Eric Brown's "Duels in the Sky" (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

show me one instance where I put down anything/anyone. IF you ever watched dogfights, you'd know my comment is a fair statement. wasn't directed at any person here. So please stop assuming thats what I'm doing.
 
Sounds that way to a reader. If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.

If you disagree, write that without personal references to some perceived fault. It plays a LOT better. You have good arguments and good opinions, but the personal stuff obscures it sometimes.

To disagree with a TV program, state that simply. Don't say that the program cannot possibly be biased (sarcastic) and add roll-eyes (also sarcastic). That is the definition of sarcasm, in anybody's book and will eleicit a reaction, usually negative, from someone (sorry it was me). It makes people automatically disagree with you due to the implied sarcasm. Basic human emotions ensure that.

I have a good time going back and forth with you unless you post that I must be disrmemebring things or am somehow at fault for thinking the way I do. I assure you, I think the way I do becasue of my experiences and accumulated stock of information, just as you do. Nothing to do with an agenda and definitely NOT accusing YOU of not knowing what you have read or ecperienced.

Not a pesonal attack on Ratsel just asking for pleasant discourse in lieu of a dissenting opinion with personal references attached. You will either understand and accept or you won't. I hope you do, and I hope you stay a frequent-contributing poster. I've been chastised for the same type of comments and I let myself cool down a bit these days before posting a retort that I might regret later. I don't always succeed and must beg occasional fiorgiveness from the object of the retort. I hope you understand that.

My retorts were similar to yours when I got kicked off this site more than 4 years ago. Since being allowed back, I re-read my own posts and I undertsand the beef at the time ... I suppose I'm milder now and hope you might be, too, on occasion maybe not always ...
 
Dav, agree with you that the quotes from Dean's book lack a lot of punch. All they do is show what someone's opinion was. However, I can understand why some pilots felt the way they did. IMO, piloting the Corsair in combat, based on reading what many pilots thought, was like riding a hot blooded thoroughbred, at least from the standpoint of landing and takeoffs. The Hellcat was more like an old steady plug from the stables. Linnekin, in "80 knots to Mach 2" who was an operational fighter pilot in the Navy as well as a test pilot stated that the Hellcat was somewhat pedestrian in performance and also had some bad "right rudder and right rudder trim deficiences" so it was not the end all be all easy flying machine. He also said that overall, "The Corsair had better control harmony than either of the Grummans." Meaning the F6F and F8F. Which is why he found the Corsair easier to fly a good gunnery run. Here we go with the high side full deflection gunnery run again.
 
If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.

so correcting somebody about information is classified as is me saying their inept in a sarcastic way? Where are you getting this from? Anyways my appologies.. English is not my first language. It goes German -> Greek -> English.
 
Hi Ratsel,

If you are German, you are probably closer to data on the Messerschmitt Me 109 than I am.

I can find the kill ratio (victories to losses) for almost all American fighter types in WWII, but cannot seem to find the victories OR losses for the Me 109 for the entire war. That is, can find reference to "a LOT of kills" and "a lot of losses," but no numbers. Do you happen to have the victories, losses, and maybe operational losses?

It is my contention that the Me 109 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter or fighters in history in all air wars all put together, but I can't prove it since I don't have the numbers. I think the 109 is a very strong candidate for the best fighter of all times but ... again, I have no numbers to back it up. Most of the people who strongly disagree with me on this say that kills and kill ratio are not tyhe best indicator of the best. They are almost big fans of other aircraft.

Can you shed some light on the real numbers? Or suggest a source for such information?
 
Sounds that way to a reader. If you don't mean to sound sarcastic or to accuse someone of forgetting, disremebering, or just being inept , then don't write it so it sounds that way.

If you disagree, write that without personal references to some perceived fault. It plays a LOT better. You have good arguments and good opinions, but the personal stuff obscures it sometimes.

To disagree with a TV program, state that simply. Don't say that the program cannot possibly be biased (sarcastic) and add roll-eyes (also sarcastic). That is the definition of sarcasm, in anybody's book and will eleicit a reaction, usually negative, from someone (sorry it was me). It makes people automatically disagree with you due to the implied sarcasm. Basic human emotions ensure that.

I have a good time going back and forth with you unless you post that I must be disrmemebring things or am somehow at fault for thinking the way I do. I assure you, I think the way I do becasue of my experiences and accumulated stock of information, just as you do. Nothing to do with an agenda and definitely NOT accusing YOU of not knowing what you have read or ecperienced.

Not a pesonal attack on Ratsel just asking for pleasant discourse in lieu of a dissenting opinion with personal references attached. You will either understand and accept or you won't. I hope you do, and I hope you stay a frequent-contributing poster. I've been chastised for the same type of comments and I let myself cool down a bit these days before posting a retort that I might regret later. I don't always succeed and must beg occasional fiorgiveness from the object of the retort. I hope you understand that.

My retorts were similar to yours when I got kicked off this site more than 4 years ago. Since being allowed back, I re-read my own posts and I undertsand the beef at the time ... I suppose I'm milder now and hope you might be, too, on occasion maybe not always ...

Well said.

Basically though, think about what you are trying to say, type it and then read it again. If you would not want to have it said to you, then don't post it. ;)
 
yep "Dogfight" is never biased towards Americans :rolleyes: lol
So, let me understand what you are saying. You are claiming that when Bud Anderson, who was on the show, said that "they were coming around and we were coming around, in a big left circle, this goes about two times. Each time we go around I'm closer to getting in trail with them", he was lying?
 
yes, I think I just ordered it from Amazon. I think it is a book all WW2 aircraft enthusiast should have. It is an honest attempt to evaluate allied aircraft and make improvements. It also reflects the thought process of the time.
 
So, let me understand what you are saying. You are claiming that when Bud Anderson, who was on the show, said that "they were coming around and we were coming around, in a big left circle, this goes about two times. Each time we go around I'm closer to getting in trail with them", he was lying?
:rolleyes: AGAIN point out one instance when I said anybody is lying or even implied so. What I'm saying is that dogfight gets only one side of the story, never the other, unlike Greatest tank Battles which shows a fair comparison.. from now on, I refrain from posting. I'll just read and enjoy.

Kindest Regards
 
No need for such drastic action there Ratsel

I agree, the German perspective of this turn would be interesting if there is an account



General note to forum members

Lots of people here are taking offense here when they should not be. Can we just talk planes and quit bickering here?
 
The History Channel is owned by Disney Corp., I believe, a American company. It's probably made primarily for American audiences, and probably mostly American sponsors. It has easier access to American veterans, so mostly for it's own economic health it sticks to intertainment for the USA, not education.
If it were produced in Britain, Germany, Russia, or Japan, it's primary viewpoint would probably be different, and i'd probably like it more myself. But I don't think it would last long on American TV.
 
I must agree I find the Dogfights show is an excellent show but it does cover the USAAF much more them other air arms ,but it is an American show made for a US audience who pay the most advertising so it makes perfect sense.
 
What would really be intersting is if we could have a "dogfights" show that had a revolving host.

That is, one show from tha American viewpoint, one from British viewpoint, one from German viewpoint, one from Japanese viewpoint, one from italian viewpoint, one from Romanian viewpoint, Bulgarian viewpoint, etc.

My serious opinion is that all sides, large and small, had great pilots and decent aircraft ... as well as the average and below average. The basic difference in most encounters would very probably boil down to pilot skill unless the planes were disparate in performance.

I apologize if I drove Ratsel off. All I wanted was to not be accused of forgetting things in a response to my posts.

Ratsel, come back!
 
Last edited:
I have the Joint Fighter Conference Report and it is interesting to read but it still only represents the opinions of pilots who flew the airplanes. In other words the opinions are subjective. As far as Seafire is concerned the prevailing opinion was that it was outdated. Oddly in reading the opinions on all the AC some were at total variance with others. I had always wondered why the F4U4 did not rate higher in the ratings published by Dean in "America's Hundred Thousand" The reason was that only three pilots flew it, one British and two Navy. There were almost no comments so a really high performance fighter was hardly considered in the final rankings.
 
I have the Joint Fighter Conference Report and it is interesting to read but it still only represents the opinions of pilots who flew the airplanes. In other words the opinions are subjective. As far as Seafire is concerned the prevailing opinion was that it was outdated. Oddly in reading the opinions on all the AC some were at total variance with others. I had always wondered why the F4U4 did not rate higher in the ratings published by Dean in "America's Hundred Thousand" The reason was that only three pilots flew it, one British and two Navy. There were almost no comments so a really high performance fighter was hardly considered in the final rankings.

What you say is correct. There were no test numbers created and all the performance evaluations were subjective. I feel it is still important because it reflected the atmosphere of the military at that time, and did show one to one flying experiences.

I think that the limited exposure to the XF4U-4 and the XF8F was due to the newness of the aircraft. The first production version of the F4U-4 only flew a month before the test. Possibly, the aircraft were not fully available due to other needs. I would suspect that both were heavily involved in the development of plans for integrating the airframes into operational procedures. Limited maintenance due to newness may also been a factor. I am sure that if both had production planes that were dedicated to this evaluation, both would have been flown a lot and would have been highly rated.
 
:rolleyes: AGAIN point out one instance when I said anybody is lying or even implied so. What I'm saying is that dogfight gets only one side of the story, never the other, unlike Greatest tank Battles which shows a fair comparison.. from now on, I refrain from posting. I'll just read and enjoy.

Kindest Regards

Sorry for being a bit abrasive, but I am sensitive to general comments on certain sites because of perceived, or factual, bias. I have seen official flight test reports, by military or corporations, dismissed because it came from Mike Williams site. That makes no sense to me. Yes, it may have been hand picked, or maybe posted by a bias site (which I don't really believe), but it does not negate the validity of the test report. When you Rolled your eyes, I perceived it as dismissing it all, including Bud Anderson's statements, which I felt were important as he was there, and he stated what he saw and did, just because it was on a US centered show.

No use in just reading, you should participate. Discussion just should be informative and non confrontational. You seem knowledgeable and promote discussion.

I would love to see dogfights from other points of view, if we could just find someone to invest the money!
 
I would love to see dogfights from other points of view, if we could just find someone to invest the money!

I always felt they should have included an episode about the Battle of Britain; "Hunt for the Bismark" was a nice episode but one BoB dedicated episode would have give tribute to the resilience of the RAF and overall Great Britain during WWII.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back