Which side would you fly for?....... (1 Viewer)

drgondog · Jun 19, 2007

Erich said:
seriously Bill in my estimation is that the LW should of inacted a furtherance of it's night time campaign in 1941 with Fernenachtjagd- long distnace night fighting. well during the day having all LW pilots trained in night and bad weather flying able to come over and strafe and bomb Allied airfields in England at un-Godly early morning hours instead of just waiting and listening to all the fighter/bomber engines engage, take off and get into formation and come over and paste Germany, etc........

as we have well noted the LW hierarchy including the FAT ONE made some huge blunders that cost Germany dearly

Total agreement on the point. As I recall one staffeln of 410s shadowed a B-24 group on an early evening return to England and snuck in to shot down (? can't recall date (summer 44?) or numbers - CRS) more than a couple for a spectacular success and to my knowledge never repeated it.

As to night strafing, pop some flares and go down and make at least one run over any airfield and it would look like Poltava in July 44 first shuttle mission. Sure the Brit Night Fighters and flak would get a few - but the tactics would have worked well.

Look what the 8th achieved strafing against fighters that could find you and incredible flak.. I can't help but believe Me410s at night would have done very well indeed.

Regards,

Bill

drgondog · Jun 19, 2007

FLYBOYJ said:
That "Squad Leader" was Adolph Galland.

ROFLMAO - the 'squad leader' that was leading JG26 at the time?

SoD Stitch · Jun 19, 2007

Gotta go with the Germans; overall, they had the best hardware. Yes, the -51was a nice airplane but, IMHO, it was (and still is) overrated. Not much in the way of armament (six .50's was kinda light by 1945), and you had to keep that laminar-flow wing clean or it was useless.

On a one-for-one basis, I'd give the German aircraft/pilot a better than even chance of defeating any Allied aircraft/pilot. Look at the kill ratios by the end of the War; German pilots beat the average (there were more "aces" in the LW than in all of the other world's air forces combined). The highest Allied ace had, what, 40 kills to his credit (Maj. Richard Bong, AAF, P-38 Lightning, Pacific Theater) versus Erich Hartmann (LW, 352 "kills", Me 109G-6 -10, Eastern Front). What it all came down to, basically, was the overwhelming materiel superiority of the Allies, in particular the US. The US could "afford" to lose 10 planes/pilots for every Axis aircraft shot down, whereas the LW could ill afford to lose any planes and/or pilots in the later stages of the War.

All in all, I'd choose an Axis aircraft any day, particularly if it's an Me 262 or a Do 335 (I'd even settle for a Ta 152 or an Me 109K).

drgondog · Jun 21, 2007

SoD Stitch said:
Gotta go with the Germans; overall, they had the best hardware. Yes, the -51was a nice airplane but, IMHO, it was (and still is) overrated. Not much in the way of armament (six .50's was kinda light by 1945), and you had to keep that laminar-flow wing clean or it was useless.

On a one-for-one basis, I'd give the German aircraft/pilot a better than even chance of defeating any Allied aircraft/pilot. Look at the kill ratios by the end of the War; German pilots beat the average (there were more "aces" in the LW than in all of the other world's air forces combined). The highest Allied ace had, what, 40 kills to his credit (Maj. Richard Bong, AAF, P-38 Lightning, Pacific Theater) versus Erich Hartmann (LW, 352 "kills", Me 109G-6 -10, Eastern Front). What it all came down to, basically, was the overwhelming materiel superiority of the Allies, in particular the US. The US could "afford" to lose 10 planes/pilots for every Axis aircraft shot down, whereas the LW could ill afford to lose any planes and/or pilots in the later stages of the War.

All in all, I'd choose an Axis aircraft any day, particularly if it's an Me 262 or a Do 335 (I'd even settle for a Ta 152 or an Me 109K).

Wow - that about summed it up..

Out of curiosity do you have any examples of 51s 'wiping out' because of a dirty wing?

Six 50's might be light if you had to attack B-17s but it was definitely all that was needed for German fighters - for that matter the 51B didn't really suffer when all four were functioning - but if you feel that way what would you offer as facts?

I can speak to you about several 8th AF Fighter Groups with a high degree of accuracy and authority - particularly the 355th FG.

It had 21 air aces and did not lose a single ace in air to air combat (but did lose 4 to flak strafing airfields). It finished the war with an air to air ratio of 8:1 which does not include flak, accident, weather or mechanical. All in they destroyed 4+ German a/c (857) for each aircraft lost in operations for all causes (176 total (38 confirmed air 8 unknown) 96 flak 34 mechanical/weather)... and the 355th was only in the top 5 - air to air and top 3 - total a/c destroyed.. They started ops in Sept 1943.

There are a lot of mitigating factors, most importantly fuel deficiencies in early to mid 1944, causing low time German pilots to be thrown into combat to get slaughtered - starting in spring to summer of 44 - but the LW did not have their way with Allied fighter pilots after 1943...and they ended the war with quite a few of their aces alive.

Having said that, your opinion is as valuable as mine as we are debating not fighting

Regards,

Bill Marshall

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2007

SoD Stitch said:
Gotta go with the Germans; overall, they had the best hardware. Yes, the -51was a nice airplane but, IMHO, it was (and still is) overrated. Not much in the way of armament (six .50's was kinda light by 1945), and you had to keep that laminar-flow wing clean or it was useless.
.

I too am not a big P-51D fan (It was an excellent aircraft though) but there is a reason for its armament.

What was its primary target?

Bombers or fighters?

Fighters ofcourse.

6 .50 Cal is eneogh when you only have to deal with fighters.

If the P-51D would have had to deal with a Luftwaffe bombing offensive like the ones the USAAF and RAF were putting on to Germany then its armament would have been more suited for bombers, ie 20mm and above, etc..

Look at the Luftwaffe aircraft as the war progressed the armament evolved based off of the thread.

Early war years when the Luftwaffes main thread was not the B-17 and B-24.

Bf 109D 4x 7.9mm
Bf 109E 2x 20mm and 2x 7.9mm
Bf 109F 1x 15mm and 2 7.9mm

Mid to late war years when the bombing offensive was at the most:

Bf 109G-6 1x 30mm (or 2x 20mm) and 2x 13mm
Bf 109K-4 1x 30mm and 2x 15mm

SoD Stitch · Jun 21, 2007

drgondog said:
Wow - that about summed it up..

Out of curiosity do you have any examples of 51s 'wiping out' because of a dirty wing?

No, I don't have any examples of any -51's "wiping out" due to a dirty wing, but I do know it's performance was severly affected if the wing wasn't kept clean. Quote from "Combat Development In World War Two: Fighter Aircraft", by Alfred Price: "Although this high-speed laminar-flow section gave a lower drag than the other two (wings) when it was in good condition and highly polished, it's efficiency fell rapidly if particles of dirt or crushed insects adhered to the leading edge . . ."

SoD Stitch · Jun 21, 2007

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I too am not a big P-51D fan (It was an excellent aircraft though) but there is a reason for its armament.

What was its primary target?

Bombers or fighters?

Fighters ofcourse.

6 .50 Cal is eneogh when you only have to deal with fighters.

If the P-51D would have had to deal with a Luftwaffe bombing offensive like the ones the USAAF and RAF were putting on to Germany then its armament would have been more suited for bombers, ie 20mm and above, etc..

Look at the Luftwaffe aircraft as the war progressed the armament evolved based off of the thread.

Early war years when the Luftwaffes main thread was not the B-17 and B-24.

Bf 109D 4x 7.9mm
Bf 109E 2x 20mm and 2x 7.9mm
Bf 109F 1x 15mm and 2 7.9mm

Mid to late war years when the bombing offensive was at the most:

Bf 109G-6 1x 30mm (or 2x 20mm) and 2x 13mm
Bf 109K-4 1x 30mm and 2x 15mm

Excellent argument, very sound; yes, since the P-51 was primarily engaged in fighter vs fighter combat, six (6) .50's are/were adequate.

I was just saying that, by the end of the War, a majority of fighters, Axis aircraft in particular, were armed with some form of cannon, mostly 20mm 30mm calibers; in an extreme case, the Germans armed late-war 410's with a 50mm auto-load tank cannon in an effort to take the heavy bombers out at longer ranges (up to a mile away). By War's end, the Japanese had developed a rocket-propelled 40mm cannon for knocking down B-29's; unfortunately, the muzzle velocity was so low (760 fps) that it wasn't very accurate.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jun 21, 2007

Because the Axis was having to deal with the bombers.

drgondog · Jun 22, 2007

SoD Stitch said:
No, I don't have any examples of any -51's "wiping out" due to a dirty wing, but I do know it's performance was severly affected if the wing wasn't kept clean. Quote from "Combat Development In World War Two: Fighter Aircraft", by Alfred Price: "Although this high-speed laminar-flow section gave a lower drag than the other two (wings) when it was in good condition and highly polished, it's efficiency fell rapidly if particles of dirt or crushed insects adhered to the leading edge . . ."

I had heard that and read it several times, and know North American took pains to instruct ground crews to keep the leading edges clean of mud, debris, etc - but have never found a pilot who had a problem that they could trace to 'dirty wing.

I just finished an email exchange with an old friend of my father who flew for RCAF in Spits, Tempests and 'on loan' to 355th FG when my father was his Squadron CO.

The only issue he had with the Mustang was a.) it would not out turn a 109 at low speed whereas the Spit would and b.) it had a tendency to 'dance' on final in a cross wind more than a Spit or Tempest.

I can personally attest that you had to focus on final and touchdown or possibly end up with a ground loop on your hands.

The background on Peglar is that he had flown some 200 odd missions in Spits and never gotten a shot at a German fighter.. within 2 weeks with the 355th he had a pair, then got another pair 5 weeks later and returned to RAF shortly afterwards (60 day assignement) to fly Tempest V for rest of war. He loved the Mustang at high and medium altitudes especially over enemy territory where he could find a fight -

Anyway - Price was reporting what he read, perhaps not what pilots were actually experiencing? or somehow attached low speed turn stall characteristics to dirty wing laminar flow separation?

Regards,

Bill

Erich · Jun 22, 2007

SoD throw in the fact that the 8th AF Mustangs were also rippin it up on the LW airfields when no aerial targets were found during 1945. not quite packing the heavier punch of the 9th AF Jugs but still quite adequate to deal with ground tragets-locos/trains and parked a/c sufficently.

BikerBabe · May 26, 2009

Allies.
In fact, Denmark (I'm danish) bought three Spitfires during WW2, planes which flew for (among others) the RAF, despite the fact that Denmark was occupied by the german forces at the time.
Interested forum members can read more here about the history of the danish Spitfires:
http://www.spitfire.dk/

Doughboy · May 27, 2009

Allies...with planes like the Spitfire, Corsair, P-38 Lightning, and P-51 Mustang...why not vote allies?

109ROAMING · May 27, 2009

Doughboy said:
...why not vote allies?

Bf-109 is a pretty good reason .....you know? one of mans most sexiest creations to ever take to the skies

I went Allies cause of the ratio Typhoon/Corsair:Bf-109

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 27, 2009

Doughboy said:
Allies...with planes like the Spitfire, Corsair, P-38 Lightning, and P-51 Mustang...why not vote allies?

With planes like the Bf 109, Fw 190A, Fw 190D, Ta 152, Me 262, Ar 234...why not vote axis?

Just kidding, this whole thread is subjective anyhow.

Catch22 · May 27, 2009

Woah, blast from the past!

I voted Axis...whenever it was I voted! I'd probably have to say Allies now. Combat Tours = greater chance of survival as you're not fighting as long. And the Corsair! ALthough I can't base anything on the planes as I'd just as easily fly a Dora.

imalko · May 28, 2009

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
With planes like the Bf 109, Fw 190A, Fw 190D, Ta 152, Me 262, Ar 234...why not vote axis?

My opinion too...

But in my case the main reason for voting Axis is definetelly Bf 109. 8)

HerrKaleut · Jun 9, 2009

Being of sound mind, I would stay on the ground.

Seing the comments at the begining of this thread re; the best air force (Brit or US.) it reminded me of a reprimand I received on an RN training course. I was asked by a visiting high ranking US Naval officer "How does it feel serving in the second largest navy in NATO.? "Marvellous" I replied, "How does it feel serving in the second best"......He was not amused!!!

Yes moderators ,I konow.....My round

Marcel · Jun 9, 2009

I would like to choose the Swiss airforce 8)

imalko · Jun 9, 2009

Interesting choice Marcel.... You would be neutral but still able to fly Bf 109. 8)

Marcel · Jun 10, 2009

imalko said:
Interesting choice Marcel.... You would be neutral but still able to fly Bf 109. 8)

Exactly. BTW, did you know the Swiss fought large battles in the air with the Luftwaffe?

Which side would you fly for?....... (1 Viewer)

Which side would you fly for?

Axis

Allies

Major

Major

Banned

Major

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Banned

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

the old Sage

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Major

Chief Master Sergeant

Airman

rotartsinimdA

Chief Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads