Evil_Merlin

My Feedback: (13)

Thats not a fight between two fighters, nor a real dog fight was it? It was more blind luck.

I wouldn't have wanted to be the poor ******* in either. What I cannot figure out though is the Storch actually carried a MG 15 machine gun, so it wasn't quite unarmed.

deatonbt

Evil_Merlin,

MK 108:
I don’t have a background in German cannons, but I’ll have to disagree with the point that the M80 was suitable for dog fighting. One hit may have been enough to bring down a plane, but it would have been a hit that was shot outside of the performance envelope. Lucky hit.

Ta152 H range:
I keep referencing the same book even though I don’t know how good it is, but I can cross reference it with another.
Hitler’s Luftwaffe shows the range to be 1,200 km; about 745 miles. The same stat is given by Complete book of World War II Combat Aircraft.

Ta 152H maneuverability:
I had to go to a Wiki, but I found this paper. Project Ted <sp?> PTR – 1107 ; Report of Comparative Combat Operation of Focke-Wulf 190A/4 Airplane
Here is the link.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf

The tests are against U.S. Navy planes. It is an indication of the 190’s performance.
“Turning Circles – Results of comparative tests of turning characteristics showed the F4U-1 and F6F to be far superior to the FW-190. Both the F6f and F4U could follow the FW-190 in turns with ease at any speed, but the FW-190 could not follow either of the other two airplanes. The FW-190, when in a tight turn to the left and near the stalling speed, exhibits a tendency to to reverse aileron control and stall without warning.” The paper goes on to say that when directly behind the 190 the following plane can be on the 190’s tail in 3 turns.
In the area of maneuverability the 190 showed similar weak performance.

You mention the Ta-152H when compared to an Anton. It is being compared to an older model from earlier in the war. Also, it is not being compared to an adversary.

Based on the above points, I do not think that the Ta-152H has been shown to be superior in combat.

alanc

You are correct, if the silly little man had carried on against the airfields, and radar installs, we would have had a little bother, but, we would have won through, our air defence at that time was a lot more sophisticated than anything the germans had, spits and hurricanes where dispersed anywhere, and everywhere, we never had not anough planes, we did suffer a lack of pilots, until we put the foreign squadrons into the battle, and the superb canadien goverment started their flying training schemes

the bombing of london came about, after an HE111 got lost, and dumped its bombs, we retaliated by bombing berlin, Hitler lost his rag, and all hell broke loose, quite a strategic drop bollock for your vaunted master race

the invasion of our shores was called off, the weather, not the RAF saw to that, Hitler knew it was only a matter of time before we repulsed every attack with significant losses to the germans, he was ill-equipped for invasion, and knew it,

as for begging for aircraft, not how i read it, we went to buy surplus planes, we ended up with the P51, would you have had this fighter, if it was not for us? DONT think so

and trickery? where the hell does THAT come from? you also mention the lusitania, low blow, my german friend, that ship sailed with the warnings of the admiralty ringing in cunards ears,

play nice,
ALAN

alanc

Kinda like a fungus you can't wash off.
[/quote]


Thats nice, thank you very much, was there any need for such an awfull comment?

stuk_at_work

My Feedback: (111)

[color=#CC0000]Folks,

This thread is on thin ice to begin with. Please keep your comments to the planes only! Any further comments regarding nationalities, politics or the like will not be tolerated!

Thank-you for your cooperation.

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

Wow, this thing really snow-balled over-nite. So much new B.S. posted, I can't keep up with it.
But I'll jump on this one.
"Britain would of lost the Battle of Britain without the Spitfire": of COURSE they would have lost, and they would have lost it even quicker if they didn't have the Hurricane (didn't they have twice as many Hurricanes as Spitfires?), they would have lost if if they didn't have all those foriegn piloits to fly their Spitfires and Hurricanes. There are so many 'what if's' concening the BoB that if Britain had less of just about ANYTHING: they would have lost. If Hitler had not turned his attention to Russia ( extermination of the Slavs was right up there with his goals of exterminating other 'inferior races'), if Gemany didn't have so many Me-109s, if the channel dried up, etc, etc, etc.

skull1971

1942 I guess to some was late in the war, so the Corsair I guess didn't do much. the War didn't get "Good" till '43.

and as Evil said we voted for the planes not icon's, if it was just as an icon, the P-40 Flying Tigers are maybe more well known.

happyal

You now as well as I do that the Corsair didn't really see active service until 1944, so yes, the Corsair didn't get much.

I certainly wouldn't say that the P40 was an icon, and I've given reason's why the Spitfire was considered an icon. I'm still looking forward to learn these serious limitations that the Spitfire had?

deatonbt

This thread looks like it might die. I am going to go ahead and finish up.

I voted for United States airplanes. It was mentioned early in the thread it was mentioned that it was getting votes without support. A comment was made about the intelligence of those voting that way. I have gone down two paths supporting U.S. planes. I have used references. Many have not. The vote is informed and valid. My soap box.

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

I wasn't saying that all the arguments wereuniformed just the majority of them were. Hopefully you werent taking my comments as a personnal attack on you. If the thread dies it dies, there was a lot of good and bad dialogue that came forth. I have enjoyed 99% and all the guys involved. This is and will forever be a never ending argument

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

Gee, I guess history books ARE really different in other countries.
One of My R/C Corsairs is painted up as a tri-color scheme VF-17/ Jolly Rogers Squadron F4U-1A, whch I was taught was flying combat missions in mid 1943. And I was planning on finishing up another as an F4U-1 'birdcage canopy' Corsair which represents one flying combat missions (and incidently: shooting down Japanese aircraft) in early 1943.

You mean my history books LIED to me?

BTW: I was also taught that the 1st prototype flew in the spring of 1940, a full year and a half before the U.S. was even (officially) in a war.

happyal

LOL, you know what I ment, yes, a few saw land based combat earlier than 1944, but where not used in any great numbers until 1944. So I still stand by what I said before, it came along too late in the war to make much difference.

Can you name any major air battle where the Corsair made a difference before 1944?

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

Uh, no: I DON'T know what you mean. A few? Maybe a few hundred, kinda like the Spitfire in the BoB.
BTW, can you name any major battle where the Spitfire made a difference AFTER 1940?
Operating from Guadalcanal (probably not in British history books) and rest of the Solomon Islands (about 1000 in all), the Marines used them for air superiority (shooting down Japanese aircraft) AND ground attack. But you probably haven't heard of any of the battles that the U.S. Marines fought either, as they fought WW2 on thousands of remote jungle islands in the Pacific, half way around the world from Europe.
How about this: ever hear of the Black Sheep Squadron? I don't know if they ever 'made the difference' in any single, large scale battle, but they sure did in a helluvalot of smaller ones. But they weren't the only ones.
In Europe, Corsairs made little if any difference. On the other side of the world, they were a 'Marine's Dream'.

There are probably some countries that would like to forget that the Corsair ever existed, so they wouldn't have to pay for the ones that they shoved off of their aircraft carriers at the end of the war. Maybe that is why history is distorted in some areas.
One more thing: can anyone tell me how many jet engined fighters were shot down by Spitfires?
I'm betting that Corsairs shot down at least 1 more.

skull1971

Ever hear of VMF214?? Can YOU name any air battle that any one airplane made the difference between a win or loss.

Look, I didn't say the Spit had short comings, I SAID it was over rated, it got to much credit IMO for the BoB, The Hurricane was the true workhorse of the BoB. You can love the Spit till the cows come home, but if I wanted to fly a true hero, it'd be the Huricane.

And for the record, the P-51, IMO was not the best all around fighter for the U.S. either. So before you go Stang bashing, I feel that the P-47 had the complete package. Fighter, ground attack, bomb targets, escort (just short on range), and take a beating and bring it back home.

skull1971

CJ,,, breath man!!

hellcat56

My Feedback: (21)

The corsair was fighting in '43
BUT just for the sake of argument say it was 44
I was under the impression the war ended in august 45
The corsair was a heck of a plane great kill ratio and could take punishment
how anyone could say the Corsair doesnt have enough combat to be considered is beyond me
This comes from someone who loves Hellcats and voted for the Germans as have the BEST FIGHTER PLANES OF WW2 you know like the title was asking
Somebody said the metor should be considered how could you consider the metor and not the Corsair
Another guy listed the TA 152-how many of thoses saw combat
NOT AS MANY AS THE CORSAIR
So lay off the corsair
anybody can consider ANY plane that saw combat even the cub apparently 1 killa storch
Hellcat 56

CorsairJock

My Feedback: (90)

DEEP BREATH,..............OK, I'm better. Gotta get away for awhile tho, just TOO much happened today.
But before I go, I gotta remind some that am I not being nationalistic about this. Yes, I am a born and raised U.S. citizen, was raised to be patriotic AND I AM, but I also try to be a realist, so I voted for Germany.
And my favorite plane: the Corsair.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

corsair jock, i found it!


i found it!



you are slipping. i see a PT-17 tucked under the table. i hope you did not hurt it when you threw it out of camera view .

Joe

skull1971

I'd have to say the same about that CJ, it is on it's back after all.

paladin

My Feedback: (9)

I’m going to revisit the Battle of Brittan. The correct way to define the out come is the Germans did not win, and the British did not loss, nobody won and nobody lost, I think that is a draw. It is my assertion that France was to be the end of military action in the Wehrmacht’s planning. That is why they let all the men and material leave from Dunkirk. As further evidence they had no plan, after redefining ground and aerial combat in Poland and France and rocking the world to the core. Why would they turn to Brittan and attack with a fighter with to short a range and not fix it. Leaving it unanswered any time the RAF serviceability dropped to low they would just move the fighters out of the range of the me109’s. after all the RAF’s “real job” during BoB was to provide effective fighter cover to the Royal navy in the channel should there be a landing attempt. Having to fly that cover from bases above London would be a labor on the pilots but would still be doable.

The spit and hurri were the best planes to go against the Me109 at the time but lets remember that all they did was fight to a draw in a battle the Germans could not win and never should have engaged in.

If interested here is a very interesting website on the Me109, it does not deal with the brittish negative G problem.

http://www.scientistsandfriends.com/aircraft.html

Joe

bosssman

My Feedback: (35)

er, ah, I think we BROKE through the thin ice many, many pages back, especially with the picture of the idiot in the Nazi uniform defending the swastika. This thread passed ANY relevancy concerning fighters LONG ago .....

randy

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

It seems that I am prone to controversial posts. Let melist my 2 favorites. 1)The political correctness crowd ditating what we should and shouldn't put on ouur scale planes...swastika 2)what is concidered an arf airlane when it comes to scale contests. I guess I can add this one to my top 10 list also.... Still there is more to be said

Ed_Moorman

My Feedback: (1)

As a former F-4 fighter pilot from the Vietnam war, let me throw my 2 cents in.

The worth of a combat plane is what you need it to do and how well it does it and how you fight it, the tactics you use.

In the beginning of WW II, the tactics used in the US Army, Navy & Marine Corps were formulated in biplane days. Bipes can turn tight so we must turn tight to fight. Little thought was given at high levels to finding out the capabilities of the enemy planes and determining where out planes were better. No plane is good everywhere. In addition, the higher ranking officers in each service insisted that our pilots use standard (biplane) tactics at the start of the war. It wasn't until we lost many planes that a few medium ranking pilots began to insist that we fly to our advantage and not play the Japanese game. At the beginning, Wildcats, P-40s and P-38s were easy prey for Zeros. Yes, the Zero has a great turn radius, until you read what many experienced P-40 pilots have said. Not the so-called "experts", but the men who shot down Zeros.

275 mph was the magic number. Below 275, the Zero could out turn the P-40, so why let your speed get low. Below 15,000 feet and above 275, the P-40 could roll faster and turn tighter than the Zero. The P-40 was slower climbing, but faster diving and faster in level flight. Above 275 and certainly above 300, the ailerons on the Zero were very stiff. More than one P-40 pilot has said that you could get the speed up, enter a slightly diving turn to keep the speed high and out turn the Zero. The roll rate was faster so a few switch backs and you were on him. If the guy was really good, you went to max power and out ran him.

If you'll recall, they lost quite a few Wildcats on Guadalcanal before they learned the right tactics and began knocking down Zeros. The same with the P-38 which wasn't that good in a turning fight until the L model which has flaperons. Once they learned to do an up and down fight, the Zeros were toast.

Now take the British and German planes. The Spitfire, Me-109 and Fw-190 were great point defense interceptors. No legs. Could barely fly across the channel and have much time to fight. They could not even go from France to Scotland and attack. Our P-47s, toughest dang airplane in the sky, was good, but didn't have quite enough range, so the bombers were getting hosed on long missions. Then came the Mustang. It could fly all the way to Berlin, fight for 20 minutes and fly back to England. What do you need it to do and how well does it do it. Pretty darn good.

Next, Doolittle turned the Mustangs loose to attack the Germans on the ground in front of the bombers. Sure it's not glorious, mano-a-mano, air-to-air combat, but it sure is efficient. Knock out more of theirs and lose less or yours. War is not about being fair. Ask someone who has been shot at. What do you think we invented cluster bombs for-mass attacks, massed tanks and airfields. Work great.

So the Germans had jets. They had no range so pilots jinked around until they had to land and bounced them in the pattern. The Germans had to station FW-190 squadrons with the Me-262s to protect then during take off and landing. They finally had to spread them out onesy-twosy all over and use dirt roads for runways.

General George Kenney, MacArthur's Air Force commander did in the Pacific. He took a bunch of the B-25s with eight 50s in the nose and wiped out most of the Japanese air in the islands. To get rid of Rabaul and the other big Japanese air bases, he sent over some bombers to wake them up. The Japs cranked up and taxied out. 15 minutes after the bombers would come 25-30 of the B-25s plus several P-38s. They literally wiped out the Japanese air force in the islands in 4 or 5 raids.

Ram-bro

My Feedback: (101)

Ed, thanks for the input. So how do you see the question that has been asked. As a ighter pilot, is it a valid question thta can be answered objectively ...in your opinion?

foodstick

Wow, I was gone a few days and this thread exploded!

I know there is a long history of different branches of the military looking down on the others, and the same thing between the countries involved in any war....as it was or is with WW2...

But it truly makes me sad to see any real mean squabbling between any of the Allied countries. I sure wasn't around then, but I know I owe a lot of gratitude to people all across the world, people that did dirty work away from home..when they would rather not have. Wars all to often include mistakes, stupidity, and every possible SNAFU .

I will always be thankfull for those that stood up, no matter what country you were born in ..And I will wince whenever I hear the USA abused over its contribution, I will never forget what the Allies accomplished, And I for one will always take pride in what that group of countries stood for.