Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's greatest mistake in WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • From Hooton:

    LW sorties in july :4900,in august :18500,in september:15200

    FC sorties:july:14200,august:21400,september;18300


    As long as FC had more sorties,it was winning,loss figuresare irrelevant .

    Loss figures


    July :FC 134 LW:fighters:62 bombers :104

    august:FC:393 LW:fighters;359 bombers:194

    september: FC :410 LW:327 bombers :266


    Total :
    FC:937
    LW:748 fighters and 564 bombers

    The LW lost 1314 aircraft and the crew of these aircraft became irrevocable losses,FC lost 937 aircraft,but,a big part of the crew could fly again .

    As long as this continued,the LW was losing . In fact,the LW was losing from the start on of the BoB.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by walle View Post

      I can understand that, but since I have done no such thing all I can conclude from his response is that he views me as a Nazi poseur.

      He's barking up the wrong tree.
      I never said that. I think you're a moral equivalencer which is different.But I never said you were a Ratzi apologist or poseur. But as per our leader's instructions; I am moving on. I do apologize for giving you the impression that you thought I thought you was a Nazi.
      Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

      "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

      What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michele View Post
        3. most people would understand that you can't retaliate for something that hasn't happened.
        Yeah well one would have hoped so, but that's apparently not the case.

        At any rate, stating that the bombings were a result of retaliation is hardly propaganda, it may be wrong, but propaganda it is not.

        There is no historical record of Hitler issuing the final solution either, but it could be logical to assume that he did, despite no orders being printed on a piece of paper.

        To dismiss either statement/view as Nazi propaganda (may I suggest you use a dictionary) would be rather daft.

        Originally posted by RichardS View Post
        I never said that. I think you're a moral equivalencer which is different.But I never said you were a Ratzi apologist or poseur. But as per our leader's instructions; I am moving on. I do apologize for giving you the impression that you thought I thought you was a Nazi.
        Thank you I appreciate it, it's all good RichardS.

        Comment


        • To sum up; the Luftwaffe was a fine instrument for tactical army cooperation. It was neither really a strategic force. We can thank the accidental death of Walther Wever for that.
          Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

          "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

          What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
            1) The biggest and worst mistake was thinking they were winning World War 1 and only was stabbed in the back.

            2) Voting Hitler 'JA' in the referendum.

            3) Openly abandoning the Versailles Treaty.

            4) Underestimating the resistance of the British and French to any more territorial demands after Munich.

            5) Invading Poland.


            All other mistakes are based on one or more of the above.
            I do like quoting myself. But since this was lost in the melee I thought I'd bring it back up to see if anybody had any comments.
            Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

            "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

            What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by walle View Post


              never said the war was over, I said the war was lost for Germany, and at the time of the bombings Dresden was of no military importance. This would then mean that the destruction of Dresden was unnecessary, since it no longer was of military importance.
              Dresden was a major transportation hub, a legitimate military target. And if it was unnecessary to continue the bombing campaign, explain how the V-2s, fueled by the potato crop (thus starving Gernan civilians)were still raining down on London and Antewerp


              And here we go again, where did that come from?
              Because you are mouthing the same old nazi propaganda lies, over and over.
              Will no one tell me what she sings?--
              Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
              For old, unhappy, far-off things,
              And battles long ago:
              -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
                Because you are mouthing the same old nazi propaganda lies, over and over.
                Strong words, where have I mouthed these Nazi propganda lies over and over?

                If you feel that that community guidelines has been breached, or that of anti-Semitism being voiced or any other form of hate speech or personal attacks, then you should contact a moderator and let him know.

                That's important. I would.
                Last edited by walle; 10 Apr 13, 11:52.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
                  Dresden was a major transportation hub, a legitimate military target. (...)
                  Not to mention the military industries.

                  There's more. If the faulty logic of "the war was lost for Germany" is actually followed through to its conclusions, then of course, once the war "was lost for Germany", it's not only Dresden that has no military importance. Everything has no longer military importance, given that it's already clear who won and who lost. Why fight for Berlin, if the Germans have already lost the war? Why cross the Rhine?

                  This bankrupt reasoning of course is meant to unloading the responsibility for the continuation of the war onto the Allies - whereas it is obvious that if the war was so evidently lost for Germany, the responsibility for the continued slaughter falls squarely on the Germans, who could have as well surrendered, given that nothing had any military importance any more.


                  Because you are mouthing the same old nazi propaganda lies, over and over.
                  Yeah. One is happenstance, two is coincidence, three... what was that?
                  Michele

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by walle View Post
                    Strong words, where have I mouthed these Nazi propganda lies over and over?
                    Every time you post that the initial; German bombing of London was a retaliation for the bombing of Berlin. Straight from Hitler's and Goebbels' mouths.
                    Will no one tell me what she sings?--
                    Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
                    For old, unhappy, far-off things,
                    And battles long ago:
                    -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
                      Every time you post that the initial; German bombing of London was a retaliation for the bombing of Berlin. Straight from Hitler's and Goebbels' mouths.
                      At any rate, stating that the bombings were a result of retaliation is hardly propaganda, it may be wrong, but propaganda it is not.

                      There is no historical record of Hitler issuing the final solution either, but it could be logical to assume that he did, despite no orders being printed on a piece of paper.
                      I'm here referring to the bombing as an act of retaliation, despite no historical record backing that view (I have yet to read records disputing it though) bombings which later escalated on both sides.

                      In what way is that view a mouthing of Nazi propaganda lies over and over?!

                      I've never stated that the English started bombing the Germans first.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                        I do like quoting myself. But since this was lost in the melee I thought I'd bring it back up to see if anybody had any comments.
                        3. sounds like they would have been better off doing things on the sly. They actually had begun doing that in 1920 or thereabouts. I'm not sure how coming out with it was worse than continuing breaking their international commitments wholesale while pretending they weren't doing so; people abroad were harder and harder to fool about all of that.

                        4. is the key and it's precursor of 5. Having a stupid amateur as your foreign minister can land you in trouble.
                        But even taking that into account, I wonder. Hitler was very good at believing in what he wanted to believe. He was good at rationalizing what he wanted to do anyway, not because of rational motives but because of his gut feelings. Suppose he had been more aware of the likelihood of war with Britain and France. Could he have refrained from his lifetime's dream? Exterminating the European Jews and conquering Lebensraum in the East... Time was running out, both for him physically (and he did believe that the great race still needed a great leader, and, with characteristic modesty, he was sure he was the one and only) and for the balance of forces and economies. Could he afford to wait? What if the conjuncture of 1939 was the best he'd ever have? Everybody, seeing that the Germans' word was worth so much warm spit, were rearming. The German economy needed the Czech infusion of currency and gold, or it would have had to cut the Germans' own armament.

                        I suspect that for Germany not to go to war you'd need a great leader replacement. Suppose the one they actually had stupidly chosen was aware that ignoring Britain's and France's warnings was a mistake. Would he be able to avoid making it?
                        Michele

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by walle View Post
                          I'm here referring to the bombing as an act of retaliation, despite no historical record backing that view (I have yet to read records disputing it though) bombings which later escalated on both sides.

                          In what way is that view a mouthing of Nazi propaganda lies over and over?!

                          I've never stated that the English started bombing the Germans first.
                          Very clever, considered the bad hand you were dealt. You have helped making up my mind about you. Good bye.
                          Michele

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                            Very clever, considered the bad hand you were dealt. You have helped making up my mind about you. Good bye.
                            Bad hand I was dealt? Your reading comprehension is as poor as your manners, and you're seing things which aren't there!

                            I take it that you from now on will stop pestering me with your juvenile innuendos.

                            Thank you.
                            Last edited by walle; 10 Apr 13, 12:29.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                              Maybe it wasn't dispelled because it's not a myth.
                              Alright, you keep believing that then

                              Not alone, no. But several of the Bf 109's shortcomings are generated by this, and as mentioned there is no way around it.
                              What problems exactly are generated by a high wing loading alone Michele ?

                              Yes. That can be filed under "dangerous gimmicks". The leading edge slats opened automatically, andwere one of the reasons of this difficult aircraft's tendency to high-speed stalls.
                              So dangerous infact that the US chose to use the exact same design on their own fighters after the war

                              No, they were not dangerous gimmicks and they certainly did cause any issues with high speed stalls, quite the contrary infact.

                              "On the Air Division in Europe, where the Canadians and Americans had the odd dogfight, our F-86's had a definite edge on theirs. Especially the Mark 6's which were equipped with leading edge slats. This kept a laminar flow of air over the wings as the jet approached the stall in turns."
                              - Duane Sheppard, Canadian F-86 Sabre pilot

                              "As CL max is reached the leading edge slats deploy - together if the ball is in the middle, slightly asymmetrically if you have any slip on. The aircraft delights in being pulled into hard manuevering turns at these slower speeds. As the slats pop out you feel a slight "notching" on the stick and you can pull more until the whole airframe is buffeting quite hard. A little more and you will drop a wing, but you have to be crass to do it unintentionally."
                              - Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company

                              The idle power stall characteristics of the aircraft are very benign and affected little by undercarriage and flap position. Stalling warning is a slight wing rock with the stick floating right by about 2 inches. This occurs 10klph before the stall. The stall itself is a left wing drop through about 15 degrees with a slight nose drop, accompanied by a light buffet. All controls are effective up to the stall, and recovery is instant on moving the stick forward. Stall speeds are 155kph clean and 140kph with gear and flap down. In a turn at 280kphwith display power set, stall warning is given by light buffet at 3g, and the stall occurs at 3.5g with the inside wing dropping. Again, recovery is instant on easing the stick forward. One interesting feature is the leading edge slats. When these deploy at low speeds or in a turn, a 'clunk' can be heard and felt, but there is no disturbance to the aircraft about any axis.
                              - Dave Southwood flying Bf109G-2 W.Nr. 10639

                              Naturally it gave better lift at low speeds, which is useful if you fear a stall while you are not engaging an enemy fighter, which usually takes place at high speed.
                              You clearly don't understand how the slats work. They are AoA dependant devices, which means they open at certain angles of attack, it really has nothing to do with airspeed. In other words they help increase the lift in any form of high AoA situation, such as when turning, taking off or landing.

                              And to use your own saying, there's no way to get around this.

                              The Bf 109 included several other details that were all intended to run around the problem that it was conceived as an aircraft as small as possible for its powerful engine. While most of those details did work, they had drawbacks, such as the one mentioned,
                              There were no drawbacks to the slats other than they added a little extra weight and complexity. Hence why the US went for using a direct copy of the 109's slats on their own fighter aircraft just after the war (F-86 etc)

                              or such as its dangerous take-off and landing features
                              This had to do with the narrow landing gear though, nothing else.

                              or such as its terrible ergonomics. Finally add that the more clever contraptions you add, the more likely it is that one of them will break down.
                              And yet it was one of the most successful fighter aircraft of the 20th century...

                              And yet at most altitudes the Spitfire could run circles inside the Bf 109's turn.
                              Sorry but that old fairytale has been long dispelled.

                              And just to show how pilot opinions differed:

                              "The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
                              One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."

                              - Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories.

                              No, we don't.
                              No, obviously you don't.

                              Sure. The other side of the coin is that a hit at "longer effective range" in air combat is essentially a random hazard, probably not more likely that hitting a flight of geese. And that in one second, a Spitfire or Hurricane could put out some 160 rounds. Yes, small rounds, but the number means high chance of achieving multiple hits. The Bf 109, in one second, could put out just 10 20mm rounds plus 40 MG rounds. Sure, if you placed a 20mm round into a small aircraft as a fighter, it would count. But with 10 rounds per second, chances are dismal.
                              Some have calculated that of the ammo fired in air combat in WWII, no more than 2% ever hit. That would mean, on a 3-second (long!) burst, that a Spirfire or Hurricane lodges 9.6 small rounds. The Bf 109 lodges 1.2 small rounds and... 0.6 big rounds.
                              Assuming that half of the MG caliber rounds are too small to do damage, the British fighter is down to 4.8 effective rounds, the German fighter is down to 0.6 effective MG rounds and 0.6 always-effective cannon rounds. Who's better off?
                              That's got to be the weirdest analysis of armament effectiveness I have ever read..

                              Better look here instead:
                              http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
                              http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

                              Comment


                              • Can't believe I'm actually defending the 109 here

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X