cheddar cheese
Major General
Yes replacing the 109 with G.55's would have been impractical and costly in the short term.
What plane do you wish had sawservice
- Thread starter Mosin
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MP-Willow said:Davidicus, that was some nice info on the Series 5 planes. I a a little sad the 205 was rated so poorly, but that is ok. They were never really given a lot of chances to show the world what the designs chould do. Also if the Germans used more of the Italian designs think of the planes that could be sent to Russia or to England
That would be true and crazy, but they would have taken up production space so I really dont think it would have mattered.
If it was such a drastic improvement they would have taken the G.55 to replace the Bf-109. It obviously wasn't worth their time and effort.
Plus, what's the point in the G.55. You have an aircraft that is just slightly superior to the Bf-109 but because of production, there's three Bf-109s and only one G.55!
People attack the German Tanks because they were complex machines and took a while to build. I think the same can be applied to Italian 5 Series.
Plus, what's the point in the G.55. You have an aircraft that is just slightly superior to the Bf-109 but because of production, there's three Bf-109s and only one G.55!
People attack the German Tanks because they were complex machines and took a while to build. I think the same can be applied to Italian 5 Series.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Yes, but that doesnt alter the fact that they were great machines... 8)
- Thread starter
- #326
What I think it all boils down to is this. The italians were good airplane designers ,but were behind the Allies and Germany.. Very good designs but bad manufactering capability reduced the quality of the planes .. They were still better than the Japanese planes in my opinion.
Chocks away!
Senior Airman
Sexy... But the three view drawing has a tail wheel. Is it another version?DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
elmilitaro
Senior Airman
Hey Plan D your wrong. The best tank of the war was probably the Kv-1, the Russisan monster. Do you know how much firepower it took to take it down sometimes over 10 direct hits from artillery weapons like howitzers an 75's. They were usually destroyed only by German 88 flak gun, but only after so many hits.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Well pD, you were right 
Of course I was but the thing is, he's still wrong. The Tiger I would have obliterated the KV-1. He's basing the experience of the KV-1 from it's actions in the early war when Germany had inferior tanks to the Soviets.
When early mark Panzer IVs with short barrelled 75mm (low velocity) cannons were the best they had. If the KV-1 was actually running, it was an impressive machine. It was hardly a monster though.
When early mark Panzer IVs with short barrelled 75mm (low velocity) cannons were the best they had. If the KV-1 was actually running, it was an impressive machine. It was hardly a monster though.
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
In the long run the G.55s could have been developed to outpace the bf 109s and they still had a lot of developmental potential. The 109 was already maxed out.
As for tanks, T-34 is al you need. Yes the big bad tigers were impressivs like the Italian fighters and German jets, but they were to little in numbers, and the big Tigers just did not have the gas to do the job
As for tanks, T-34 is al you need. Yes the big bad tigers were impressivs like the Italian fighters and German jets, but they were to little in numbers, and the big Tigers just did not have the gas to do the job
cheddar cheese
Major General
I had a rather humourous conversation the other day about the Tiger tank. But thats another story
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
Hows about the IS-2?
But it would have been interesting if the Do-19 and Ju-89 were in Luftwaffe service with the correct tactics
But it would have been interesting if the Do-19 and Ju-89 were in Luftwaffe service with the correct tactics
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
JS-2/3=Kingtiger
JS1/KV2=Tiger
T34=Panther
The germans had the general advantage of radio, optical and tactics, the soviets had good diesel engines, allowing them to have a better range as well as not that vulnarable. Just my opinion. All in all the T34 was the best(if you factor the quantity also)
Ju-89 and Do-19 are interesting. The Ju-89 V2 had two FAI world records with 11.000 lbs (5000 Kg) payload an altitude of 9312 m (30.916 ft.) on 4th june 1938 and with 22.000 lbs (10000 Kg) payload an altitude of 7242 m (24.042 ft.) on 8th june 1938. Officially these records are credited to the Ju-90 V1 but this is impossible since the V-1 was destroyed on 6th of february. The civil Ju-90V-1 was made from parts of the military Ju-89V3. All in all a force of those strategic bombers wouldn´t help in a Blitzkrieg and therefore I doubt that this would have been positively in anyway for the Luftwaffe. Maybe they could win BoB but they would have lost the battle of France prior....
JS1/KV2=Tiger
T34=Panther
The germans had the general advantage of radio, optical and tactics, the soviets had good diesel engines, allowing them to have a better range as well as not that vulnarable. Just my opinion. All in all the T34 was the best(if you factor the quantity also)
Ju-89 and Do-19 are interesting. The Ju-89 V2 had two FAI world records with 11.000 lbs (5000 Kg) payload an altitude of 9312 m (30.916 ft.) on 4th june 1938 and with 22.000 lbs (10000 Kg) payload an altitude of 7242 m (24.042 ft.) on 8th june 1938. Officially these records are credited to the Ju-90 V1 but this is impossible since the V-1 was destroyed on 6th of february. The civil Ju-90V-1 was made from parts of the military Ju-89V3. All in all a force of those strategic bombers wouldn´t help in a Blitzkrieg and therefore I doubt that this would have been positively in anyway for the Luftwaffe. Maybe they could win BoB but they would have lost the battle of France prior....
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
But a mix of Stukas, Ju88 and the heavy bombers would be the perfect balance so Blitzkreig would be succesful as would strategic bombing
How can you even put the IS-2 and IS-3 in the same catergory, I will never know. The Panther was on equal playing ground with the IS-2, it could destroy it with a direct hit to the frontal armour at 800 metres.
The Panther was far superior to the T-34. A single T-34 wouldn't stand a chance against a Panther. Also, the only reason the Panther was out in small numbers is because resources were wasted on other Hiterlist dreams such as the Pz. Kpfw 'Maus' and Pz. Kpfw VI Ausf B 'King Tiger'.
The Panther was far superior to the T-34. A single T-34 wouldn't stand a chance against a Panther. Also, the only reason the Panther was out in small numbers is because resources were wasted on other Hiterlist dreams such as the Pz. Kpfw 'Maus' and Pz. Kpfw VI Ausf B 'King Tiger'.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I do put them in the same category because they are in the same weightclass. And in case of the Panther, the T-34 was simply more reliable and not that proned to mechanical failures. (remember, during operation Zitadelle 62% of the Panther losses have not been because of enemy action but because of mechanical problems and fire)
And of course, there are a lot of T-34 (and only very few Kingtiger)...
Often strategy is carried out by individual. Wever favoured the strategic bomber idea, Udet the dive bombers. These are contradictary points of view, a mixture is unprobale (and would cost the industry too much ressources to do so.) but anyway a nice idea.
And of course, there are a lot of T-34 (and only very few Kingtiger)...
Often strategy is carried out by individual. Wever favoured the strategic bomber idea, Udet the dive bombers. These are contradictary points of view, a mixture is unprobale (and would cost the industry too much ressources to do so.) but anyway a nice idea.
In Citadelle they were all Panther Ausf Ds. The majority of the problems, which were clutch problems, were solved in the Ausf A and even more so in Ausf G.
The IS-3 never saw action and was far superior to the IS-2. The Panther was on equal terms to the IS-2 in firepower and armour. It was superior in technology like optics and radio.
The radio was extremely important as it gave strategic flexability on the field. The T-34 was not a good tank by 1943, it was out-classed. The Pz. Kpfw IV post F/2s were on equal terms to the T-34.
The Panther's low production was purely due to wastage of materials on other tanks and projects. The Panther was not a bad tank and by the Ausf A it was not that bad with mechanical failures.
The IS-3 never saw action and was far superior to the IS-2. The Panther was on equal terms to the IS-2 in firepower and armour. It was superior in technology like optics and radio.
The radio was extremely important as it gave strategic flexability on the field. The T-34 was not a good tank by 1943, it was out-classed. The Pz. Kpfw IV post F/2s were on equal terms to the T-34.
The Panther's low production was purely due to wastage of materials on other tanks and projects. The Panther was not a bad tank and by the Ausf A it was not that bad with mechanical failures.
