the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and you guys thought 1 sharkmouth merlin was sexy!
P-40 vs. Hurricane
- Thread starter DerAdlerIstGelandet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
4 is even better!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
amazing isn't it
Notes on oper.sealion.
Germans couldn't have done it because(list reasons here)
They invaded Crete a year later.With just a fraction of thier total strength.A longer crossing too.Took huge percentage losses.
Victory.
British isles were a much larger prize.
Note the Germans fought at least some of the "air war"by landing ground troops,paratroops,and capturing the airfields.Are you sure that despite even intense losses,they couldn't have eliminated some of the British air power this way?
Even if you lost all your sea transport to the RN,if you got the armor across,couldn't captured supplies of petrol run them?
Ammunition?Like 37mm guns on thsoe tanks?Light.Couuldnt you fly the ammo over?
Not that there were many pieces of armor in britian left to fight.
Need artillery ammo?
That's what you have flying artillery for,right?
So the British would have fought hard?They were defeated in Norway,France,bounced all over N.Africa by a numerically smaller force of Germans,crushed by the Japanese,who had hardly any armor/heavy artilery.They had among the worst records of any major combatants in the war.
As for comparisons of aircraft.The germans needed some Zero fighters,with their 1000mile range.BofB over.Or even a5M's with their 800mile(?)range.BofB over.
The British were way overrated,in virtually everything.And that windbag(and drunk)Churchill has been way overrated.
WHO DO YOU THINK WAS DOING THE ACTUAL FIGHTING?ANYONE CAN TALK OTHER PEOPLE INTO FIGHTING TO THE LAST.
Brits were damn lucky the negotiations between Molotove and Hitler failed in late 1940.Throw the Russian Navy and Airforce into the fray(if Hitler could have gotten them in)and the Brits are invaded and destroyed in spring 1941.
Even without that,the Brit crummy army crushed by the Red army in iran,afghan,india etc etc.
And probably no involvement by U.S,which didn't want to fight Germany,Japan ,USSR all at once.
Germans couldn't have done it because(list reasons here)
They invaded Crete a year later.With just a fraction of thier total strength.A longer crossing too.Took huge percentage losses.
Victory.
British isles were a much larger prize.
Note the Germans fought at least some of the "air war"by landing ground troops,paratroops,and capturing the airfields.Are you sure that despite even intense losses,they couldn't have eliminated some of the British air power this way?
Even if you lost all your sea transport to the RN,if you got the armor across,couldn't captured supplies of petrol run them?
Ammunition?Like 37mm guns on thsoe tanks?Light.Couuldnt you fly the ammo over?
Not that there were many pieces of armor in britian left to fight.
Need artillery ammo?
That's what you have flying artillery for,right?
So the British would have fought hard?They were defeated in Norway,France,bounced all over N.Africa by a numerically smaller force of Germans,crushed by the Japanese,who had hardly any armor/heavy artilery.They had among the worst records of any major combatants in the war.
As for comparisons of aircraft.The germans needed some Zero fighters,with their 1000mile range.BofB over.Or even a5M's with their 800mile(?)range.BofB over.
The British were way overrated,in virtually everything.And that windbag(and drunk)Churchill has been way overrated.
WHO DO YOU THINK WAS DOING THE ACTUAL FIGHTING?ANYONE CAN TALK OTHER PEOPLE INTO FIGHTING TO THE LAST.
Brits were damn lucky the negotiations between Molotove and Hitler failed in late 1940.Throw the Russian Navy and Airforce into the fray(if Hitler could have gotten them in)and the Brits are invaded and destroyed in spring 1941.
Even without that,the Brit crummy army crushed by the Red army in iran,afghan,india etc etc.
And probably no involvement by U.S,which didn't want to fight Germany,Japan ,USSR all at once.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
boy you have no idea how wrong you are! you jsut wait 'til pD reads this, or most others for that matter.......
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Theres an Ass-Clown born every minute.....
evangilder
"Shooter"
Indeed. Someone needs to do a bit more reading.
Yes a lot. pD's reply should be interesting. I could reply but I won't (pD will have a much better one!) and it this off-topic, AGAIN! Thought Alder created a thread for this discussion?evangilder said:
I'm honoured that'd you'd all leave it to me.
Operation Sea Lion couldn't be achieved because:
A) The Germans had no seafaring craft capable of taking the brute force of the English Channel. The Royal Navy could have sent a few minesweeps past the invasion force and the wash would have sunk most of their vessels.
B) The Luftwaffe never achieved air superiority. The RAF defended the British skies perfectly, defeating the Luftwaffe in open conflict. The reasons are many, and a single mention of "Luftwaffe switch to cities" as being the only reason will make me laugh.
C) The Kriegsmarine had no way of stopping the Royal Navy. At every point in the war, from start to finish, the German High Command feared the Royal Navy and with good reason.
There's just three reasons why Operation Sea Lion would fail.
On to Crete;
Crete was invaded by a numercially inferior force of German troops, correct. However, the Luftwaffe ruled the skies. The RAF had not one single aircraft on Crete, the last Hurricane leaving some days before. The AA defence on the island was minimal with a maximum of three light AA battalions defending the entire island, and that's if I'm being generous.
They lost the entire first wave of naval invasion, including the Italian destroyer 'Luzo' - where was the Luftwaffe to destroy the Royal Navy then?
The Fallschirmjager lost up to 50% casaulties against a force of British and Commonwealth troops that weren't even equipped properly. There were 40,000 troops on Crete, but don't be fooled by the numbers. Most of those were Greek soldiers who had been evacuated from Greece, a vast majority had no weapons. Crete was a staging post to move those forces even further back and ultimately into North Africa. A staunch defence was never intended, yet the German forces lost so many that an airborne assault was never again considered.
The Germans won the battle for Crete, but at high cost and the island had no tactical position whatsoever. It was a waste of manpower and resource. The Germans landed on that island with no risk of an enemy airforce and little enemy AA defence, the prime time to land airborne.
------------------
"British Isles were a much larger prize," too damn right they were. And larger prizes cost more. The German forces needed for this larger prize would have been ten-fold of that needed to take Crete. The Germans just didn't have the vessels to invade.
I am pretty sure the Luftwaffe couldn't have eliminated any air power by using Fallschirm to capture RAF airfields. The Fallschirm were used to capture bridges and airfields for the Germans own use, not to hamper the enemy. The Luftwaffe had to gain a local air superiority over any drop zone that would be used by the Fallschirm. This they would have never achieved over Britain and the Ju-52 carrying the much feared Fallschirm would have been shot out of the sky over the Channel.
How do you plan on landing armour across the Channel in the first place? The Royal Navy could have stopped the first assault waves, they wouldn't need to cut off any German troops because none would make it ashore.
If, however, some panzers made it ashore and were then cut off from home resupply British fuel dumps would not supply them. Any fuel dump that was in risk of capture would be set alight, depriving the panzers of any fuel.
You can't fly ammo over if the enemy is shooting down your transport planes. And you cannot supply an entire army from the air. The British High Command were skeptical when Wingate proposed the idea of supplying a Corps strength force from the air ...but that did work. How did it work? A massive supply of C-47 'Dakota' and a massive fighter force to help them there and back. On top of that, the Army engineers built airfields behind enemy lines so the 'Daks' could carry more and land it in.
You don't need armour to stop armour. But that said, the British and Commonwealth forces in Britain could have gathered enough armour to crush any German beach-head gained. The Matilda II was in all-out production and the Germans couldn't stop that tank with anything they had except the FlaK 18 36 88mm.
'Flying artillery' isn't nearly as effective as real artillery. It's no where near as versatile or quick reacting. Plus, since the RAF had the air, what's going to bomb us? Those sitting ducks called Stukas?
I don't know whether I should laugh at such blatant ignorance or be annoyed by your anti-British sentiments ...and overwhelming stench of idiocy you possess.
Norway; the British landed forces with the objectives of capturing Narvick and opening a land route to support Finland against the USSR. They landed with no heavy equipment. In the first naval encounter, the Royal Navy came out clear winners. Capturing a few supply ships and destroying some more with no loss to themselves.
The British land forces met an enemy with artillery, air support and tanks. None of which they had themselves. It is no wonder the British (and French) forces decided it was best to retreat than waste the lives of many good men.
The British kindly sent over 350,000 troops to France to aid in the defence of Europe. Not something it had to do but did nevertheless. The Wehrmacht assaulted France on the 10th May, 1940 with 3.3 million troops. The BEF had a total of 350,000 ill-equipped fighting soldiers with little armour and artillery that was going to quickly run out of shells.
Despite this, the British handed the Germans their only set-back on the fields of France at Arras. This quickly prompted German High Command to send out the message; "Beware; these British have teeth ..." - from then on the Germans knew they weren't dealing with untrained and unencouraged soldiers. The retreat from Arras, and to Dunkirk only occured because the French had collapsed to their south and they ran the very true risk of encirclement.
This portion on the North African campaign made me laugh the most. You're right, the Germans did have a smaller army than the British ...but the Axis didn't. You seem to forget that Italy attacked the British first with an over-whelming superiority of 6:1. The British defeated them capturing 120,000 to a loss of 1,200 dead and wounded. When the Afrika Korps arrived the British were over-stretched and had just given up their best forces for Greece.
Later on, the British again pushed the Axis forces back. Their best forces were then sent to Malaya, over-stretching the British forces and leaving them open to attack from Rommel. When Rommel was defeated at El Alamein, it was all over. The Anglo-American landings at torch were a mere formality to the outcome of the African campaign ...it had already been won by the combined efforts of the Desert Air Force, Royal Navy and 8th Army.
The U.S forces were extremely impressed with the heart and courage of the British forces in North Africa. Many thought that British men were naturally insane ...and during those first few combats for the very green U.S soldiers, they were extremely glad to have us 'limeys' by their side.
Everyone were crushed by the Japanese in the opening stage of the war. Even the U.S had to face it's own ignorance when that ignorance slapped it in the face. However, all those who had been shocked quickly recovered and fought back. The British halted the Japanese at the Indian border and pushed them all the way back through Burma, the longest advance in British history.
Heavy artillery and tanks don't matter in a jungle war, it's an infantry war, not an armour war. Get some basic knowledge.
Worst record? Britain lost, at most, 1.2 million people during World War 2. And besides Germany, they were in it the longest.
This is an amazing example of your stupidity ...and don't expect me to avoid personal insults when you have insulted my country so obviously.
You honestly think that the A6M would have won the war for the Luftwaffe? Honestly!? No, the Spitfire I was superior to the A6M in a dogfight and the Hurricane was probably equal. The A6M had the range but it didn't have the speed to combat the Spitfire on equal terms. They would have been dead meat, with no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks ...the eight .303cals would have ripped them to pieces.
I see, Churchill has been over-rated? For what? For being the only person in Europe willing to stand up to Hitler? For being the only person in the world to have some guts and open the fight against Germany? For using much needed violence instead of diplomacy? For saving Britain? For being the only one that had sense enough to realise that Hitler and Stalin were threats?
The British forces fought all over the world. From Abyssinya to Burma, from France to Iran and you think they didn't do any fighting? Come over to Britain and enjoy the kicking you receive when you say that in public.
Do you know why the those talks failed? It was because Hitler hated Communists. Have you never heard of the Anti-Comintern pact? It's anti-Bolshevik ...anti-Communist ...it means Hitler was planning the destruction of Communists all along.
And the Red Navy!? Hahaha! The Royal Navy was the largest in the world and the Red Navy was nothing but target practice. The Royal Navy would have blasted it out of the water with ease. The Red Navy didn't even have a single aircraft carrier!
And the Soviet Union attacks India from the hills ...with their massive armour ...in the jungles ...where armour can't roll? The Red Army would have been slaughtered in the jungles ...they hadn't a clue how to fight in them and would have suffered justly. Then, even if they did win ...there would have been a clash between Japan and USSR - which would end in Red Army defeat in jungles.
Operation Sea Lion couldn't be achieved because:
A) The Germans had no seafaring craft capable of taking the brute force of the English Channel. The Royal Navy could have sent a few minesweeps past the invasion force and the wash would have sunk most of their vessels.
B) The Luftwaffe never achieved air superiority. The RAF defended the British skies perfectly, defeating the Luftwaffe in open conflict. The reasons are many, and a single mention of "Luftwaffe switch to cities" as being the only reason will make me laugh.
C) The Kriegsmarine had no way of stopping the Royal Navy. At every point in the war, from start to finish, the German High Command feared the Royal Navy and with good reason.
There's just three reasons why Operation Sea Lion would fail.
On to Crete;
Crete was invaded by a numercially inferior force of German troops, correct. However, the Luftwaffe ruled the skies. The RAF had not one single aircraft on Crete, the last Hurricane leaving some days before. The AA defence on the island was minimal with a maximum of three light AA battalions defending the entire island, and that's if I'm being generous.
They lost the entire first wave of naval invasion, including the Italian destroyer 'Luzo' - where was the Luftwaffe to destroy the Royal Navy then?
The Fallschirmjager lost up to 50% casaulties against a force of British and Commonwealth troops that weren't even equipped properly. There were 40,000 troops on Crete, but don't be fooled by the numbers. Most of those were Greek soldiers who had been evacuated from Greece, a vast majority had no weapons. Crete was a staging post to move those forces even further back and ultimately into North Africa. A staunch defence was never intended, yet the German forces lost so many that an airborne assault was never again considered.
The Germans won the battle for Crete, but at high cost and the island had no tactical position whatsoever. It was a waste of manpower and resource. The Germans landed on that island with no risk of an enemy airforce and little enemy AA defence, the prime time to land airborne.
------------------
"British Isles were a much larger prize," too damn right they were. And larger prizes cost more. The German forces needed for this larger prize would have been ten-fold of that needed to take Crete. The Germans just didn't have the vessels to invade.
I am pretty sure the Luftwaffe couldn't have eliminated any air power by using Fallschirm to capture RAF airfields. The Fallschirm were used to capture bridges and airfields for the Germans own use, not to hamper the enemy. The Luftwaffe had to gain a local air superiority over any drop zone that would be used by the Fallschirm. This they would have never achieved over Britain and the Ju-52 carrying the much feared Fallschirm would have been shot out of the sky over the Channel.
How do you plan on landing armour across the Channel in the first place? The Royal Navy could have stopped the first assault waves, they wouldn't need to cut off any German troops because none would make it ashore.
If, however, some panzers made it ashore and were then cut off from home resupply British fuel dumps would not supply them. Any fuel dump that was in risk of capture would be set alight, depriving the panzers of any fuel.
You can't fly ammo over if the enemy is shooting down your transport planes. And you cannot supply an entire army from the air. The British High Command were skeptical when Wingate proposed the idea of supplying a Corps strength force from the air ...but that did work. How did it work? A massive supply of C-47 'Dakota' and a massive fighter force to help them there and back. On top of that, the Army engineers built airfields behind enemy lines so the 'Daks' could carry more and land it in.
You don't need armour to stop armour. But that said, the British and Commonwealth forces in Britain could have gathered enough armour to crush any German beach-head gained. The Matilda II was in all-out production and the Germans couldn't stop that tank with anything they had except the FlaK 18 36 88mm.
'Flying artillery' isn't nearly as effective as real artillery. It's no where near as versatile or quick reacting. Plus, since the RAF had the air, what's going to bomb us? Those sitting ducks called Stukas?
I don't know whether I should laugh at such blatant ignorance or be annoyed by your anti-British sentiments ...and overwhelming stench of idiocy you possess.
Norway; the British landed forces with the objectives of capturing Narvick and opening a land route to support Finland against the USSR. They landed with no heavy equipment. In the first naval encounter, the Royal Navy came out clear winners. Capturing a few supply ships and destroying some more with no loss to themselves.
The British land forces met an enemy with artillery, air support and tanks. None of which they had themselves. It is no wonder the British (and French) forces decided it was best to retreat than waste the lives of many good men.
The British kindly sent over 350,000 troops to France to aid in the defence of Europe. Not something it had to do but did nevertheless. The Wehrmacht assaulted France on the 10th May, 1940 with 3.3 million troops. The BEF had a total of 350,000 ill-equipped fighting soldiers with little armour and artillery that was going to quickly run out of shells.
Despite this, the British handed the Germans their only set-back on the fields of France at Arras. This quickly prompted German High Command to send out the message; "Beware; these British have teeth ..." - from then on the Germans knew they weren't dealing with untrained and unencouraged soldiers. The retreat from Arras, and to Dunkirk only occured because the French had collapsed to their south and they ran the very true risk of encirclement.
This portion on the North African campaign made me laugh the most. You're right, the Germans did have a smaller army than the British ...but the Axis didn't. You seem to forget that Italy attacked the British first with an over-whelming superiority of 6:1. The British defeated them capturing 120,000 to a loss of 1,200 dead and wounded. When the Afrika Korps arrived the British were over-stretched and had just given up their best forces for Greece.
Later on, the British again pushed the Axis forces back. Their best forces were then sent to Malaya, over-stretching the British forces and leaving them open to attack from Rommel. When Rommel was defeated at El Alamein, it was all over. The Anglo-American landings at torch were a mere formality to the outcome of the African campaign ...it had already been won by the combined efforts of the Desert Air Force, Royal Navy and 8th Army.
The U.S forces were extremely impressed with the heart and courage of the British forces in North Africa. Many thought that British men were naturally insane ...and during those first few combats for the very green U.S soldiers, they were extremely glad to have us 'limeys' by their side.
Everyone were crushed by the Japanese in the opening stage of the war. Even the U.S had to face it's own ignorance when that ignorance slapped it in the face. However, all those who had been shocked quickly recovered and fought back. The British halted the Japanese at the Indian border and pushed them all the way back through Burma, the longest advance in British history.
Heavy artillery and tanks don't matter in a jungle war, it's an infantry war, not an armour war. Get some basic knowledge.
Worst record? Britain lost, at most, 1.2 million people during World War 2. And besides Germany, they were in it the longest.
This is an amazing example of your stupidity ...and don't expect me to avoid personal insults when you have insulted my country so obviously.
You honestly think that the A6M would have won the war for the Luftwaffe? Honestly!? No, the Spitfire I was superior to the A6M in a dogfight and the Hurricane was probably equal. The A6M had the range but it didn't have the speed to combat the Spitfire on equal terms. They would have been dead meat, with no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks ...the eight .303cals would have ripped them to pieces.
I see, Churchill has been over-rated? For what? For being the only person in Europe willing to stand up to Hitler? For being the only person in the world to have some guts and open the fight against Germany? For using much needed violence instead of diplomacy? For saving Britain? For being the only one that had sense enough to realise that Hitler and Stalin were threats?
The British forces fought all over the world. From Abyssinya to Burma, from France to Iran and you think they didn't do any fighting? Come over to Britain and enjoy the kicking you receive when you say that in public.
Do you know why the those talks failed? It was because Hitler hated Communists. Have you never heard of the Anti-Comintern pact? It's anti-Bolshevik ...anti-Communist ...it means Hitler was planning the destruction of Communists all along.
And the Red Navy!? Hahaha! The Royal Navy was the largest in the world and the Red Navy was nothing but target practice. The Royal Navy would have blasted it out of the water with ease. The Red Navy didn't even have a single aircraft carrier!
And the Soviet Union attacks India from the hills ...with their massive armour ...in the jungles ...where armour can't roll? The Red Army would have been slaughtered in the jungles ...they hadn't a clue how to fight in them and would have suffered justly. Then, even if they did win ...there would have been a clash between Japan and USSR - which would end in Red Army defeat in jungles.
Lancaster Kicks Ass:
Why leave the response to Plan_D? Can´t you produce your own thoughts to attempt proving someone wrong?
You sounded like my twin sisters, when we were little children, running to tell my father I just pulled their hair.
Ok, right. Plan_D just issued a juicy reply to Starfish´s posting. Some good points there.
Noteworthy to mention is the fact Mr. Starfish´s posting pointed several true and goos points: Great Britain got defeated everywhere but in the air during the BoB of 1940.
France, Norway, Greece, Crete, North Africa. A significant record of defeats.
Sure the Germans did experience local setbacks during some of such campaings and battles: Narvik in Norway, Tobruk in North Africa (although a big australian friend of mine claims it was Australians and not the Brits, who first held the German onslaught, even though they will be crushed in the end), but overall, the Germans proved superior on the battlefield to the British.
German paratroopers in fact took terrible losses during Merkur (Crete), although most were shot while still in parachutes or killed when their Ju52´s were hit by AA fire. Was it valid? War is lawless, and you will do everything to gut the foe; it is not honest to claim being a better soldier when you were killing men that were still not capable of showing what kind of substance was it they were made of.
However, the number of them Fallschirmjager who touched the ground and got to their guns were fiercer (some of the fiercest and fearsome warriors) and most skilled than the defenders and smashed them, forcing them to evacuate the place.
Wolfram von Richtofen´s VIII Fliegerkorps took full revenge on the Royal Navy: his stukas sent 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers to the bottom; not to forget are the 3 battleships which got badly mauled (HMS Warspite knocked out for many months), one carrier, plus 5 cruisers and 5 destroyers damaged, totalizing more than 2,000 British sailors killed and many hundreds more wounded.
Afria: Generalfeldmarschall Rommel commanded only an army corps in North Africa and inflicted a stunning defeat to the British Army in the region.
Finally, Wolfram von Richtofen...what a god damn brilliant and ruthless air force commander.
Why leave the response to Plan_D? Can´t you produce your own thoughts to attempt proving someone wrong?
You sounded like my twin sisters, when we were little children, running to tell my father I just pulled their hair.
Ok, right. Plan_D just issued a juicy reply to Starfish´s posting. Some good points there.
Noteworthy to mention is the fact Mr. Starfish´s posting pointed several true and goos points: Great Britain got defeated everywhere but in the air during the BoB of 1940.
France, Norway, Greece, Crete, North Africa. A significant record of defeats.
Sure the Germans did experience local setbacks during some of such campaings and battles: Narvik in Norway, Tobruk in North Africa (although a big australian friend of mine claims it was Australians and not the Brits, who first held the German onslaught, even though they will be crushed in the end), but overall, the Germans proved superior on the battlefield to the British.
German paratroopers in fact took terrible losses during Merkur (Crete), although most were shot while still in parachutes or killed when their Ju52´s were hit by AA fire. Was it valid? War is lawless, and you will do everything to gut the foe; it is not honest to claim being a better soldier when you were killing men that were still not capable of showing what kind of substance was it they were made of.
However, the number of them Fallschirmjager who touched the ground and got to their guns were fiercer (some of the fiercest and fearsome warriors) and most skilled than the defenders and smashed them, forcing them to evacuate the place.
Wolfram von Richtofen´s VIII Fliegerkorps took full revenge on the Royal Navy: his stukas sent 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers to the bottom; not to forget are the 3 battleships which got badly mauled (HMS Warspite knocked out for many months), one carrier, plus 5 cruisers and 5 destroyers damaged, totalizing more than 2,000 British sailors killed and many hundreds more wounded.
Afria: Generalfeldmarschall Rommel commanded only an army corps in North Africa and inflicted a stunning defeat to the British Army in the region.
Finally, Wolfram von Richtofen...what a god damn brilliant and ruthless air force commander.
In 1940, Britain defeated Italy soundly in the campaign of Eygpt. While being out-numbered 6:1 as previously mentioned by me. Britain also held Somalia against superior numbers of Italian troops.
The minor force of British troops on the Continent could not, honestly, be expected to destroy a complete force of the enemy. 350,000 vs. 3.3 million?
It was largely the Australians who held Tobruk until relieved by British forces. No history denies that. However, Tobruk wasn't crushed until 1942 after the British and Commonwealth forces had pushed the Axis forces back through Benghazi. Benghazi was taken three times by the 8th Army, once off the Italians and twice off the combined Axis.
The Fallschirm were excellent soliders, no one denies that. The fault of their tremendous loss was the fault of High Command, not the solider themself. That said, as always, the losses were up to 50% against a force of ill-equipped troops, with little AA and no air cover. Think of the losses caused on the same airborne troops had the forces on Crete had the right amount of AA cover and, at least, a squadron of Hurricanes to intercept those Ju-52s.
The Fallschirm didn't force the evacuation. The Fallschirmjager still suffered heavily at the hands of the Allied forces on Crete when they hit the ground. The fact of the matter is, airborne troops cannot hold against a concentrated and determined counter-attack ...which the Allied forces gave them. The Allied troops were ordered to evacuate on the entrance of the second invasion fleet from Greece ...that is after the Royal Navy wiped out the first.
Naval warfare doesn't go on losses or kills, it goes on control. And the Royal Navy held a tight grip on the Med throughout the entirety of the war. No navy or air force displaced them ...Royal Navy victory throughout.
No, Rommel commanded all Axis forces in Africa. That includes three Italian armoured divisions plus several Italian infantry divisions. The Italians also provided the vast majority of the motorised transport in North Africa.
And what the hell has this got to do with a P-40 Vs. Hurricane? Go start another thread if you want to reply to this.
The minor force of British troops on the Continent could not, honestly, be expected to destroy a complete force of the enemy. 350,000 vs. 3.3 million?
It was largely the Australians who held Tobruk until relieved by British forces. No history denies that. However, Tobruk wasn't crushed until 1942 after the British and Commonwealth forces had pushed the Axis forces back through Benghazi. Benghazi was taken three times by the 8th Army, once off the Italians and twice off the combined Axis.
The Fallschirm were excellent soliders, no one denies that. The fault of their tremendous loss was the fault of High Command, not the solider themself. That said, as always, the losses were up to 50% against a force of ill-equipped troops, with little AA and no air cover. Think of the losses caused on the same airborne troops had the forces on Crete had the right amount of AA cover and, at least, a squadron of Hurricanes to intercept those Ju-52s.
The Fallschirm didn't force the evacuation. The Fallschirmjager still suffered heavily at the hands of the Allied forces on Crete when they hit the ground. The fact of the matter is, airborne troops cannot hold against a concentrated and determined counter-attack ...which the Allied forces gave them. The Allied troops were ordered to evacuate on the entrance of the second invasion fleet from Greece ...that is after the Royal Navy wiped out the first.
Naval warfare doesn't go on losses or kills, it goes on control. And the Royal Navy held a tight grip on the Med throughout the entirety of the war. No navy or air force displaced them ...Royal Navy victory throughout.
No, Rommel commanded all Axis forces in Africa. That includes three Italian armoured divisions plus several Italian infantry divisions. The Italians also provided the vast majority of the motorised transport in North Africa.
And what the hell has this got to do with a P-40 Vs. Hurricane? Go start another thread if you want to reply to this.
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Back to the original topic, If you compare the two aircrafts Earliest major air battles, Such as the Pacific AirWar and the Battle of Britain.
After Pearl Harbour The USAAF was sending rookie pilots in their P-40's to fight the well seasoned Japanese Pilots and their Zero's,
For some time the U.S. Pilots were getting their asses handed to them,
Where as with the Hurricane there was alot of Pilots who came straight out flight school, straight to the Hurricane and straight towards a formation of German Bombers and alot of them manged to do quite a bit of damage to the Luftwaffe.
And my point is that Alot of nugget Hurricane Pilots did quite well with their plane whereas alot of the nugget P-40 pilots were wasted on their first tangle with the enemy,
So all of that is a result of good, Manouverability, Speed, Simplicity and maintainability and pure ruggedness. The Hurricane had all of that,
P40 had some of that but didnt have speed and agility and sure as hell wasnt simple and easy to maintain like the Hurricane was.
After Pearl Harbour The USAAF was sending rookie pilots in their P-40's to fight the well seasoned Japanese Pilots and their Zero's,
For some time the U.S. Pilots were getting their asses handed to them,
Where as with the Hurricane there was alot of Pilots who came straight out flight school, straight to the Hurricane and straight towards a formation of German Bombers and alot of them manged to do quite a bit of damage to the Luftwaffe.
And my point is that Alot of nugget Hurricane Pilots did quite well with their plane whereas alot of the nugget P-40 pilots were wasted on their first tangle with the enemy,
So all of that is a result of good, Manouverability, Speed, Simplicity and maintainability and pure ruggedness. The Hurricane had all of that,
P40 had some of that but didnt have speed and agility and sure as hell wasnt simple and easy to maintain like the Hurricane was.
Attachments
I believe you are forgetting the AVG who flew solely the P-40. Over China and Burma they achieved a healthy kill:loss ratio that was in their favour. Although I don't believe the AVG ever encountered the Zeke, they did encounter the Oscar which was more agile than the Zeke.
The USAAF didn't suffer a dramatic loss as one might assume from reading the; "America was stunned ..." - "The U.S reeled from the Japanese blows ..." etc. etc.
As has been shown previously on this site, the F4F's reputation has been greatly scarred by the misinformation from the general overviews of the PTO. While not wrong, they do not paint the correct picture for the fighters of the USN and USAAF.
I'm sure someone else could provide solid statistics, but I'm pretty sure the P-40 gave out just as good as it got in the Pacific, if not better.
The USAAF didn't suffer a dramatic loss as one might assume from reading the; "America was stunned ..." - "The U.S reeled from the Japanese blows ..." etc. etc.
As has been shown previously on this site, the F4F's reputation has been greatly scarred by the misinformation from the general overviews of the PTO. While not wrong, they do not paint the correct picture for the fighters of the USN and USAAF.
I'm sure someone else could provide solid statistics, but I'm pretty sure the P-40 gave out just as good as it got in the Pacific, if not better.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
102first_hussars said:
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). I did an extensive research of USAAF kills and losses from Jan 42 through November 42. It showed that the USAAF held it's own over New Guinea and in some cases even the lackluster P-39 and P-400 was starting to score against the Zero and Oscar. The 39th FS had several aces emerge from flying P-39s. The USAAF did take losses during this period (off the top of my head about 150 aircraft for about 180 aircraft destroyed) but no way close to the image of propaganda shown here...102first_hussars said:
Here's the topic link: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2322&highlight=
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the actual combat loss records paints a very different picture - do the research!
In what way are you making that claim? Both had high performance V 12 engines that required similar maintenance. In repairing battle damage, fabric surfaces can be easier to repair but they are not as resilient as sheet metal, on the other hand, sheet metal repairs can be extensive depending where the damage is located.102first_hussars said:
Your making this statement to a mechanic who's done both - you're going to have to be more specific than that!!
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
i know we're no longer talking about this but i think i can be forgiven for not letting this one slip..........
firstly, i had to go, i didn't have any time to make any more of a responce than that, i just wanted to give you an indication you were wrong
secondly, i will be the first to admit that pD is far more knowledgable on this subject than i am, it makes sence to let him answer, and he himself said he was honoured we left it to him to answer, he enjoys fighting with people like you
and lastly, i am only a boy of 15, i did not insult you or degrade you too seriously, yet at the first sign that someone dissaproves of you you lower yourself to the level or personal insults, doesn't that also seem like something small children would do? i could tell you what i think of you as i'm sure you could of me, but i'm not gonna beacause unlike you it would seem, i'm above that............
Udet said:
firstly, i had to go, i didn't have any time to make any more of a responce than that, i just wanted to give you an indication you were wrong
secondly, i will be the first to admit that pD is far more knowledgable on this subject than i am, it makes sence to let him answer, and he himself said he was honoured we left it to him to answer, he enjoys fighting with people like you
and lastly, i am only a boy of 15, i did not insult you or degrade you too seriously, yet at the first sign that someone dissaproves of you you lower yourself to the level or personal insults, doesn't that also seem like something small children would do? i could tell you what i think of you as i'm sure you could of me, but i'm not gonna beacause unlike you it would seem, i'm above that............
Well said pD. That was another reason I left it to him.the lancaster kicks ass said:
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The one thing u have to remember when considering the early Pacific combat is that the Japanese planes were made out of wood and had no armor of self sealing fuel tanks...
Not exactly the hardest thing to set on fire....
A stray .50 cal bullet could and did light them on fire...
The P-40 did hold its own in the PTO....
Not exactly the hardest thing to set on fire....
A stray .50 cal bullet could and did light them on fire...
The P-40 did hold its own in the PTO....
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
lesofprimus said:
What Japanese plane was made out of wood?
Certainly there were some parts of various planes made out of wood, particularly at the end of the war to save materials. The Ki-84-II comes straight to mind. However, I don't think that there were any Japanese types that were made from wood in the same was as, say, the Mosquito or the Ta-152 was.
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
"In what way are you making that claim? Both had high performance V 12 engines that required similar maintenance. In repairing battle damage, fabric surfaces can be easier to repair but they are not as resilient as sheet metal, on the other hand, sheet metal repairs can be extensive depending where the damage is located.
Your making this statement to a mechanic who's done both - you're going to have to be more specific than that!!"
_________________
"IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"
Thats true but the Hurricane was obviously a much lighter aircraft with the same engine, its turning rate was much quicker and sharper than the P-40,
Though the P-40 was heavily armored the Zeke was also heavily armed,
Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,
Your making this statement to a mechanic who's done both - you're going to have to be more specific than that!!"
_________________
"IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"
Thats true but the Hurricane was obviously a much lighter aircraft with the same engine, its turning rate was much quicker and sharper than the P-40,
Though the P-40 was heavily armored the Zeke was also heavily armed,
Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,
