Jump to content

Solty

Members
  • Content Count

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Solty

  1. It is realy interesting that he didn't notice untill he reached his base, that he was missing half of his tail.
  2. THX for sharing. I've never seen this one
  3. Whats the difference? It is a game. Have you ever played FPS games? People "murder" or "frag" each other for 30 years and nobody feels guilty. Why would anyone feel guilty of shooting down a bunch of polygons? I don't attack parachutes because it simply doesn't make any sense, you waste ammo to destroy something that has no meaning. Unless parachutes give points, then maybe I should reconsider . Either way, usually that a guy jumps on a chute, I am glad he didn't waste my time anymore, as he was usually beaten anyway.
  4. You have completely ignored the truth and facts I have presented and repeated your mantra. Wielun, London, Warsaw, Eindhoven etc were not tactical targets connected to ground support. Those were atrocities by Luftwaffe on allied civilians. No real military goals were achieved. The fact that Germany has conquered those places with terror on the ground doesn't help. Luftwaffe on many occasions was just a prelude and moved on to another target. It changes nothing because Luftwaffe was still part of those atrocities. And civilian population was targeted.
  5. Are you crazy? Germany started the whole terror bombing campaigns in 1939, attacking Polish cities and towns. Starting with Wieluń 1st of September 1939. A purely civilian target. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielu%C5%84 German bombings of Eindhoven from 19th September 1944 and 1944 bombing of Warsaw proves that their method has not changed over the years. Have you seen how human losses compare between allies and axis? And big part of it is due to Luftwaffe bombings of cities in Poland, Britian, Soviet Union, Greece etc. Germany just didn't have aircraft that could fly far enough and take a big enough bombload. Even Hitler wanted everything to be a bomber, even Me262 was suppose to be the 'Blitzbomber'. Just because Germany never bulit as mighty and powerful bomber force as the USAAF, that doesn't mean they didn't do terror bombings and didn't wanted to brake the will of people!
  6. @Sasha. German production remained high due to many factors. Main being slave labour from occupied countries and underground factories. Remember that Germans did the same to towns and cities in 1939 Poland, and most noticeably in Soviet Union. It is just that Germans didn't have good enough bombers to fly far enough and good enough fighters to escort them.
  7. 1. "2. Always continue with an attack you have begun" That means that when you already attacked, keep on pushing. Don't let him go, because if you brake off, the 5th rule applies, because you are showing your 6 o'clock. It doesn't mean "be a knigh tlike" it means "keep your initiative to win!". Also, point: "7. When over the enemy's lines, always remember your own line of retreat" Remember that WW1 airplanes couldn't (mostly) dive away and just brake off. Try flying ROF and you will see what I mean. 2. The UK a few months later had the Hurricane, which means it was switching to the same low wing mono-plane doctrine, just a bit slower... you know, because Germany wanted invade everyone, so they had to have war machines. Bf109 took inspiration from air races, same as the Spitfire. Faster meant better, they knew that from WW1. Because the faster the airplane, the quicker it can react to enemy bomber force and put a stop to the myth "the bomber always gets through". Remember. Work of the fighter revolves around the bomber. Secondly, the 109 is not a first generation mono plane. Monoplanes were even during WW1. Check Fokker E. III. Engines of that time though, where insufficient and materials didn't allow for fast travel, because planes had max speeds of 290kph. The Mustang was not reactionary to anything, P-40 was long in production and US has long before figured out how to make planes, and North American wanted to make their own. It was not a reaction to the early designs, it was an improvment and it has nothing to do with doctrine. 3. P-51 was not a reaction to zero's. It was so peculiar that the American doctrine didn't wanted it. If it wasn't for the range and altitude it achieved with Merlin 63 engine, the history of P-51 would have ended on the model A and would have been discontinued.That only shows that they didn't wanted it, because the Mustang did not fit their doctrine! Also, in 1943 US had already not only experience with Zero's, they were at war for two years, fighting Germans and they needed an airplane that would be good to escort bombers into Germany. According with policy of "Europe first". Most Mustangs would serve in the European theater. P-38, P-40 and P-47 would be more significant on the Pacific, not to mention the Navy airplanes.
  8. @Venturi the P51 is a project requested by the RAF. North American was suppose to build the P40 but promised better airplane in short time. It is an airplane from 1940. Romantic areal dogfighting was never really a thing. It was propaganda to make pilots look like gods during ww1. Oswald Boelcke has written how to engage the enemy. Is the attack from the sun and behind, from blind spots romantic?
  9. Either way, these issues need to be adressed: 1.You write how P-51 just met "untrained pilots", while you say that it "produced the most aces". You know where those aces were mostly "born"? During early days of technologically and numerically inferior Poland (P.11c vs Bf109E), during battle of France, where Luftwaffe had numerical superiority, during BoB where many Hurricane and Spitfire pilots had 7h of flight training on their aircraft, during invasion of Soviet Union, which had not resolved any of its problems concerning fighter pilot training untill the last months of the war! 1941-45 most soviet pilots had few hours of flight training and 0 combat training. During early 1942 some were even flying two training flights and had to go to war and die, without radios, without radar, without training on inferior aircraft (at least speed wise). And I am not even going into different doctrines where allied airplanes flew in close 3-ship formations in V leaving no ability to maneuver or maintain SA. So, why "did the 109 produce so many aces?". Lets see, by attacking/invading everyone and having the initiative for a very long time, beeing the bigest modern airforce in Europe and fighting mostly untrained or badly trained, illequiped units that had bad tactics and strategy? 2. Numbers game. Bf109 is the most produced fighter aircraft of the world in history. Second overall to the IL2. 33.300 109s. In comparisson 15.586 Mustangs were built. Secondly, it is normal during offensive operations that you concentrate forces for an attack. Therfore, when attacker makes his move, he usually has the numerical superiority. So did Luftwaffe when they attacked Poland, Belgium, Holand, France, Britian, Norway, Soviet Union and many other countries. It is the tactical numerical superiority that counts. Yes, on many accounts over strategic view the Luftwaffe was "smaller" than combined allied airforces. But as long as III Reich was on the move, it had the initative and was active and not reactive, therfore it could consolidate units for an attack and they did. Plus, they were the only country ready for this war in 1939 therfore taking everyone by suprise and having experienced Condor Legion pilots. 3. Pilots wanted to stay with the 109 even though other planes were avialable. The reason is the same as with P-40 pilots not wanting to change to P-47 and P-47 pilots not wanting to convert to P-51 and F-14 pilots not wanting to convert to F-18 etc. Pilot's like their machines and they learned to operate them and feel a bond to them, especially after many combat sorties. As long as they were successful they do not want to leave the airplane. 4. The "better" fighter. You know why 109 has such a low regard by history? a) cramped, small cockpit with poor visbility to the back b) short range c) small bomb load d) very hard to land and take off properly (steep learning curve) e) heavy stick forces at high speeds All of those problems were adressed by the Fw190 (well maybe except the short range). 5. Every sim depicts 109 as "bad". That argument I do not understand. In every sim that I have played, the 109 was a formidable airplane. Jane's AS, IL2 (46), CloD, BoS, DCS. In all of them 109s are very dangerous. I flew 109's for a very long time in Il2 especially. They are an easy plane to do good in combat. But they have big flaws, which after years of experience started to make me look for something "better" and P-51D to me is better than the 109 because of two crucial qualities 1. Higher speed at all altitudes. 2 Better high speed maneuvrability. (And please do not try to bring the argument of the P-51D at 67'hg vs Bf109K4, compare it to a 72'hg or 75'hg one) As long as you are faster and more maneuvrable at that high speed. You dictate the fight and if you feel that the guy next to you is "better", you just break away to go home and say "that was close" and go to your base drink a beer. Disclamer. I am not saying that 109 is a bad fighter. Not at all. That would be a disservice to those that fell victim to it's guns. It had it's time of glory, but it was never a "super plane". It was good, better than some other in comparisson. Each version up to 1943 was better than the previous. It was a formidable foe till the end, but there are some designs that are objectively better and even Gunther Rall who was a great ace on the 109 was able to criticize it. The airplane is just as important as the pilot. And strategic and tactical situation is just as important as both airplane and its pilot.
  10. Many guncams end with the pilot bailing out beeing it a few times with nothing on the airplane. There is even a recording of a 190 pilot bailing before the Mustang pilot was even able to hit him. If you shoot off the wing it will go down without an oil leak Radiator damage is the main reason for inline engine fighters to go down. That is why P-51 is said to be so fragile. It is the same for Bf109, Spitfire, Yak, LaGG etc. Every plane cooled by liquid cooling system is going to go down very quickly when that system gets damaged.
  11. Clickable pits are interesting for a while. You have that sense of "I am doing it" but, that disapears quickly and you start wondering. Maybe if they weren't clickable it would take shorter to make them and would be cheaper? :/ So, no. I am not oposing, but I am not for it either.
  12. For dogfighting at low altitude Yak3. But long range escort/fighter sweep/CAS/CAP. P-51D all the way. Overall P-51D, but it is not unfounded. Why? P-51D -is faster at all altitudes -has longer range -has bigger payload -has a bit better visibility -has less time consuming engine managment with most of it beeing automatic -has better handling at high speed -has better dive -has better energy retention And it's .50cals are enough for everything that Axis had during the war as most their bombers were quite fragile (He111, Ju88 etc.) and soviets are no different, they mostly had tactical bombers, so no problems there.
  13. So... except for the offtopic. Has anything moved with the transcription? Will it be public on some site? Or are you going to post it in this topic? Thx again.
  14. It is from here right? http://www.goldengatewing.org/proptalk/speaker.cfm?ID=131
  15. Thank you Emil. I need to work on my timing o7
  16. I'm sorry I am late to the party. Hope I can ask a few questions too: 1. What are the main differences in flight dynamics between P-51 and P-40? 2. Which plane felt more responsive and were there any quirks to how they flew? 3. What was the stalling characteristic of the P-51 compared to more traditional airplane desings (laminar flow wing) and was it a problem during dogfights? 4. Did they knew what their enemy was capable of (reports, training etc.)? 5. What did he feel that his P-51 has an advantage in compared to his adversaries? 6. What is his favourie airplane to fly and why? Thank you for this oportunity. o7 S!
  17. You talk as if you realy read japanese balistic tests of those 20mm. Can we see those balistic tests? How "poor" are they compared to things like Hispano or MG151/20?
  18. I have the same issue, but not only with YAW, with every single plain. If you pull the elevator, you will get stuck at 30% deflection (the value is random and changes each time) even though your stick is already centered. The same happens for yaw, roll and pitch. I have T. Flight HOTAS X Thrustmaster.
  19. I wish it was that simple. Look at how the P-40's WEP is modeled. @Lucas Spitfire is interesting, but that would mean sacrificing at least one of the plane's from the plane's set, if we take into consideration how each of those content packages are made (2xFighters, 1xBomber, 1xAttacker and 1x Premium). I would never sacrifice P-51D and I feel like P-47 is very important too. P-38 is very underplayed in simulation. I have yet to see a very good FM for one. Tempest is very rare as well. While Spitfire has it's focus in CLOD. Yes it is the old Mk1 and 2 but still a Spit. While those USAAF planes are condemned as lame and for once need to be heros. That's just what I feel. I do not say NO. I am just saying that I wouldn't realy want to sacrifice any of those planes for the Spitfire. Even if do not particularly like P-38. I would much rather see a Birtish focused expansion next, rather than just pushing the Spit. I just propose my thing, they will do (if they want ) what they want with it.
  20. G14 is the most produced 109 model for the period. G10 was very limited. K4 was also quite limited in 1944 and early 45. G14 seems like the most natural plane to put here. I would be ok if we took Bf109K4 as a premium plane instead of Ta152, but not as a standard plane. Especially that I have a feeling that P-51D would have 67'hg as this is the easiest to model. If US gets 44-1 fuel and ratings then I am kinda ok for the K4. Without that? No way. I know a thing about that matchup and it hurts. You are right about P-38L.
  21. I just think that we had enough early WW2 fighting. Both BOM and BOS are from period of 1941-1942. I would love to see some 1944-45 fights, and Battle of Bulge is good as Ardennes are very interesting terrain with hills and mountains everywhere and forests and small villages. Yet another place where the amazing snow that BOS has can be showcased to the fullest, but unlike the fields of Stalingrad, the theatre has very varied terain. There are plenty of airplanes that would be for multiple roles, leaving a space for flexibility. Flyable planes for Allies: P-47D30 P-51D20 P-38L B25 Premium Tempest MkV Flyable planes for Axis Bf109G14 Fw190D9 Fw190A8 Me410 Premium Ta152H1
  22. Just because Germans didn't win doesn't make it a "stupid" operation. It had potential to ground the allied airforces and make Operation Wacht am Rhein way easier. It failed, because lots of German airplanes were shot down by their own AAA and the fact that Allied pilots were well trained and experienced. The Legend of Y29 is one of the most interesting air battles of the war. You can change the history yourself. Just as you can in BOS :D
  23. BATTLE OF BULGE!!!! Operation Bodenplatte! Both sides have airbases close and it is in the mountains, interesting theatre. P-51D, P47D, P-38J vs Bf109G14, Fw190A8, Fw190D9! YEAH! Much fighting, many airplanes!
×
×
  • Create New...