Udet said:
RG_Lunatic:
It gets to the point when one should say to hell with this.
You have a clear and very massive conflict of interest when debating here. Also you are highly influenced by the propaganda of your country.
Hmmm... I see it the other way. You and a few others keep trying to tout about how great German technology was. It had its strong points and its weak points, but for the most part it was inferior to Allied technology. Some German technology was more advanced, but when looking at the big picture, in the most important technologies such as radar, industrial process technology, and of course nuclear physics, the Allies had the significant advantage. But more than that, the German's just didn't seem to understand that at some point you have to stop striving for the ultimate in quality and focus on quantity and servicability - two things that never sunk into Germany's WWII thinking.
Udet said:
You are blidnfolded then uncapable yourself of seeing the whole photograph.
No, you sit right up next to the part of the photo you like and think you are seeing the whole thing when you're not!
Udet said:
Of course am i trying to diminish the Mustang, placing it where it belongs.
No, you are trying to elevate German aircraft to a stature they did not attain.
Udet said:
A very fine and capable plane for sure. But it had its limitations, none of which appear to be part of your knowledge, RG.
Sure I do. But it is all relative.
Udet said:
Unless facing the Butcher at very high altitude, the Mustang is inferior to the Fw190.
Hmmm really... Well, how about speed?
(for full scale A-8 doc and P-51B test doc click here)
As you can see the P-51B was faster than the FW190A-8 at all altitudes. Between 7000 and 16000 feet it is about 28 mph faster, then for a brief span between 18000 and 22000 the advantage drops to about 20 mph, and above 22000 feet the P-51 is so much faster there is really no comparison. The P-51D was about 6 mph slower than the B, but its peak performance altitudes were lower due to a change in the first stage blower gearing, so its performance in the relevant altitude bands was about as advantagous over the A-8 as the B model.
For climb rate, the A-8 is taking about 40-50 seconds longer than the P-51B to reach 20000 feet (about the same as the P-51D when fully loaded with fuel). If you remove the outer guns the climb rate would be slightly better, but not much (2 x MK108 instead of MG151/20's increase climb time to 8000m by just 12 seconds).
So where is this supposed superiority?
Udet said:
A short burst of the Fw190 hitting the P-51 is way more lethal to Mustang, than a Mustang´s short burst hitting the Butcher.
Well sure. If the cannon hit. But lets look at it realistically. The Anton armed with cannon in the outer panels was not much of a dogfighter, roll rate and turn rate were compromised. For those with only the two inner MG151/20's, the volume of fire is horrible by comparison:
2 x MG13 13mm's firing at 840 rpm sync'd = 1680 rpm = 28 rps.
2 x MG151/20 20mm's firing at 505 rpm sync'd = 1010 rpm = 17 rps
6 x .50 BMG's firing at 800 rpm = 4800 rpm = 80 rps.
The 13mm were weak, the 20mm fired slowly when sync'd through the prop. The total volume of fire was bad and the effective volume of fire was very bad. The P-51 had almost twice the volume of fire, and more than four times the volume of fire as compared to the 20mm.
And the .50's had much much better ballistics. P-51's using the K-14 gunsight could score on FW's at beyond 500 meters, where the FW max effective range was more like 200 meters. So sure, it took more .50 hits to finish off a FW than 20mm hits vs. the P-51, but they were much much easier to score. And once the FW had taken a few hits, it was probably going to be pretty easy to score more and finish it off.
Udet said:
Many many Butcher Bird pilots, even rookie pilots, swallowed the Mustangs.
And visa versa. Didn't Yeager bag a few FW's on his seventh combat sortie?
Udet said:
It is clear everywhere, survability of the P-51 is a midget by the side of the 190´s.
Yes, the P-51 was more vulnerable to enemy fire than the FW's. On the otherhand the P-47 was much more survivable than the FW.
Udet said:
Whethere you like it or not, that is how the USAAF and RAF won the air war: by bouncing the German formations climbing to altitude or trying to land short of fuel after the flown sortie.
The USAAF attacked the German fighters where and when they could be found. They did not turn and run, even from larger formations of fighters that had altitude on them, when they should have.
And by the same token I could point out that many German kills were scored against USAAF fighters that were low on fuel and ammo and headed home.
And the Luftwaffe' fighter pilots had the advantage of being directed to the US fighters (and bombers) by radar and ground spotters.
Udet said:
And even when bounced -numerically surpassed- the German pilots reacted accordingly and still managed to shoot down numbers of bouncers, proving they were not "ill-trained" and that their fighters were in equal terms, if not superior, to their enemy´s.
But in 1944 the Luftwaffe' outnumbered the P-51's, and they still got torn to shreads. During "Big Week", the Luftwaffe' was crushed by the USAAF and the USAAF did not have numerical superiority of fighters.
And I never said the Luftwaffe' pilots were ill trained, except perhaps at the very end of the war after all the vetrans had been killed off.
Udet said:
I ve read lots of books, articles and papers and the USAAF pilots gladly state "we bounced..." like hell, apparently forgetting for one moment, that bouncing does not require the skill a dogfight does, and also that bouncing does not put the aircraft capabilities at full test.
If my enemy is of my same height, weight and muscle mass, is easier for me to knock him out if a approach him from the rear with a baseball bat in my hands while he walks than to place myself right in front of him and challenge him.
Bouncing, whether you like it or not. In the end, it is your own business RG.
And German pilots, especially Galland, were known to pass by attacking enemy fighters which spotted him, even if he had the advantage in altitude and position. The German's were the masters of bouncing the enemy - that's how most of the Experten got to be Experten!
Udet said:
You want the whole cake, the typical anomaly observed on individuals suffering the victor´s drunkness syndrome.
"We had better pilots, better training, better tactics, better engines, better ammo, guns, cannons, gunsights, fueselages, intelligence.." that is a pathology.
You are a piece of a megalomaniac aren´t you?
)
I never said all of these things. All I've said is the P-51 was more than a match for the Anton and the approximate equal of the Dora9.
But many of the things you list are true. The USA/British did have the better gunsights, did have better training for new pilots, and certainly did have better inteligence. About these things there is really no question.
You have it backwards, you are suffering from vanquished syndrome. "Our leadership was bad", "We didn't have any fuel", "We were outnumbered", etc..., etc..., excuse, excuse, excuse.
The only way you can bolster your ego is to try to claim the German's were superior engineers and scientists. Well, I have two words to say to that - "ATOMIC BOMB"
Udet said:
It also appears you conduct a deliberate avoidance of issues: why do you stick to your vision USAAF pilots did not know of the Doras?
I didn't say that. Some reports of the "long nosed FW" were indeed made. But most USAAF fighter pilots in the ETO in late 1944 and 1945 never saw one.
Udet said:
The Ta152s never met USAAF fighters? What of the recorded fact of victories at very low altitude over Yaks during the last weeks of the war?
And just when did USAAF pilots fly Yaks?
Udet said:
Well, many of them should be glad they did not meet them in numbers for many more of them would not have survived the war.
The Ta152, just like almost all the German late-war designs, was self defeating. The Germans just "lost the plot". The didn't need the between 35 and 75 Ta152's that came out of over 2 years of design effort and substantial retooling, they needed a lot more Dora9's and 109G/K's.
You just don't get it. Sure the German's deployed a few very good weapons systems late in the war. So what? They were deployed in such miniscule numbers they were irrelevant. And the USA certianly had newer and better planes ready to go in small quantities at the same time, but unlike Germany we didn't throw them into the meat grinder as soon as they came off the production line. By about Fall of 1944 it was pretty clear Germany was beaten and no new technologies were deployed against it. Certainly there were more P-51H's ready to go in April 1945 than the sum of all TA production. It was just not worth it to deploy them along with the required logistics given that Germany was no longer a contender anyway.
The German's were obsessed with the idea that they would build tanks and aircraft that were so good that even a few of them would defeat the masses of only slightly inferior enemy weapons. The height of Ego, that they would use their superior intelects to make up for their inferior focus.
As for your comment about had their been more Ta152's - that would have required the war to last longer. The longer the war lasted, the worse things would have become for the Germans. For every additional pilot killed by a Ta152 hundreds more Germans would have died from Allied bombing. Is that what you wish had happened?
And on the off chance that the Germans had managed to start to stage some kind of a late-war comeback...
... it would have been even worse.
=S=
Lunatic
Got any documantation for proof? III./JG54 never commented on overheating, though it did comment on some oil leakage, when converting to the D-9. Test reports by Rechlin of production D-9s don't mention any cooling or maintainance problems either.
The irony being thats probably actually true.
