- Thread starter
- #21
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I just gotta give props for that one.... Sal, u get the Golden Ticket for that one, had me laugh out loud on that....On a more positive note, the Germans would have been credited with wiping out tooth decay and gingivitis.
You know lanc they did a study the other day and they found that the Hurricane won the battle of Briton and not the Spitfire, there were to few of them to be able to win it.
Henk said:The Fw-190 were already in action in September 1941, to be precise 6 September 1941.
Henk
netudki said:Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)
FLYBOYJ said:netudki said:Spiti, of course. It was used from 1939 to 1945, in almost all of roles (interceptor,fighter-bomber, carrier fighter, reconnaissance, trainer, escort fighter, seaplane fighter, long-range escort fighter), in all of the theater of II WW. The Spiti shot down last german, the Seafire shot down the last japanese aircraft. 8)
Yea but could tow a glider, carry 20 soldiers and fly on one engine?
welcome!!netudki said:To FLYBOYJ
No but it could carry a barrel of beer without any conversation! And of course it could fly with only one engine!!!!!
Thanks DerAdlerIstGelandet
Welcome to the site netudki.
That is a good argument for the Spitfire.
I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.
netudki said:Welcome to the site netudki.
That is a good argument for the Spitfire.
I personally go with the C-47 only because of its role in the logistical side of the war. Without the Allies would not have been able to supply and keep there troops fighting.
Its true, but without defending, these C-47 are worth nothing! In the siege of Burma in 1944 Spiti VIII defended the transport a/c-s and the Japanese fighters could shot down only 3 C-47.
No, and you can't win one without one - a good one!netudki said:In the beginning of the war the C-47s weren't so important then in the ending phase. Anyway, I think nobody can win the war only with transport aircraft.
Amen!DerAdlerIstGelandet said:Just look at the mass tonnage of supplies they carried. Dont forget the airborne drops into Normany.
I look at this way, there is more to fighting a war than just the weapons. One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission. I would not have been able to fly day in and day out without food, water, medical supplies and what.
You said it, bro.DerAdlerIstGelandet said:One thing I have learned since being in the Military is you have to have support so that you can do your mission.