Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

[mosquitoman]

How many mustangs were fighting in the Battle of Britain P51ace 16?
Now you see why the Spitfire is so well known and if it could do that much damage to the Luftwaffe in 1940, imagine how good the developed versions were

[cheddar cheese]

The Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in every way except range...

[mosquitoman]

I believe a saying was: "The Mustang can't do what the Spitfire can, but it does it over Berlin"

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

The Spitfire is superior to the Mustang in every way except range...

Or high speed manuverability - especially roll. Or sustained speed.

[Udet]

RG, good evening:

" think you are making far too much of Yeager having been shot down. Almost every German ace got shot down many times. One of the Experten was shot down something like 17 times! The difference is that when Yeager was shot down, he was shot down over enemy territory."

Getting shot down tells very little on the quality of a pilot. You know it well, many superb pilots got shot down and that did not imply, AT ALL, they were bad pilots! The point with mr. Yeager is that on interviews (tv documentals) he speaks with a big smile on his face, mocking the German pilots and their fighters, apparently forgetting one German pilot surpassed him in a dogfight on his "perfect" fighter and shot him down; as simple as that. I thought his attitude was even disrespectful towards his very own countrymen which perished by the dozens of thousands fighting Germany in the air.

Perhaps mr. Yeager has not seen footage of P-51 pilots getting their nuts barbecued under the fire of Bf109s and Fw190s, or if he has, it appears like he has forgotten everything.


As I have said before, the military build up of the USA on both theaters of war, Pacific and Europe, as well as the massive supplies of the Lend Lease shipped to the soviet union are an undisputed testimony of the might of the military industry of the USA.

Though comparing the military effort of Germany with that of the USA in the fashion you put is misleading.

Germany is a small nation with limited access to natural resources. A diametrally opposed thing happened in the case of the USA: a very large country, with a large population and access to large natural resources -i.e. the oil of some countries of latin america-.

What of the geography?

Germany located in the centre of the war map, with borders close to enemy nations. Its military industry within the reach of the heavy bombers of the enemy.

USA located the atlantic and the pacific ocean away from its two main enemies bordering only allied nations. Safe from any bombing raid and/or any significant sabotage, meaning its massive military industry would work at top capacity unhindered.

Those are only a few very fundamental differences between the military efforts of both Germany and the USA.

The geographic position of the USA allowed to plan its military production and to deploy its massive forces the way we know it did.

Udet,

I agree, Yeager is very arrogant. However, he did score 5 kills in a single day, on something like his 8th sortie over France.

I agree, Germany's position in WWII had some disadvantages. But I really think the biggest factor leading to their defeat was incompetant leadership and the failure to fully utilize their economy for war production until it was far far too late to matter.

=S=

Lunatic

[NightHawk]

My vote gose to the Zero as well, Its fast and deadly,

[Udet]

RG:

I am glad to realize you and me can sometimes agree, at least in some points!

Remember i have not suggested gentleman Yeager was a bad pilot, at all. Simply the remarks i´ve commented here. He was indeed arrogant but also contradictory; all i can say is I found him amusing.

I also agree with you on the incompetence and disorganization in the German high command which contributed to their final defeat.

They simply had too many private designers working independently, each pursuing his very own interest and aircraft models. When they saw what was coming, say, by mid 1943, the German high command should perhaps have brought all designers together into a very close coordination in order to establish a more efficient program for distributing raw materials, labor force and spare parts programs.

That is, they should have implemented, maintained and assure adherence of aircraft desginers to the Reich´s designing and production policies. They simply did not.

Germany did not have access to large natural resources, therefore a coherent production program was necessary.

Example: many say the Bf109 should have been phased out, say, by the end of 1943, in order to let the Fw190 be the mainstay fighter of the Luftwaffe alone.

I disagree there. The Bf109 Gs and Ks were superb fighters (yes, i know manouverability got somewhat affected; likewise the superb Spitfire did not evolve seeing its manouverability unscathed). The Fw190As and Ds, not to mention the Ta152 were also superb fighters.

One single fighter could not have covered absolutely all roles being always a marvel. The Bf109 could do things the Fw190 couldn´t and viceversa. So i see both types necessary.

But why to continue producing as late as 1944 -and in the cases of some types to the very end of the war- the Bf110 (great as nightfighter though), the flunked the Me 210 and the Me410? The Me 410 was a great plane, but it came to life too late and its chances against single engine enemy fighters were little, so perhaps it should not have been produced beyond protoype models.

Furthermore, why continue to produce bombers?

Perhaps not a single bomber should have been produced when 1944 commenced. I know bombers were necessary in some theathers by such date, but if the resources -material and laborforce- devoted to produce bombers had been used to produce more fighters, who knows what could have happened.

Keeping the fearsome and superb Ju88 for nightfighting duties and perhaps working further -in accordance with the Reich´s policies- to solve the problems of a plane with great potential such as the He219, why did they continue to produce the He111, the later Dorniers, the several prototypes of heavy bombers and the Stuka? (The Stuka was a great plane, but the conditions for its deployment in significant numbers had ceased to exist).

Let´s see, roughly 1,200 Me 410s were produced. We are talking about some 2,400 engines. What if 2,400 Fw190s had been produced instead?

There were many other factors which played a role as well. The fuel crisis which struck the Reich by mid 1944 grounded a good deal of the Luftwaffe.

I simply attempted to mention one aspect that you mentioned and that is very true. The Germans failed to put their stuff together and even if they had superb planes and many superb pilots, they simply wasted it.

I agree some consolidation of engineering efforts should have been made. I also agree production of twin engine designs (except as night fighters and perhaps ground support aircraft) was foolish after the start of 1944, and questionable even at the start of 1943, but it is easy to see how the high command deluded itself into believing it would somehow be able to regain the initiative and would need bombers in the future.

In the Reich, politics often played a bigger role in aircraft acceptance than quality of designs. It is interesting to note that only two single engine designs were produced in any quantity during WWII, the 109 and the 190. Furthermore, the 190 was kind of a fluke, Tank pushed it through against the current of the Nazi system by accepting the BMW air cooled engine, which severely limited high altitude performance. Lack of diversity in engineering opportunities was another problem of the Nazi system.

Personally, I thin the 109 design was not worth futher development by the end of 1941, maybe 1942. Another design was needed. I have to wonder what Tank would have done with the DB engine had he been able to design a plane around it?

But most of all, the German's failed to fully utilize their economy from the start of the war. Had they ramped up for total war the way the British and USA did within the first year of war they would have done much better. Likewise, they failed to capitalize on what resources were available to them early enough for it to matter. Germany was only oil poor because they failed to exploit the available supply sources in 1940 and 1941. Had they run things properly, they would have had pleanty of oil from the balkins and the airpower to defend it.

=S=

Lunatic

[Archangel]

Had they run things properly, they would have had pleanty of oil from the balkins and the airpower to defend it.

ony on this i can disagree, I dont think you can say they didnt run things properly when it als depends on what the enemy is doing.

[Hot Space]

Who's voted for the 190D

Hot Space

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Personally, I thin the 109 design was not worth futher development by the end of 1941, maybe 1942. Another design was needed. I have to wonder what Tank would have done with the DB engine had he been able to design a plane around it?

But Tank did have DB powered a/c, that had flown in the summer of 1942, the would have been the Fw190C.

[cheddar cheese]

Originally Posted by Hot Space

Who's voted for the 190D

Hot Space

People who've never heard of the Spit XIV, obviously!

[Hot Space]

Damn & blast those people

Hot Space