Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The German's greatest mistake in WWII

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

  • Scott Fraser
    replied
    Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
    I don't mind. Reading the bickering and weasel-words of another thread on this forum is starting to get ole.
    Kids will be kids.

    Regards
    Scott Fraser

    Leave a comment:


  • Desiree Clary
    replied
    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    Just under a month since I, the incomparable lodestar (at once the greatest living Australian AND the greatest Australian who ever lived) revived this thread from '04.

    At that time the thread consisted of just 2 pages. It now runs for 24 and for the most part has, as I instructed, stayed on topic.

    Surely this is evidence (as if any were needed) of the phenomenon known as losdestarian exceptionalism?

    Seriously though, are posters finding these 'blasts from the past' interesting and worthwhile?
    I must confess, I'm also doing it to find material I can use for potential tutes.
    Not just regarding WW2 history but the uses and misuses of the very, very, new marvel known as the internet.
    The value of which, as I have already said, I am not sure about (see my thread-starter: 'Does SPR & Internet discussion improve or corrupt our understanding of WWII?'
    I don't mind. Reading the bickering and weasel-words of another thread on this forum is starting to get ole.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    lodestar on old posts and the value of the net (and himself)

    Originally posted by lodestar View Post
    Latest in my review of all posts from day one on the WWII Forum.
    Now this topic has no doubt been covered and debated to death in the intervining years since eagle101 first posted his little missive.

    Not a lot of responses back then but posters at least STAYED ON TOPIC! Which is something we now seem to have a lost of problem with.
    Lets revive the subject yet again and see if we can keep on track.

    Regards lodestar
    Just under a month since I, the incomparable lodestar (at once the greatest living Australian AND the greatest Australian who ever lived) revived this thread from '04.

    At that time the thread consisted of just 2 pages. It now runs for 24 and for the most part has, as I instructed, stayed on topic.

    Surely this is evidence (as if any were needed) of the phenomenon known as losdestarian exceptionalism?

    Seriously though, are posters finding these 'blasts from the past' interesting and worthwhile?
    I must confess, I'm also doing it to find material I can use for potential tutes.
    Not just regarding WW2 history but the uses and misuses of the very, very, new marvel known as the internet.
    The value of which, as I have already said, I am not sure about (see my thread-starter: 'Does SPR & Internet discussion improve or corrupt our understanding of WWII?'

    Well, I could go on and on. The sound of my own prattling is simply the sweetest sound in the world!

    regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • Sgt. Saunders
    replied
    Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
    Accordingto both Shirer and Tooze, the Germans were equivocal about Hitler at first, but were solidly behind him after the victory in France in 1940.
    Yep- and who wouldn't be? Germany had just defeated the old enemy, and at eye-popping minimal cost. No doubt that by that time, many came to see him as a sort of savior. Tooze does however, make it clear that this support for Hitler was based on a belief that the war would soon end. Compare the mood in Germany after the victory in France with that after news of the declaration of war on the Soviet Union- or the United States.
    Sgt.

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    Originally posted by Desiree Clary View Post
    Accordingto both Shirer and Tooze, the Germans were equivocal about Hitler at first, but were solidly behind him after the victory in France in 1940.
    Everybody likes a winner

    Leave a comment:


  • m kenny
    replied
    Originally posted by walle View Post

    They picked side. England and France, my guess is that that found that to be more appealing then siding with Germany (old enemy) or Soviet Union (old enemy).

    Don't blame the Poles for not being invited to the Victory Parade. That's a spin. The Poles were not invited because of English political weakness, they didn't want to antagonize the Soviet Union.

    Tony Blair apologized to the Polish veterans in 2005, I interpret that as recognition of their wrongdoing.
    The UK never at any time said it would attack Germany within days of her invading Poland.
    The UK was very specific in the guarantees it gave to the Poles. It said it would ensure the integrity of Poland. Not that week, not next week but whenever it was practical. The Poles were warned they had no carte blanche in dealings with the Germans.
    How did it work out?
    The UK fought for 6 long years and bankrupted itself but kept it's side of the Bargain. A physical entity called Poland is on the map today. True it lost a lot of ground in the east but a gained a lot in the West.
    I don't hear many Poles offering the German back any part of modern Poland.

    Leave a comment:


  • lodestar
    replied
    Sgt. Saunders on the ball

    Originally posted by Sgt. Saunders View Post
    ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY LODESTAR

    S.S.S.S.
    What fine chap this Sgt. Saunders is.
    what atruly reputable and splendid fellow.
    He knowswhat's what!

    One must cross the threshold of greatness. Then and only then can one comprehend the true nature of the one called lodestar - for many the quest to cross that threshold becomes their life’s work.”
    Regards lodestar

    Leave a comment:


  • Hansika
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles C View Post
    There are many "reputable" authors out there who keep repeating the same old myths (and this holds true on all subjects), hence why the smart reader (& historian) always reads & listens with a fresh amount of scepticism and never lets bias get in the way.



    Same problems were inherent in almost all of the light WW2 fighters, also the Spitfire, but ofcourse you so conveniently left that out

    "Compare these mentions about flying Hurricane/Spitfire to 109. The problems in takeoff and landing are similar. The pilot needs to push full right rudder to keep the plane straight. Landing approach pattern is similar to 109 approach. The planes handle more or less same way."
    - Canadian Spitfire pilot. 401 Squadron.

    As a plane the Me was a typical wartime fighter equipped with a powerful engine. If you pushed the throttle to full suddenly you might lose control, if the pilot's legs were stiffened because nervousness. But if one was calm, he could control the plane. A cool pilot could easily control the plane's direction and change it when accelerating. When the pilot applied the correct procedures there wasn't any real danger."
    -Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander

    "I never suffered any tendency to swing in takeoff, because I had patience to keep the tailwheel on ground until the small sized rudder could keep the plane in wanted heading. All high powered single engine propeller planes, especially with large blades, have swing effect when you increase power suddenly. This tendency had to be eliminated following the instructions given by the manufacturer."
    - Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories.

    "The ground control was excellent. Without using the wheel brakes, on the way out to the take-off position, I found that a propeller blast on the rudder brought a surprisingly pleasant reaction, in spite of the fact that the vertical fin and the rudder were both rather small.
    The take-off was normal, and I estimated that the ground run was fully one-half the distance used by the Hawker Hurricane and about one-fourth the distance used by the Supermarine Spitfire."

    - US Marine Corps major Al Williams.

    "About the tendency of the Messerschmitt to veer at start and takeoff. This is a mythical subject. Some say it was very difficult, others say that as long as you knew what you were doing it was an easy to control plane.
    It was not difficult if you had a good instructor who told you what she would do. And you can control her if you only hold the tailwheel on the ground and let her up not until there is enough speed for you to feel the vertical rudder having effect.

    In Tampere in a meeting of Ilmasilta I met two younger Messerschmitt pilots who had been trained in 1946: one of them had the opinion that there were two styles of takeoff: one veering and one not veering. Some applied full power at once, treading on the right pedal. Others applied power slowly and allowed the thousand hp.s pull the plane up at leisure. "She took off by that method too".

    You moved the power lever slowly and as you felt that the vertical rudder responds, the tail could be allowed to rise and then she took off on her own."

    - Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories

    "In landing the Me was stable. The leading edge slats were quick and reliable, and they prevented the plane from lurching in slow speeds and made it possible to make "stall landings" on short fields. The problem in landings was the long nose, so the plane was partly controlled by touch in the final seconds of landing."
    - Torsti Tallgren, Finnish fighter pilot.

    "I didn't notice any special hardships in landings."
    -Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander

    "MT could "sit down" on field easily, without any problems. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
    - Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot.

    There wasn't any special problems with landing.
    - Reino Suhonen, Finnish fighter pilot.

    "There was nothing special in landing the plane. It was heavy but the wing slats opened up when speed slowed down and helped flying in slow speed."
    - Kullervo Joutseno, Finnish fighter pilot.

    "It was beneficial to keep the throttle a little open when landing. This made the landings softer and almost all three-point landings were successful with this technique. During landings the leading edge slats were fully open. But there was no troubles in landing even with throttle at idle."
    - Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot.

    So in short:

    1) Torque can indeed send a plane off the runway during a takeoff, especially if there's a crosswind. But the 109 is no different from a P-40 or a Spitfire in this situation. This reputation is from pilots flying it for the first and perhaps only time, whilst veteran pilots would instinctively make the adjustments needed to keep it straight while rolling on the ground.

    2) The standard takeoff procedure for the 109 was to use rudder to keep the plane straight. There was basically two ways to take off the plane. Either you throttled up fairly fast and gave full right rudder, easing off as speed increased, or you throttled up slowly so there was minimal torque effect. In practise that was similar to anybody who had flown other types before and it took usually just one flight to know how to do it. The myth that there was something hard in taking off in 109 stems mostly from highly exaggerated claims - or the fact that for new pilots converting to 109 from various trainers had not flown such highly powerful aircraft before. With proper teaching - no problems. In Germany that was rare thing in the last years of war though.

    3) The Finnish Air Force chief instructor colonel Väinö Pokela told, that one of his key points in teaching new pilots to 109s was to instruct them very carefully - telling them to forget any horror stories they've been told. He said, that many pilots were already scared from the horror stories other pilots and non pilots had been telling, and after showing how easy 109 was to handle there was seldom any problems.

    4) Colonel Pokela notes that most 109 crashes he had seen resulted because the pilot had forgotten to lock the tailwheel before applying takeoff power. If that happened then the pilot couldn't keep the plane straight when accelerating. Take notice that you need to push rudder in all other planes as well - for example Spitfire requires similarly full right pedal while accelerating.

    5) Only some 5 % of the 109's lost were to take off/landing accidents.




    Just because you mention something twice doesn't make it true Michele, in short back up this statement of yours or hold your peace on it.



    While the cockpit is cramped it's not that big of an issue, infact some pilots liked it as it kept them from knocking their sides around during hard maneuvering. Finally the ergonomics were definitely not bad, infact allmost all pilots who have flown & fly the airplane today all agree that the cockpit layout is very nice.

    "Other good points were the visibility during the flight, the sitting position, the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy, the impression of controlled flight and sturdy construction: no vibrations or shakings, the electrically heated flightsuit and gloves."
    - Torsti Tallgren, Finnish fighter pilot

    "The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane."
    - Franz Stigler, German fighter ace, 28 victories

    "The cockpit arrangements were good, though close-fitting to a large man."
    - Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot.

    "The MT had a very clear cockpit. It was big enough for a normal man. You had a firm feeling about sitting in a robust plane."
    - Jorma Karhunen, Finnish fighter ace. 36 1/2 victories, fighter squadron commander.

    "The cockpit arrangements were good, though close-fitting to a large man."
    - Mikko Lallukka, Finnish fighter pilot.

    "The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place."
    - Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot.



    And yet it was never felt as a problem, probably because the aircraft was armed with cannon from start to finish, and not just rifle caliber MGs



    Twist & turn Michele, twist & turn, it doesn't change the facts.

    1) There was nothing special about the 109's slats that made them operate any different than any other slats, they were of the handley page design, same as those on the Me262 & F.86 which infact even used the exact same roller track working mechanism as on the 109F onwards; an improvement over the design on the E series leading to smoother operation.

    2) Automatic leading edge slats, nomatter the design, certainly do not ever cause issues with high speed stalls (a claim you will never be able to back up Michele), they are there for the exact opposite reason: to prevent stalls, not incur them! End of story.

    3) Handley Page slats of the same design were used on the following aircraft: Bf-109, Me262, La-5, La-7, F-86 etc..

    4) Handley Page automatic leading edge slats are AoA dependant devices which means they operate at all speeds, however naturally they only operate when the aircraft is put into high AoA situations, such as when flying slow or making hard turns.

    "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 on flying Bf109G-2 W.Nr. 10639¨

    "Pilots liked the slats, since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps. These slats would also deploy slightly when the a/c was reaching stall at higher altitudes showing the pilot how close they were to stalling."
    - Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories

    "I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the 109 could manouver better in a turnfight than a LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
    - Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

    "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 flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G



    Please read:
    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
    Nice info!

    Leave a comment:


  • Desiree Clary
    replied
    Originally posted by Sgt. Saunders View Post
    It's pretty clear from the historical record that while the nazis had a solid following, alot of other Germans had no love for them. The nazis lost over two million votes in the 1932 elections, and they never had more than a third of the popular vote.
    Sgt.
    Accordingto both Shirer and Tooze, the Germans were equivocal about Hitler at first, but were solidly behind him after the victory in France in 1940.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    I expected the old tactic :tu quoque.

    The equalization of Bush and Adolf ,of Guantanamo and Dachau .


    First doing blahblah about the war of aggression and than saying :you will never see me do that .

    Walle,those who are reading your posts are not that stupid :if one is mentioning in a discussion about German war crimes the war against Iraq,it is obvious that one has an agenda .

    Leave a comment:


  • walle
    replied
    Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
    You are one of those people who hold the people blameless for the actions of the leader whether he be a dictator or an elected leader.
    I am not holding people blameless for the actions of their leaders but I do not morph them with the policy making of their leaders, there's a difference there.

    As for the peace prize we're on the same page, I agree with you that it was joke, mocking what a peace prize should represent. No disagreement there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
    I'd rather be lumped in with Bush any day.
    Rather than with Hitler? Well, who wouldn't!!?? I'd be rather lumped up with any US President than with Hitler, and frankly I think most people wouldn't think twice about the alternative...

    But seriously, the question is different. Historical, just like criminal, responsibility can only be individual. The concept of "collective guilt" is obviously flawed.

    This, unfortunately, has been exploited by plenty of shady propagandists, who shamelessly took advantage of this principle of fairness to shift the blame to an ever-shrinking number of culprits. It wasn't the Heer, the SS did it. It wasn't the Waffen-SS, only the Allgemeine, or the Gestapo, or some of the Waffen-SS units but not all. It wasn't the German people, it was the Nazis. It wasn't the party rank and file, it was the leaders. As expressed by the joke that made the rounds in occupied Germany in 1945: "There were only three true Nazis in Germany; one was Hitler and nobody knows who the other two were".

    Instead, of course, responsibility must be assessed on a case by case basis. And the German dictatorship did not rest solely on the regime's brute force. There is a reason if the titles that come to mind are self-explanatory: willing executioners, ordinary men, the banality of evil.

    Since neither free elections nor polls were possible, it's difficult to gauge the Germans' will as a whole, of course. Yet nobody in his right mind would think that, say, anti-Semitism was confined to the NSDAP card-carrying members, or that the aggression against Poland was only popular in the armed forces, or that everybody save the Luftwaffe men felt sorry for the illegitimate bombing of Belgrade.

    Note that we have clear examples that when a sizable number of Germans cared, they could oppose the regime, and successfully. Aktion T4 (the "euthanasia" program) was canceled on pressure by the German people. The Rosenstrasse protest succeeded (albeit temporarily). We know of individual cases of public prosecutors and judges who defied the regime, and of military officers who did their duty in turning down clearly illegal orders, or asking to be exempted from firing squad duties, etc. And they weren't punished.

    Leave a comment:


  • Localyokel
    replied
    Originally posted by walle View Post
    Too bad that my analogy would go straight over your head and trigger an emotional response.

    As for my own country it's true that it stood by and did nothing. Individuals did, but not the country as a whole, this would be true.

    But neither you nor I are of that generation, so for either of us to try to credit ourselves or our respective countries for what that generation did would be rather rich.

    The United States of today is not the United States of that day, same thing holds true for my own country.

    Not all generations are destined to be great.
    Bush did what he thought was the right thing. His execution was poor but he had a strong mandate from the people at the time. 80%. So you can in fact blame us for him. He got re-elected because of the war not in spite of it. So blame us. Saddam defied the peace agreement time and again. He was visiting atrocities on his own people while starving them and most importantly because we could not inspect we didn't know if he had WMDs. And it took over a year of biulding up before war was declared. Why didn't Saddam not back down? I get tired of reminding people of these facts.

    You are one of those people who hold the people blameless for the actions of the leader whether he be a dictator or an elected leader. Are they his instrument or he theirs? Does it matter in the end? Our current President IS bankrupting our country but somehow I have a feeling he's wonderful in your book. He "won" a Nobel peace prize ya know? Because you guys thought he would eventually earn it. What a joke.

    How should we handle North Korea since you seem to have it all figured out?

    Leave a comment:


  • walle
    replied
    Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
    Spare us your grandiose, yet naive spin on US politics. But then again your country stands by and watches evil flourish in it's back yard and does nothing about it.
    Too bad that my analogy would go straight over your head and trigger an emotional response.

    As for my own country it's true that it stood by and did nothing. Individuals did, but not the country as a whole, this would be true.

    But neither you nor I are of that generation, so for either of us to try to credit ourselves or our respective countries for what that generation did would be rather rich.

    The United States of today is not the United States of that day, same thing holds true for my own country.

    Not all generations are destined to be great.
    Last edited by walle; 12 Apr 13, 10:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Localyokel
    replied
    Originally posted by walle View Post
    Nazi sympathizers who whine would get a short shrift from me too, this thread has so far been spared from such sympathizers, let's hope it will remain that way.

    At the same time I would also like to say that I have very little over for those how seek to morph the German people with the policy makers of the Third Reich.

    If I did then I would right now be blaming the population of the United States for Bush's war of aggression, him having gutted the Constitution, for making the country close to bankrupt, and for opening up Guantanombay whilst legalizing torture and for defending it in public.

    You will never see me do that. I try to look at the whole picture, don't like it? Fine.
    Spare us your grandiose, yet naive spin on US politics. Your countrymen may feel that a country repeatedly defying a peace treaty (Iraq) isn't worth your attention. But then again your country stands by and watches evil flourish in it's back yard and does nothing about it. I'd rather be lumped in with Bush any day.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X