Jump to content

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I think the amount of expertise required to effectively fly a 262 has been over blown.  The pilots were veterans but not all necessarily 100+ victory aces.  You did have to be reasonably well trained and most of the kids the Germans were putting in the air could never have flown the thing much less fought in it.  However, an average US or British pilot with a reasonable jet training course could absolutely fly and fight in a 262.  

I'd have to agree. Outside of engine management, the 262 was probably the easiest aircraft to fly and fight with at the time. Easy takeoff, easy landing, no prop to worry about.

Engagements would be dead simple as well, there's no fancy flying to be done in a 262.

If enemy has advantage, then leave.

If enemy at disadvantage, attack, then leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I think the amount of expertise required to effectively fly a 262 has been over blown.  The pilots were veterans but not all necessarily 100+ victory aces.  You did have to be reasonably well trained and most of the kids the Germans were putting in the air could never have flown the thing much less fought in it.  However, an average US or British pilot with a reasonable jet training course could absolutely fly and fight in a 262.  

Oh i see i misundestood your post, my bad!

 

Of course in a what if scenario with pilots highly trained and combat experienced (number of kills is not the unique and ultimate criteria and it does not tell everything btw), in a target rich environnement where enemy aircraft in massive numbers (of large and non agile targets) are flying in a predictable path at way lower speeds and are sticked to a duty of mass bombing and escort duty, with (more equal?) odds no question the 262 would perform, and that would  already be a formidable feat! Still you would need highly trained and combat experienced veterans to achieve that.

 

PS About being shot down in the pattern: i do not see the problem in that, it is not as if the 262 slew down to the prop fighter's speed to fight for instance, instead they used the specificity of their oppenent's flight parameters to gain advantage, that's just what allied pilots desperately tried to do with the 262: getting them when they were vulnerable.

 

The 262 is perhaps the only WW2 fighter that required such combat heavy support both from the air and ground: it needed lanes of flaks and specialized squadrons of high end prop fighter  to protect them it is truly fascinating! (Of course all of this could not be used elsewhere on the front.)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/23/2019 at 9:01 PM, Venturi said:

 

By all combat accounts it turned better than those.

Oh hell no. Climb rates, turn times and top speeds do not lie the mustang comes close in speeds but the climb rate is universally worse. It also had a vicious stall and stability problems. It has the fuel amount though which is useful for certain types of missions.

On 6/24/2019 at 2:10 PM, Lythronax said:

I'll never really understand how the Mustang, with that poor P/W ratio, managed to be a good accelerator. Was it the relative aerodynamic cleanliness? The meredith radiator? The prop?

Acceleration of a plane is in direct relation with its climb rate. It might have been a good accelerator but there are planes which are better accelerators. Now there may be some element to its laminar wing but in the end what it gains in laminar flow it loses in being a large aircraft.

 

The reason why p51D was so good is because it had a large number superiority, it had a long range and it totally outclassed pre mw50 planes like the A8 or the G6 which were the norm in LW. You can easily check it in DCS where they have recently added the A8 it is a total sitting duck.

Edited by Max_Damage
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

and thats something you dont have online as no one would be playing on axis side if you simulate allied air supremecy, so even when you limit 262s to small numbers, you still have rest of uber axis airpalanes overwelming or at best at same numbers (just check ratio number in stats of axxis players and its deep below 1 mening they constantly play with bigger numbers advantage), and then add this advantage that axis have from buged engine timer system and no wonder no one plays on bobp maps on red side... atleast not untill Tempest shows up 😄

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I rest

20190623_153701_Film2.jpg


What exactly is the debate here?

I don't think anyone seriously would argue the P-51 was able to keep up with the 262 in terms of speed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 357th_Dog said:

What exactly is the debate here?

I don't think anyone seriously would argue the P-51 was able to keep up with the 262 in terms of speed

 

Well... just compare current available Allied planet to the 5/5 LW's. The P-51D is going to be the next release thus people have some expectations that the Mustang may allow to even odds somewhat.

After seeing how the P-47D was done IMO it's doubtful that the P-51D release will change things much. The only plane which offers some hope at the moment is the Tempest.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

and thats something you dont have online as no one would be playing on axis side if you simulate allied air supremecy, so even when you limit 262s to small numbers, you still have rest of uber axis airpalanes overwelming or at best at same numbers (just check ratio number in stats of axxis players and its deep below 1 mening they constantly play with bigger numbers advantage), and then add this advantage that axis have from buged engine timer system and no wonder no one plays on bobp maps on red side... atleast not untill Tempest shows up 😄

Just because you keep calling it bugged doesn't make it true. You are like the guy on the corner yelling jesus is coming back. We hear you, but we're all just laughing at you at this point.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


What exactly is the debate here?

I don't think anyone seriously would argue the P-51 was able to keep up with the 262 in terms of speed

 

 

I did find the commentary about coordinated "head em off at the pass" tactics to be interesting.  I knew that they did this individually but not in any coordinated fashion.  Or was the coordination simply a by-product of the spread formations and not really actively coordinated at all?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:


What exactly is the debate here?

I don't think anyone seriously would argue the P-51 was able to keep up with the 262 in terms of speed

 

 

Nobody is arguing that. What I AM saying is that folks are hyped about the P51 thinking it's the best thing around and that the allied troubles will disappear because it's some fantastic plane. It was fast at very high altitudes, could dive decently well, and had extremely long range, that's about it. 

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I did find the commentary about coordinated "head em off at the pass" tactics to be interesting.  I knew that they did this individually but not in any coordinated fashion.  Or was the coordination simply a by-product of the spread formations and not really actively coordinated at all?  

 

How could they not coordinate? In real life engagements involving jets, the allies usually had 50+ fighters in the air for every German jet in the fight. JG7 would routinely take up 25-30 jets against formations of 1500+ bombers and 600+ escort fighters.

I see the jet situation during the war kind of similar to the quarteback who decides to run the ball. He may get past a few, but usually he is overwhelmed by everyone who is coming from every direction trying to tackle him all at once.

Edited by III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 5:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

Where and when?

should of probably worded that differently.  All four squadrons (99th, 100th, 301st, and 302nd) of the 332nd were fitted with p51 b's and c's along with d models from July 44 til the end of the war. Being that they also conducted many bomber escorts through germany ( including the longest mission for them, a 1600 mile round trip to the Daimler Benz tank Assembly plant on march 24 1945). I'm not gonna go through the whole history of all there missions, but the book I collected this info from I will post at the bottom Of this. Anyway during these missions they encountered 262's, 163 komets, and 109's\190's.  They do not specify the variant, but some 332nd pilots had verified 190 kills  (again no variant listed). So what I should have said is it would be reasonable to assume that p51 b/c models saw a 190 Dora through there numerous bomber escort missions in and around Germany from July 44 til the end of the war. I find it hard they would see the less numerous 163 on numerous occasions but not a Dora...again no exact statement anywhere but there you go

15615916611365170666047027670164.jpg

On 6/25/2019 at 5:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

 

Where and when?

 

15615920549283291287562279832254.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

ow could they not coordinate? In real life engagements involving jets, the allies usually had 50+ fighters in the air for every German jet in the fight. JG7 would routinely take up 25-30 jets against formations of 1500+ bombers and 600+ escort fighters.

I see the jet situation during the war kind of similar to the quarteback who decides to run the ball. He may get past a few, but usually he is overwhelmed by everyone who is coming from every direction trying to tackle him all at once.

 

We might be tripping over what is meant by "coordinate" - or at least I am.  I would question the ability in 1945 to coordinate in real time across multiple fighter groups to take out a target the way it is done today.  I read the excerpt as suggesting that attacks from multiple angles to cut off a target was a natural outcome of multiple formations spread across the sky.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Nobody is arguing that. What I AM saying is that folks are hyped about the P51 thinking it's the best thing around and that the allied troubles will disappear because it's some fantastic plane. It was fast at very high altitudes, could dive decently well, and had extremely long range, that's about it. 

 

That's a pretty simplistic analysis. If that's all the P-51 was capable of, the air war over Europe likely would've been lost in 1944. I've can't think of any U.S. pilot accounts I've read where they didn't have confidence in the plane or its ability to perform in such a way that it gave them an excellent chance of coming home. What you describe doesn't match any history I've read, other than the now popular revisionist versions of WWII floating around the internet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

 It was fast at very high altitudes, could dive decently well, and had extremely long range, that's about it. 

 

 

The 352nd pilots I've interviewed (as well as an interview with Bud Anderson) tell me that your'e talking out of your bung hole.

 My talks with Wally Starck, Bob Powell, Alden Rigby, Don Bryan, James Wood, etc (I have about a dozen) and readily at hand...and you can pull out your data

from all the first hand research that you've apparently done and we can see what shakes out.

 

All those interviews aside, you need only read of the exploits of other 352nd pilots such as George Preddy, Bill Whisner, Sanford Moats, JC Meyer, Raymond Littge, Edwin Heller, etc etc etc etc and actually do some reading about their actual engagements in Belgium, and the altitudes that they were actually flying at (often down low) and look at their successes/kills. A tiny amount of surface level research would reveal your claims about the Mustang to be fallacious at best.

 

I have no attachment one way or the other, I have no "need" for the Mustang to be this or that...I just happen to know a bit of history is all.

It was a top drawer aircraft, as were the German aircraft that it faced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

LOL Gambit21, It was not only US air force pilots!

 

"When i had acquired some practice with the Mustang, i found it fun to take off with only little fuel, i.e. at low weight, retract the undercarriage and landing flaps at once and then immediately fly a full circle close to the ground. Apart from everything else, this manoeuvre really showed the agility of this fighter. "

 

"It was fun to fly such an excellent and responsive aircraft both at low level and at higher altitudes, i was really enthusiastic about it. The Mustang also excelled in turning flight, and if i remeber correcly, my P-51B clocked about 670 km/h (416 mph) at an altitude of 7000 m (23.000ft). "

 

 

in: Luftwaffe test pilot, by Hans-Werner LERCHE, Janes Publishing Company limited, 1980,  p119

Edited by Caudron431Rafale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the Krauts were rather fond of the Mustang and its performance despite his „relatively weak“ (Lerche) engine. The only other aircraft the Rosarius pilots seemed  to like as much were later Marks of the Spitfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rjel said:

That's a pretty simplistic analysis. If that's all the P-51 was capable of, the air war over Europe likely would've been lost in 1944. I've can't think of any U.S. pilot accounts I've read where they didn't have confidence in the plane or its ability to perform in such a way that it gave them an excellent chance of coming home. What you describe doesn't match any history I've read, other than the now popular revisionist versions of WWII floating around the internet.

 

There is absolutely no way that the USAAF and RAF could have lost the air war with the numbers of men and equipment that they were putting up. It would be incredibly absurd to think so. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

There is absolutely no way that the USAAF and RAF could have lost the air war with the numbers of men and equipment that they were putting up. It would be incredibly absurd to think so. 

I'll bow to your expertise. All I can do is interpret the written histories I've read and listen to the interviews of the men who were there.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Yes, the Krauts were rather fond of the Mustang and its performance despite his „relatively weak“ (Lerche) engine. The only other aircraft the Rosarius pilots seemed  to like as much were later Marks of the Spitfire.

 

Non (or very little) leaking engine was also noted as a big plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I'll bow to your expertise. All I can do is interpret the written histories I've read and listen to the interviews of the men who were there.

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone is this forum is an actual expert, we all simply have opinions based on information that we gather. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 12:36 AM, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's highly unlikely that a P-51B pilot encountered a D-9.

 

 

 

RAF Mustang III's, which were just P-51B's & C's, were flying escort missions for RAF bomber command, who had later switched to daylight bombing, deep into Germany right till the end of hostilities in Europe.

 

This RAF Polish Sqn was flying it's Mustang III's right up until the end of 1946, just before they were disbanded in Jan 1947

 

Mustang_III_1945.thumb.JPG.9fd254b25764df69a64a90e7beba1875.JPG

 

I took the screen from this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7eri57BGA as the Type C roundel on the upper wing dates the film as no earlier than January 1945.

 

So I reckon that if there was a decent chance of a P-51B meeting a Fw-190 Dora in combat, this would be it. RAF squadron diaries in particular the Polish ones, would be the place to know more :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

There is absolutely no way that the USAAF and RAF could have lost the air war with the numbers of men and equipment that they were putting up. It would be incredibly absurd to think so. 

 

That is true in a strategic sense since by mid-44, the production and material superiority of the Allies was so great that there was no way they  could lose.

 

Even the 262s turned out to be more of a paper threat. 262 attacks in 1945 were difficult to counter, but since the LW could rarely put up more than 15-30 jets at a time, operational losses per sortie were less than 5% and could be ignored. The 8th AF was routinely putting up 1000+ bomber sorties several times per week and had ample reserves of ACs and crews.

 

However, it would be unfair to say the Allies won just because of numbers. Pilot skill, training and tactics were the great equalizer. Again, you look at combat reports of 2nd TAF in 1944-45, RAF fighters would attack germans whenever they spotted them, even when outnumbered. They are many reports of flights of 4-8 ACS attacking flights of up to 30 109s and/or 190s. By this time the average USAAF/RAF pilots had more training and flight time than the average LW pilot and Allied pilots knew they could attack and still win the fight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Pict said:

RAF Mustang III's, which were just P-51B's & C's, were flying escort missions for RAF bomber command, who had later switched to daylight bombing, deep into Germany right till the end of hostilities in Europe.

 

I wrote "P-51B" for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I wrote "P-51B" for a reason.

B & C were the same aircraft produced at different factories. In the D, this difference was signified with the suffix -NA & -NT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

B & C were the same aircraft produced at different factories. In the D, this difference was signified with the suffix -NA & -NT

 

Thanks for stating the obvious.

The difference lies with the user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, JgonRedcorn said:

Just because you keep calling it bugged doesn't make it true. You are like the guy on the corner yelling jesus is coming back. We hear you, but we're all just laughing at you at this point.

if only 6 messages related to engine time limit dont work, then its bug!

if fantasy recharg that is not taken from manuals or performance of engines related is 1:1 on one airplanes and up to 1:3 on others, then its bug! 

(to recharg 109s emergancy of 10 min it takes 10min of flying on combat, but to recharg P-51s 5min of emergancy it will take you 15min of flying on continues, and to recharg 15min of combat it will take you 45min of flying on continues )

if fantasy usage of timers on some airplane is using combat and emergancy timer at same time and on others not, then its bug!

(on 109 you dont use 30min of combat while your using 10min of emergancy, and on P-51 youll use 5min of 15min combat when you use 5min of emergancy)

3 clear bugs with game engine timers system favoring some airplanes and heavy cripeling others, so its either buggy system or devs are heavy biased to some airplanes and thats not case.

 

P-47d is now heavy negativly impacted by this bugs, but when P-51 comes it will be wors on him as his recharg is 3x insted 2x of P-47 when you see how his engine works on spit 9

 

 

 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We met Mustangs, but we had no successes; you could not defeat a Mustang unless you surprised them."

   ME262 Pilot, Hermann Buchner writing of a sortie that occurred on March 19th, 1945.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone is this forum is an actual expert, we all simply have opinions based on information that we gather. 

My comment was said somewhat tongue in cheek. 

 

I can't quote him verbatim, but in an episode of The World at War, Luftwaffe Ace Werner Schroer made the comment about the P-51 "we had nothing of the same effort. They frightened us quite a bit...."

 

To me, that doesn't sound like the Mustang you describe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

...based on information that we gather. 

 

Feel free to actually do that.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I wrote "P-51B" for a reason.

 

And that reason would be what?

 

"The RAF also operated 308 P-51Bs and 636 P-51Cs which were known in RAF service as Mustang Mk IIIs; the first units converted to the type in late 1943 and early 1944. Mustang Mk III units were operational until the end of World War II..." http://mustangsmustangs.net/p-51/variants/raf_mustangs

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Thanks for stating the obvious.

The difference lies with the user.

 

Are you serious?

 

In 1945 allied pilots flew P-51's, B's, C's & D's plus many other aircraft types, into Germany from bases in the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy and you suggest that what they were doing and in some cases dying for does not count unless they were flying for who?...the USAAF?

 

Give us a break :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I wrote "P-51B" for a reason.

 

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Thanks for stating the obvious.

The difference lies with the user.

No need to be rude bro, 332nd fighter group did use B's all the way up til the end of the war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Poochnboo said:

"We met Mustangs, but we had no successes; you could not defeat a Mustang unless you surprised them."

   ME262 Pilot, Hermann Buchner writing of a sortie that occurred on March 19th, 1945.

 

Hell, in game I can't even defeat a Lagg unless I surprise them. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

 

Hell, in game I can't even defeat a Lagg unless I surprise them. 

 

Hey HEY - now don't you be disrespecting those Lagg's! 😜 (they are actually a decent aircraft with good firepower, imho)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Int:       -How was it to fight the mustang with the 109 and  fw Ta ?

Pilot:   -How should i say this , everybody sees things differently .The Mustang was good , a plane you shouldn't disregard , fast and maneuverable 

It had one big advantage compared to our planes (with the ta i din't have the occasion to fight the mustang , it's a shame because i can't compare the two )

it had very fast instantaneous turn rate , at the start of a dogfight it could turn and point it's nose almost on your 6 .Many german pilots just lost their nerves and 

crashed or were defeated .

But if the german pilot continued to turn and drag the mustang into a sustained turn you would then you would get the mustang in this way.

The more experienced pilots knew this well.

int :       -This with the 109 ?

Pilot:   - 109 and also with the 190 .The 190 had lighter controls while with the 109 you needed to have muscles because of the heavy controls . You would maneuver the 109 with 2 hand 

during heavy maneuvers.

One vs one the munstag was not a problem (talking here only in my personal experience), but there were almost always 10 times or 20 our numbers .

 

 

 

PS: I just posted this interview to show the german point of view.

Many people dismiss gemans as nazi or wehraboo and their opinion as irrelevant and end up with one-sided opinion .

I think i posted this many times but you have german pilot opions , allied pilot opinions and the truth is in the middle somewhere .If someone denies this i will not even 

bother to respond ;) .

Edited by IVJG4-Knight
  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

-How should i say this , everybody sees things differently


That about sums it up.  Some German pilots considered the P-51 extremely hard to beat, some, like this one, considered it to not be a particular challenge in 1 V 1 combat. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

P-47d is now heavy negativly impacted by this bugs, but when P-51 comes it will be wors on him as his recharg is 3x insted 2x of P-47 when you see how his engine works on spit 9

 

 

Agreed, and that is not the only bug plaguing the '47... Unfortunately, I too share your concern about the dreaded timers and engine management simplification that has no place in a historical sim like this one. Until they get around fixing it, the Tempest is red team only hope.

 

48 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


That about sums it up.  Some German pilots considered the P-51 extremely hard to beat, some, like this one, considered it to not be a particular challenge in 1 V 1 combat. 

 

 

And there are also accounts from Allied pilots that 109 was not that of a threat, unlike the 190. Things need to be put into context, and all variables eliminated (plane type and condition, fuel status, pilot skill etc). If both pilots are of the same skill level, then it is a completely different ball game. Many of these encounters were either surprise attacks, numerical victories, or victories by pilots that knew their plane better than their opponents, and flew them to their strengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

Int:       -How was it to fight the mustang with the 109 and  fw Ta ?

Pilot:   -How should i say this , everybody sees things differently .The Mustang was good , a plane you shouldn't disregard , fast and maneuverable 

It had one big advantage compared to our planes (with the ta i din't have the occasion to fight the mustang , it's a shame because i can't compare the two )

it had very fast instantaneous turn rate , at the start of a dogfight it could turn and point it's nose almost on your 6 .Many german pilots just lost their nerves and 

crashed or were defeated .

But if the german pilot continued to turn and drag the mustang into a sustained turn you would then you would get the mustang in this way.

The more experienced pilots knew this well.

int :       -This with the 109 ?

Pilot:   - 109 and also with the 190 .The 190 had lighter controls while with the 109 you needed to have muscles because of the heavy controls . You would maneuver the 109 with 2 hand 

during heavy maneuvers.

One vs one the munstag was not a problem (talking here only in my personal experience), but there were almost always 10 times or 20 our numbers .

 

 

 

PS: I just posted this interview to show the german point of view.

Many people dismiss gemans as nazi or wehraboo and their opinion as irrelevant and end up with one-sided opinion .

I think i posted this many times but you have german pilot opions , allied pilot opinions and the truth is in the middle somewhere .If someone denies this i will not even 

bother to respond ;) .

I think this is accurate but in all honestly you are right.  american interviews more slant towards their airframe and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle .  No doubt both believe in their machines ...but at this point it would probably be fair to say they where matched well with strengths and disadvantages for both.  The reason I like ww2 aviation ( and maybe some of you agree) is because I feel its the probably the highest time in combat aviation history where pilot skill and experience ment so much, and wasn't on who had the best jet or missiles ....during the war each nation continued to attempt to one up each other ...probably no so more then the spit vs the 109 rivalry.  When new spit marks came out, good German pilots where still good and still getting kills and vice versa. Great post knight!

Edited by -332FG-Buddy
Spelling
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone is this forum is an actual expert, we all simply have opinions based on information that we gather. 

You have  certainly proved your point.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frequent_Flyer said:

You have  certainly proved your point.

I think it's simply hilarious that folks point a finger and make a comment in this manner because you disagree with how I characterized the Mustang. Referencing information that I've gleaned through research, plane versus plane the Mustang was not the greatest thing on earth in my opinion; don't like that? Just disagree and make a rebuttal; no need for snobby remarks. If I've sounded snobby, I've not meant to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...