The Best Biplane Fighter of WW2

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes supplies were a problem for the British also. The thing is the British controlled Tobruk and with the port city and control of the Med they were able to bring more supplies in then the Afrika Korps were able to do. That is what defeated Rommel.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

And where do you get this from? Every thing that I have read and watched has stated 1 out of 4 got though and that is basically what did Rommel in. I have read books about Rommel and met with his son Manfred (his son was mayor of the city where I lived) and they have all confirmed this.

Check out this web-site on the Italian Merchant Marine in WW2
http://www.regiamarina.net/merchant/...m#Introduction

It shows that only 10% of material was lost, due to enemy action against the N.African convoys in total.

Rommels major problem in truth was his habit of outrunning his supply lines.

The myth of the 1 out of 4 comes from the times when Rommel over extended his supply lines, and started to run out of fuel, so in an effort to rectify the situation instead of the fuel supplies travelling across the well defended 'narrows' between Sicily and N.Africa, and then along the coast road by truck they would sail direct to Tobruk, which left them very exposed to the RN and RAF, and their losses were well over 30%


ps, While an average of 15% losses in shipping doesn't sound a lot, you have to remember that the loss rate for the Arctic convoys, which had the highest loss rate of any Allied convoy route, was only approximately 5%

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by elm

Well if it wasn't for them who would have defended Yalta then.

i'll assume you mean Malta

the galdiators defended the island as just the three of tehm for a small number of weeks, if not dyas, they were relived by 4 hurricanes (although the gladiators were still used), the gladiators fought off few raids, and their role was hugely exaggerated as a moral booster when all was not going to plan, although i'm not trying to take anything away from the feat of the few pilots..........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by redcoat

Check out this web-site on the Italian Merchant Marine in WW2
http://www.regiamarina.net/merchant/...m#Introduction

It shows that only 10% of material was lost, due to enemy action against the N.African convoys in total.

Rommels major problem in truth was his habit of outrunning his supply lines.

The myth of the 1 out of 4 comes from the times when Rommel over extended his supply lines, and started to run out of fuel, so in an effort to rectify the situation instead of the fuel supplies travelling across the well defended 'narrows' between Sicily and N.Africa, and then along the coast road by truck they would sail direct to Tobruk, which left them very exposed to the RN and RAF, and their losses were well over 30%


ps, While an average of 15% losses in shipping doesn't sound a lot, you have to remember that the loss rate for the Arctic convoys, which had the highest loss rate of any Allied convoy route, was only approximately 5%

Yes he did out run his supply lines pretty much the whole time, however if you look at the big picture, he needed to take Tobruk. With Tobruk, Malta, and help from the Italians he could have gotten his supply lines in closer and quicker. The problem without Tobruk is the fact that the ships had to bring his supplies far behind the lines and it would take longer to get them up to the front.

[plan_D]

Rommel didn't out-run his supplies that often. When he did, he would stop. The Royal Navy were stopping his supplies even reaching North Africa.

In the latter half of 1942 Rommel had two supply points, Tripoli and Tobruk. The British forces only had Alexandria but they were on the defensive and closer to their point of supply.

Also, the theory of desert warfare was always open to the idea of their being an open flank. El Alamein didn't have one, a perfect place to stop for a defence.

[trackend]

The problem for Rommel was indeed compounded by supplies and Montgomery new it he could afford losses in tanks ect Rommel could not.
by the time of operation Crusader November 1941 the Axis force was approximately 118,000 men to the allies 113,000, tanks 680 with 500 in reserve against Rommels 390 and around 1000 planes as opposed to 320 Axis machines this was mainly due to the ability of the allies to bring in supplies and the inability of Rommel to get sufficient.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes and each time he outran his supply lines he would stop as you said and then the British would couter strike and drive him back, and then Rommel would rebuild and go on the offensive again and push them all the way back until El Allamein as Plan_D said.

[trackend]

The other thing that some times is over looked regarding the middle east campaign in general is that because the Italians suffered heavy losses on land, sea, and to a slightly lesser extent in the air the German high command had to divert a signifcant amount of men and machines that would have been earmarked for operation Barbarossa to plug the shortfall this in turn may have had an important reduction in the initial success or indeed the final outcome of the campaign in Russia. One other thought Rommel may have had a commanding role on the Eastern front.

[plan_D]

350,000 German Troops were diverted to Africa which would have certainly been sent to the Eastern Front. The Arika Korps were never sent to take Eygpt though, they were merely to save Italy, the left flank of Europe and tie down as many British forces as possible.

North Africa could have never happened if Britain had sorted out it's priorities in 1940 and kept up the offensive on Tripoli instead of diverting forces to Greece.

[HealzDevo]

Polikarpov I-153 as it is said that the Luftwaffe were forbidden to engage this bi-plane and it certainly shows how good a biplane is when the Luftwaffe with their planes like the Bf-109 and the Bf-110 were forbidden to engage it.

[trackend]

That sound a bit odd Heal I find it hard to think that a German fighter pilot would see an enemy plane and head for the hills rather than engage it could you explain a bit more for me please. thanks

[plan_D]

Yes, I also find that unbelievable. The Bf-109 was a superior plane to the I-153, the Bf-109 would certainly have several advantages over the I-153.

Are you sure the comment was made, '...don't try and turn with this plane...'? Not, '...avoid it...'.

[cheddar cheese]

I always thought it was the I-16 they were told to be wary of.

[plan_D]

I doubt they were told to be weary of the 'Rat' - as they had already encountered it and slaughtered it in the Spanish Civil War.

The only 'Rat' they should have been weary of was the one I flew over Leningrad in 1941...

...I haven't played on that campaign in ages. The tight VVS still haven't given me anything better than a La-5. Not even a La-5FN!

[cheddar cheese]

I get bored with campaigns and keep starting new ones. I have about 6 or 7 on the go at about the 5th or 6th sortie Just lastnight I started another new one for the VVS in a P-63