Best Jet of the War?

[lesofprimus]

U didnt answer the question.....

[Yeomanz]

I have to say Wowwwwwwwww , that post was so long it must have got you 100 confirmed kills

so thats how they do it ...........

[lesofprimus]

Yes it is....

[Yeomanz]

hmmmi think i might like mr quote button

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

U didnt answer the question.....

Who's the ? directed too? Me?

Ummm... Seems we're on that path now... ???

{added}
As for the US dominating the world as the initial agressor state in WWII, it would have been extremely difficult without an ally in Europe. It would probably have been extremly difficult even with Britain as an ally (very hard to invade a unified continent). However, the USA probably would have focused on North and South America first, then used the A-bomb to enforce its will on the rest of the world in the late 40's and 50's. Of course this would probably have induced a more unified Europe which likely would have had their own A-bomb so...

It is very hard to force your will upon large foriegn populations in the first place. The further away you have to go to do it, the harder it gets.

=S=

Lunatic

[DaveB.inVa]

Originally Posted by Yeomanz

the 262 has tons more votes than the 280 , im sure i read somewhere than the He-280 was supposed to be more manuverable than the 262 , and wasnt it supposed to be a bit faster ( though it laked the fire power the 262 had )

Some have asked through the thread why the P-80 isnt on the poll and the reply has always been that it did not see combat. This is true to an extent, however the P-80 was in operational service in the Mediterranean before the end of the war. Although it didn't ever enter a combat situation simply because nothing came around to fight it. I believe it would've been a better choice for the poll.

I don't see why the 280 is even on here, they're were only 9 ever built and although designed to be a fighter it never fought in combat and never made it to operational service.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think CC made the poll, which explains it...............

[Yeomanz]

Originally Posted by DaveB.inVa

Some have asked through the thread why the P-80 isnt on the poll and the reply has always been that it did not see combat. This is true to an extent, however the P-80 was in operational service in the Mediterranean before the end of the war. Although it didn't ever enter a combat situation simply because nothing came around to fight it. I believe it would've been a better choice for the poll.

I don't see why the 280 is even on here, they're were only 9 ever built and although designed to be a fighter it never fought in combat and never made it to operational service.

well then it should've been in the poll then , but couldnt see it get many votes .......

[(G/C) Lionel Mandrake]

Nice to see the Anglo/American rivalry still going strong.

[Yeomanz]

i love to argue

[plan_D]

There's no anglo/American rivalry. I was trying to keep Britain out of it.

RG, if all that was about what you said at the end. Then fine, that's true - Germany did have less base technology than America. Which gave America the edge in a lot of technologies.
The German scientists were still advanced in rocket design, night vision (directing artillery, and conducting close-combat are different things), tank design and aerodynamics. You're still not going to admit it. If the US was ahead of Germany in aerodynamics, why did they steal scientists and put them straight to work on the US aircraft industry? If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.

The only thing that let Germany was down was Nazism. I know that, I understand that more than most people - much beyond 'Nazis are evil' - Hitler disallowed 400,000 Russians to fight for him in 1941 after the initial stages of Barbarossa due to his hate.

The Germans were not technologically superior in 1940-1941. The opposite is true. The Germans were TACTICALLY superior throughout the war. I fail to see how you can make the claim that the US were better fighting troops when they won, in their areas, by weight in numbers. The only two US divisions I can see as being on par or better than an early war German division is 101st and 82nd Airborne.
You have to remember that many late war German divisions were under-equipped security divisions - not made for open war. Still, the 11th and 21st Panzer were the most experienced on the battlefield and when equipped could rarely be beaten.
The Allies gained air superiority, not by Germany tactical failures on the ground. So, I don't know how you bring that into the equation.

The British cannot be commented on as a whole. In Burma they were remarkable in command after the initial shock of 1941. In France 1940, they fought well but a dying war. In N. Africa again, the troops brave but the command flawed until Monty. Europe 1944, 2nd Army did a lot but a perfect show of how brilliant the Germans were was Caen. And how long it took the Allies to take the place.
I hope you know about the US 5th Army in Italy getting its butt-kicked while out-numbering the Germans, and almost evacuating until the British 8th Army struck at the Germans from the south. If the Germans were as poor as you say they were, they wouldn't have held off the world for 6 years.

America contributed a lot but did not secure victory. Britain would not have fallen by German military action. The only way it would have fallen would have to been starved out, which would have taken a long time. Get off your typically American high-horse and get down to the basics of the war, Germany were the better fighting unit for what they achieved...weight in numbers and Nazism defeated them, not Gung-ho America.

And Sikorsky was Russian, end of story.

I do apologise to other Americans but when someone seems to claim only one nation won the war it is extremely annoying.

[evangilder]

I know I never made the claim that America was the only nation to win the war. MANY nations were involved and all of them contributed to final victory.

Rocket design was something that America did have some advances as well. Look at Robert Goddard and his achievements:
First explored mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high & altitudes and even the moon (1912);

First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against;
First developed and shot a liquid fuel rocket, March 16,1926;

First shot a scientific payload (barometer and camera) in a rocket flight (1929, Auburn, Massachusetts);

First used vanes in the rocket motor blast for guidance (1932, New Mexico);

First developed gyro control apparatus for rocket flight (1932, New Mexico);

First received U.S. patent in idea of multi-stage rocket (1914);

First developed pumps suitable for rocket fuels;

First launched successfully a rocket with a motor pivoted on gimbals under the influence of a & gyro mechanism (1937).

I only point these out in case you weren't aware of the contributions that Goddard made. I am not taking anything away from Von Braun. He was also a great pioneer in rocketry and space flight.

[Yeomanz]

Originally Posted by plan_D

There's no anglo/American rivalry. I was trying to keep Britain out of it.

RG, if all that was about what you said at the end. Then fine, that's true - Germany did have less base technology than America. Which gave America the edge in a lot of technologies.
The German scientists were still advanced in rocket design, night vision (directing artillery, and conducting close-combat are different things), tank design and aerodynamics. You're still not going to admit it. If the US was ahead of Germany in aerodynamics, why did they steal scientists and put them straight to work on the US aircraft industry? If the Germans were behind why is it that the F-86 and MiG-15 look remarkably similar - by luck? No, it's because a team of German scientists had designed them.

The only thing that let Germany was down was Nazism. I know that, I understand that more than most people - much beyond 'Nazis are evil' - Hitler disallowed 400,000 Russians to fight for him in 1941 after the initial stages of Barbarossa due to his hate.

The Germans were not technologically superior in 1940-1941. The opposite is true. The Germans were TACTICALLY superior throughout the war. I fail to see how you can make the claim that the US were better fighting troops when they won, in their areas, by weight in numbers. The only two US divisions I can see as being on par or better than an early war German division is 101st and 82nd Airborne.
You have to remember that many late war German divisions were under-equipped security divisions - not made for open war. Still, the 11th and 21st Panzer were the most experienced on the battlefield and when equipped could rarely be beaten.
The Allies gained air superiority, not by Germany tactical failures on the ground. So, I don't know how you bring that into the equation.

The British cannot be commented on as a whole. In Burma they were remarkable in command after the initial shock of 1941. In France 1940, they fought well but a dying war. In N. Africa again, the troops brave but the command flawed until Monty. Europe 1944, 2nd Army did a lot but a perfect show of how brilliant the Germans were was Caen. And how long it took the Allies to take the place.
I hope you know about the US 5th Army in Italy getting its butt-kicked while out-numbering the Germans, and almost evacuating until the British 8th Army struck at the Germans from the south. If the Germans were as poor as you say they were, they wouldn't have held off the world for 6 years.

America contributed a lot but did not secure victory. Britain would not have fallen by German military action. The only way it would have fallen would have to been starved out, which would have taken a long time. Get off your typically American high-horse and get down to the basics of the war, Germany were the better fighting unit for what they achieved...weight in numbers and Nazism defeated them, not Gung-ho America.

And Sikorsky was Russian, end of story.

I do apologise to other Americans but when someone seems to claim only one nation won the war it is extremely annoying.

Wow , you can argue !

[the lancaster kicks ass]

ah we've had some classic arguments on the site...................

[Nonskimmer]

Scratching, hair pulling, it's all good!