Focke Wulf FW 190-D9 "the best fighter of Germany"?

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

bobbysocks said:
the tone of the conversation is a mix of sarcasm, wise cracks, exaggeration, and poking fun...all in good nature.
Click to expand...

Sounds like engineers, although it's never in good nature with engineers... ;D I do have to censor my language and humour when around family and friends. The guys at work, we often tell each other of instances where at social gatherings we'll chime in with some wise crack and the room suddenly goes silent! Working on the night shift spawns some pretty black stuff in our heads...
 
I went to the Udvar Hazy Center the day after it opened and the Do 335 wasn't there, but seeing the Aichi Seiran floatplane and Arado 234 was definitely a highlight. Would love to go back and see the more recently installed stuff.

Regarding the name calling earlier on in the thread; it does depend on your environment; I can see how those not conditioned to the kind of language that many (in military and hangars!) use would find such things upsetting. The banter between people is unique in these situations and it reflects a bond not necessarily experienced by outsiders. I'm sure the likes of Yeager would not object in the slightest if called an SOB.

Language is a funny thing. I saw a comedian talking about the use of the word c*nt, which in many people's books is as offensive as it gets, but this guys was saying - and Brits will back me up here, there are some Brits who use it in every day language, like (said in a Cockney drawl) "Ow aare ya, you f*cking c*nt! 'Avent seen you in ages...", yet if I said that to some of my wife's friends, I'd get astonished looks, although most would know that's just me and my foul mouth after all.
 
nuuumannn said:
Language is a funny thing. I saw a comedian talking about the use of the word c*nt, which in many people's books is as offensive as it gets, but this guys was saying - and Brits will back me up here, there are some Brits who use it in every day language, like (said in a Cockney drawl) "Ow aare ya, you f*cking c*nt! 'Avent seen you in ages...", yet if I said that to some of my wife's friends, I'd get astonished looks, although most would know that's just me and my foul mouth after all.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. It is all about context, though, having said that, the C-word is almost invariably found offensive by women.

One of the problems of the typed word is that it lacks that context, given not just by pronunciation (like 'you c******nt' with several Us, not nearly as offensive in English usage) but by all sorts of other visual cues lumped together as body language.

Cheers

Steve
 
Another example (in the United States, anyway) of this language issue is use of the word ni**er.
Apparently, it's common and acceptable for certain people to address other certain people with that word.
 
Americans get offensive even with the use of the word 'black', which kinda makes it hard being a kiwi since our tourist board and sports teams have gone overboard by naming everything 'The Black-This' and 'The Black-That'.
 
Yep, watched our girls beat the 'black sticks' a couple of days ago, which is consistent, if not inspired naming :)

Maybe the Kiwis hope that by naming everything the black this or that, something of the aura of the mighty All Blacks will rub off!

Cheers

Steve
 
nuuumannn said:
Language is a funny thing. I saw a comedian talking about the use of the word c*nt, which in many people's books is as offensive as it gets, but this guys was saying - and Brits will back me up here, there are some Brits who use it in every day language, like (said in a Cockney drawl) "Ow aare ya, you f*cking c*nt! 'Avent seen you in ages...", yet if I said that to some of my wife's friends, I'd get astonished looks, although most would know that's just me and my foul mouth after all.
Click to expand...
I once met a German barmaid who was briefly engaged to an English soldier. She flew to meet his parents in England who asked her how her journey went. She replied "I am sick as a nuns c@nt sat on that b@stard of an aeroplane for 2 hours". She didnt realise that her boyfriends squaddie English should not be used infront of the future in laws, the engagement didnt last long after that.
 
Hey Shooter, try consolidating your posts so you never post right after yourself. You might notice nobody in here does much that except you.

About the guns being "almost useless," the Me 262 recorded very close to 540 Allied kills and US pilots shot down 140 of them. They only built some 1,430 Me 262s and only about 100 at a time ever saw combat according to Adolph Galland's books. Many that were completed never flew due to pilot and fuel shortages, and the relative inability of the factory to get them delivered on time with any reliability due to constant bombardment as well as airframes damaged before delivery due to same.

540 kills doesn't make it sound quite "useless." I'd say they did pretty well considering the guns weren't optimized for fighter-versus-fighter combat and it never was intended as a dogfighter. In the end, it had a negligible impact on WWII combat, but is DID make us grateful they didn't get the engine woes worked out a lot earlier. Many aircraft on both were not optimized for some mission they were called upon to perform, but very few if any WWII combat aircraft were "useless."

I might include the LWS-6 (PZL-30) Zubr in the "useless" category, except some of the completed airframes WERE used as decoys to give the Luftwaffe something to shoot at, and the engines DID get used as fruit orchard warm air fans, so the Zubr at least contributed mass suicide of some of its airframes. The Soviets actually flew several as trainers. I wonder if they were training as Kamakazes? The total production run of 17 makes me wonder about the Polish military department of procurement's qualifications. I bet the guys who bought 17 Zubrs were Cavalry officers, qualified to buy exceptionally good horses, but totally ineffective when it came to machinery, particularly aerial bombardment devices.

I understand the airframes reached their service life after one long mission. I guess the Soviets flew a lot of short hops.
 
GregP said:
Hey Shooter, try consolidating your posts so you never post right after yourself. You might notice nobody in here does much that except you.

About the guns being "almost useless," the Me 262 recorded very close to 540 Allied kills and US pilots shot down 140 of them. They only built some 1,430 Me 262s and only about 100 at a time ever saw combat according to Adolph Galland's books. Many that were completed never flew due to pilot and fuel shortages, and the relative inability of the factory to get them delivered on time with any reliability due to constant bombardment as well as airframes damaged before delivery due to same.

540 kills doesn't make it sound quite "useless." I'd say they did pretty well considering the guns weren't optimized for fighter-versus-fighter combat and it never was intended as a dogfighter. In the end, it had a negligible impact on WWII combat, but is DID make us grateful they didn't get the engine woes worked out a lot earlier. Many aircraft on both were not optimized for some mission they were called upon to perform, but very few if any WWII combat aircraft were "useless."

I might include the LWS-6 (PZL-30) Zubr in the "useless" category, except some of the completed airframes WERE used as decoys to give the Luftwaffe something to shoot at, and the engines DID get used as fruit orchard warm air fans, so the Zubr at least contributed mass suicide of some of its airframes. The Soviets actually flew several as trainers. I wonder if they were training as Kamakazes? The total production run of 17 makes me wonder about the Polish military department of procurement's qualifications. I bet the guys who bought 17 Zubrs were Cavalry officers, qualified to buy exceptionally good horses, but totally ineffective when it came to machinery, particularly aerial bombardment devices.

I understand the airframes reached their service life after one long mission. I guess the Soviets flew a lot of short hops.
Click to expand...

Don't forget it was armed for it's intended purpose...
 
I have often wondered why the Bf 109 is so often ignored as a great fighter. It wasn't a cake-walk for an Allied fighter even on the last day of the war if flown competently.

According to both Hartmann and Barkhorn, it's best feature was centerline armament. As has been quoted before, the Germans thought, "one in the nose is worth 2 in the wings." The guns in the fuselage don't have to converge and the bullet stream stays more or less together for a long time and a long distance.

I believe the top aces stayed with the Bf 109 because they were already familiar with all it's good and bad points in combat, and didn't want to get killed rediscovering these things fighting in the Fw 190. I know Hartmann and Barkhorn flew the Fw 190 and elected to stay with the Bf 109, while simultaneously praising the Fw 190's flight characteristics. Considering the life-expectancy of new combat pilots (and pilots new-to-type), perhaps their decision was understandable to everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Focke Wulf light fighter
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
10K
spicmart
S
herman1rg
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
13K
PAT303
P
INTX7568
The best fighter of the 1930s
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
9K
bf109xxl
B
BarnOwlLover
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
476
Shortround6
S
Back