather conditions, grounding aircraft day and night. When the weather cleared the Germans had already made it most of the way, but were then restricted to moving at night. Moving by day was suicide.

 

[Erich]

the three squadrons in the ETO at the time of the Bulge were up to strength. the problem was their outdated equipment

 

[brad]

cant remember what i voted for

 

[cheddar cheese]

i went for the 88, then later changed my decision to the beaufighter

 

[Lightning Guy]

Plan_D, I was refering to the P-61 being able to attack units moving into position before the actual attack was launched.

 

[plan_D]

The Allies didn't know the attack was coming, so they wouldn't have had the thought to use them on the enemy forces there. Mostly they didn't even know a lot of them were there.

 

[Erich]

the P-61 units in question were delegated to the defence and attack of German night fighters as well as German night bombers. They were not to be used as ground attack a/c as first priority. The unit's were designated to fly at night as intruder's whether the Ardenne battles came about or not.........A-20's of the units were used in the night ground attack roles during the Ardenne