Which side would you fly for?.......
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
HaWk3r T3mP3sT
Banned
HAHAHA ur a funny one 
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Shes not that kind of dancer actually, she's a shadow dancer infront of a white screen at one of our local Casino Clubs in Biloxi... Funny (or sad) thing is she's only like 5'5" and I'm 6'6"...
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Giant freak man.
How are the casinos recovering? My wife and I went out there last July and several were still being repaired. I think only a couple were actually open. I couldn't believe how devastated the coast still was.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The casinos for the most part are now re-open... Some still dont have hotels, but the revenue-generating casinos are cashing in...
Dragontech64
Airman
Greetings y'all
Just coming into this forum recently so quite late adding my piece here. I voted Alies mainly because I am American and VERY proud of that, despite the trained chimp we seem to have put in the White House,,,,,
That said, I'd fly almost any aircraft in WW2 gladly. I come from a family that has a long military history and I wish that I could have fought in that war, which I was born LONG after, and meant something to history, instead of leading a boring life that so far has helped noone.
Being half-French, I'd STILL not fly the planes France had at the start of the war though.
BTW I read maybe half the posts here before I wrote this, and there seems to be a couple strong minds about American and British national pride. I think all involved nations made great contributions to the war, on both sides. The production ability of the US, and Britains Commonwealth meant, thankfully, that the Axis nations contibutions failed, but they did do a lot too. I find the Nazi's aims and hatred sickening, but most of the rank and file soldiers and airmen fought with as much honor as any other nation, and their aircraft were terrific. I'd love to be in an Fw 190 as much as a Jug or Lightning, or Mossie or Spit, or a Zero, or a Raiden ,,etc etc, the list goes on. Thanks forf an educational and entertaining forum to see what other parts of the world think.
Just coming into this forum recently so quite late adding my piece here. I voted Alies mainly because I am American and VERY proud of that, despite the trained chimp we seem to have put in the White House,,,,,
That said, I'd fly almost any aircraft in WW2 gladly. I come from a family that has a long military history and I wish that I could have fought in that war, which I was born LONG after, and meant something to history, instead of leading a boring life that so far has helped noone.
Being half-French, I'd STILL not fly the planes France had at the start of the war though.
BTW I read maybe half the posts here before I wrote this, and there seems to be a couple strong minds about American and British national pride. I think all involved nations made great contributions to the war, on both sides. The production ability of the US, and Britains Commonwealth meant, thankfully, that the Axis nations contibutions failed, but they did do a lot too. I find the Nazi's aims and hatred sickening, but most of the rank and file soldiers and airmen fought with as much honor as any other nation, and their aircraft were terrific. I'd love to be in an Fw 190 as much as a Jug or Lightning, or Mossie or Spit, or a Zero, or a Raiden ,,etc etc, the list goes on. Thanks forf an educational and entertaining forum to see what other parts of the world think.
Dragontech64
Airman
In a totally off-topic side note, or rather question, I've been trying to add a small pic to my signature from my PC and always get the message "unable to save picture" and if I try one from online get told it's too big. What am I doing wrong?
It has to be the right format. JPG is the best. The right pixel size and you have to put the right address in.
rogthedodge
Airman 1st Class
- 155
- May 9, 2007
I'd fly for whomever / wherever I was born. I'd have been pants at it it but I'd have had a go.
In fantasy-land (where else?) I'd have flown a Tempest over Europe in late '44/ early '45 with a full load of cannon/rockets taking on 'targets of opportunity'.
My last choice would be any bomber, last in the stream, holding steady on the final run-in to a heavily-defended target
to all who had a go
In fantasy-land (where else?) I'd have flown a Tempest over Europe in late '44/ early '45 with a full load of cannon/rockets taking on 'targets of opportunity'.
My last choice would be any bomber, last in the stream, holding steady on the final run-in to a heavily-defended target
to all who had a go
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Been following this thread for awhile and decided to put my two cents in. I'd fly for the Axis though as an adventure I'd try flying for Finland. Inferior planes (Buffalo), understrength and against Russia and they still came out with Aces! Waiting for it on CFS or IL2.
Catch22
Major
Axis for sure. And I'd fly any of these planes (that actually got used) in this order:
Fw 190D
Bf 109
Frank
Me 262
George
Fw 190D
Bf 109
Frank
Me 262
George
drgondog
Major
I simply can't imagine flying/fighting for someone else, much less choose to fly for Axis rather than US...
My preference would be USAAF with USMC a close 2nd and would prefere a lot of 'bubba's' from Texas so I could understand the guys in the Squadron
My preference would be USAAF with USMC a close 2nd and would prefere a lot of 'bubba's' from Texas so I could understand the guys in the Squadron
drgondog
Major
Did they interview the dead pilots also? I've often wondered about this poll as the GAF didn't prevail against the US in a war the RAF chose to quit (Daylight Strategic Bombing)? And German Night Fighters were still taking big tolls of RAF bombers at night all the way to the end.
Not trying to be argumentative but I have heard differences from that opinion depending on whom and where they fought.
Any examples cited as to why, for example, the US was easier to fight than RAF from late 1943 forward?
Regards,
Bill
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Drgn I don't exactly know what you mean "by a war the RAF chose to quit"? The RAF didn't quit, just switched priorities as per Casablanca. Granted, they realized with their resources they were getting hit badly during the day and they stopped daylight attcks but with the entrance of the US, the two forces spilt their time.
Maybe coincidence, maybe not that this decision to cease daylight operations came about the same time as US came onboard but I don't think they quit at all. In fact if it wasn't for the British fooling around with the P-51 it might not have progressed much farther or wouldn't have entered combat so quickly with a new engine to be decisive.
and what do you mean by easier to fight? I'm sure the Jagdflieger would disagree with you on that point.
Maybe coincidence, maybe not that this decision to cease daylight operations came about the same time as US came onboard but I don't think they quit at all. In fact if it wasn't for the British fooling around with the P-51 it might not have progressed much farther or wouldn't have entered combat so quickly with a new engine to be decisive.
and what do you mean by easier to fight? I'm sure the Jagdflieger would disagree with you on that point.
I have to agree with Njaco here. That was a pretty below the belt comment. The Brits did not quite fighting. They just switched tactics and lets face it what broke the Germans back was the non stop bombing by day and night.
drgondog
Major
OK - let's debate it.
The RAF quit flying daylight raids to Germany in 1940 before the US was in the war. The GAF quit daylight bombing on Britain in 1940 ~sept for the same reasons. They a.) didn't have escort fighters capable of defending the bombers over the target, and b.) they didn't have a strategic bomber heavily armed enough to even think they could bomb long range undefended.
We will concede that the USAAF found themselves in same situation - but unlike the RAF and LW and USSR, developed escort fighters capable of defeating the LW over their own back yard in daylight.
They both quit daylight bombing over Germany and Britain loooong before we came into the war. Secondly, the back of the Luftwaffe's ability to defend their homeland in daylight was broken between January 1944 and June depending on the historian you want to believe. But the RAF was not engaged in that struggle over Germany - it was the USAAF and the Mustang and the Lightning that were escorting 8th, 12th and 15th AF over Germany during that period and in May and June the P-47s finally got the range to engage deep into Germany.
The fighter force that accomplished that ranged from 150 in January to 300 in April (combined 51s and 38s) and their effectives over target were often 1/2 of the ones that started engines for the mission because of mechanical teething problems. And that was all there was to cover 3 Air Divisions (8th AF) over all the targets attacked deep into Germany - so there were NEVER more than two Fighter wings to meet any German attack - of up to 300 fighters for exampe over Munich on 24 April, 1944
Your comment about Brits mating the Merlin is correct but irrrelevant to what actually happened so what is your point? I am NOT Denigrating the RAF, nor am I downgrading the LW. But it is curious why the Germans seem to always look to numbers as the prime reason for their defeats or studiously avoid giving American fighter pilots their due respect
I am wondering out loud why the Luftwaffe pilots thought that the "second" (or third - maybe they ranked us behind USSR) best pilots brutalized them over Berlin and Schweinfurt and Brunswick and Munich, when they ALWAYS outnumbered the Mustangs and Lightnings over the target.
If our pilots were so dismal, why didn't the Luftwaffe destroy an entire fighter Group when they had the advantage? or at least 10? Go back and look at the records and count on the fingers of one hand how many times the 8th AF FC had a Group lose more than 5 fighters air to air on an escort mission. (Not gonna count the 4th FG on D-Day or 18 August or 353rd on 10 June- when they were low strafing and got clobbered from behind and above.)
Remember we are talking about the 8th AF starting with one operational Mustang and three Lightning groups by end of January 1944 versus more than 400 single engine Me109s and Fw190s available to escort the Ju88s and the Me110/210/410s in their attacks agianst the B-17s and B-24s. The other 200 s/e fighters were based in Holland and France and available to tangle with RAF and 8th and 9th AF P-47 groups doing Penetration and Withdrawl support - but not going past Dummer Lake.
The RAF did a superb job of engaging JG26 and JG2 over France and the lowlands but this was not where the big battles were fought, nor where the Luftwaffe lost 1200 fighter pilots in 3 months
By "easier to fight" I was referring to Night Raids by RAF who did not have an effective 'night escort' capability. The German air force was taking very heavy tolls of RAF Lancasters at Night all the way into April 45 - when the 8th stopped losing big numbers in the April/May timeframe 1944 (Before you get upset with that comment - I do know that July 7, Sept 11-12, Sept 27 and Nove 26 were days in which one or two wings of B-17s/B-24s got mauled by a German force that over whelmed the escorts at the point of attack or evaded them altogether)
The average air to air ratio for the Mustang groups of German a/c shot down versus Mustangs shot down by German Fighters was arond 8 to 1. I'm not counting flak losses, or mechanicqal losses. I am using Kent Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of 8th AF as the basis for study and I will publish these numbers in my new book).
So, if the USAAF was second or third best against the LW, what does that say about the LW pilots? and what were to corresponding ratios of LW vs RAF in fighter to fighter battles over Europe? They better be awesome in RAF favor to merit the downgrade of the US pilot in the same theatre.
BTW, the best air to air ratio of any USAAF fighter group was the 56th FG in P-47s with 12:1 and the worst was 1:1 with the 55thFG (or 20th - I have to check) before they switched from P-38's to 51's.
Regards,
Bill
Yes but to say the RAF quit that is wrong in my opinion. The RAF did what they had to do. They switched tactics and did fine in there night bombing. They did not quit...
drgondog
Major
No, the RAF did not lay down (another definition of quit) Neither did the Germans. What they did is a.) recognize that they were going to lose more than they could afford and b.) hope that the new tactics would yield the hoped for results.
The RAF actually switched back to increasing daylight raids in 1945 when they realized they were losing more at night than they stood to lose in daylight - at a time when USAAF and RAF had overwhelming air superiority.
So, let me rephrase.
The RAF chose to 'go in another direction' and told us we were 'silly' to attempt to do something neither they nor the Germans could make work. Those 'dumb colonials'..sigh.
Unlike both we had the will and the means to take the losses, learn, adapt and improvise - and make it work. We 'didn't take another direction' when our losses were prohibitive - we found a way to do it.
Further, it is rare that you hear admiration and respect from the Euro side for the job the 8th, 12th and 15th AF achieved in both the hard times and the good times - it always seems that America prevailed because of numbers, not valor, not intelligence, not skill. In short we were too dumb to listen to our betters and somehow managed to pull it off. Luck and wealth - that what its all about... This is the theme that will get me engaged in any thread
Once again - I want to be clear about the simple fact that I have nothing but the greatest respect for the RAF and Luftwaffe. Period. Just wondering if it is ever bi-directional?
Regards,
Bill
PS - I tried to understand why you both thought I implied the RAF 'quit' - That comment was very specific about the only thing the RAF 'quit' and specifically noted Daylight Strategic Bombing - I made no slur on their manhood or ability and certainly did not intend that meaning and would apologise if you took that as my meaning.
Can we agree that 'choose to go another way' is a better choice of words?
I have answered you in a pm and I think it is cleared up...
