Nazi aircraft

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
The USSR wern't doing to bad in the Air either... Il-2, anyone? At the time it wwas introdcued, BF-109's counldn't penetrate it's armour. The MiG-3 was bad, ok, excpet the U version. But the Polikarpov's rocked most hard.

Nice aircraft certainly but no Russian fighters, except the Yak-9, were comparable to their contemporary Luftwaffe opponents. The Il-2 was just a flying tank. Its main ability was sustaining damage. I find this a backwards approach since prevention is better than cure. Fw-190's with their 4 cannon made mince meat of the Shturmovik.

The Russians made some nice designs and kept improving but they were really inferior to the contemporary opposition.

James Blonde I should remind you that maximum stats for aircraft is a messing thing when you are trying to compare performance. Sure one aircraft might have a faster maximum speed but you are missing one factor, called the OTAS (operational time at speed) you see the P-51D or other variants were intended to fly very fast for very long durations of time without have serious engine failure. They not only had an advanced cooling system but the airframe was designed specifically for long duration flight at high speed.

So sure some other aircraft could reach a higher speed, but after being in a dogfight or after being in flight for say 30 minutes if they wanted to have a chance to return to base they need to use a moderate amount of throttle. But the mustang on the other hand could run tail at full speed and not have to worry about reliability. Plus it could run close to full throttle to engage a flight of bombbers etc. You will notice that most air engagement wings of P-51 left with drop tanks to allow them a greater range and speed to the engagement area.

The LaGG 3 wasn't bad! The Polikarpov's were good, especially the I-16, which they rigged to chop the wings off other planes. Hehe.

Backwards approach yes, but that does win wars. Improvisation is good. British carriers in the Falklands? And WW2 improvisation was very important. Without it, lets just say we would'nt be having this free debate!

The Russian planes were good, but not as good, except a few. The La-7 was a beast, especially the one with the cannons. B20 was it?

The Il-2 was a darn good multirole plane. It was one of the new age of multirole planes comin about. It could fly intercept, ground attack, or ship strike missions, all well. It became highly feared. Armour was a good thing on planes back then, with guns being the main weapon of choice. Something the early MiG-3's lacked... And the MiG-3 U was a good plane, if a case of being to late again.

Best plane of the war though, has to be the Me-262.

Silliest plane? Take your pick... there's plenty!

Originally posted by robertfenix
OTAS (operational time at speed) you see the P-51D or other variants were intended to fly very fast for very long durations of time without have serious engine failure. They not only had an advanced cooling system but the airframe was designed specifically for long duration flight at high speed.

OTAS does not relate heavily to dogfighting rather to the purpose for which aircraft were built. The Mustang was a long range escort fighter hence a higher OTAS is neccesary. The fragile cooling system of the Rolls Royce/Packard Merlin renders this largely irrelevant in the case of battle damage or malfunction making this a weakness of all fighters with liquid cooled engines. Aircraft such as the Spitfire, Tempest, ME109 ('F' onwards) and FW-190 were interceptors designed to work close to their bases thus the need for prolonged OTAS was minimal. Which brings me to my next point.

So sure some other aircraft could reach a higher speed, but after being in a dogfight or after being in flight for say 30 minutes if they wanted to have a chance to return to base they need to use a moderate amount of throttle. But the mustang on the other hand could run tail at full speed and not have to worry about reliability. Plus it could run close to full throttle to engage a flight of bombbers etc. You will notice that most air engagement wings of P-51 left with drop tanks to allow them a greater range and speed to the engagement area.

The key to successful dogfighting is energy management. A major contributor to good energy management is not only engine performance but engine management. (working the throttle)
Dogfighting does not involve roaring around at full throttle all the time, that would be a sure way to get yourself killed, it involves much manipulation of throttle settings as well as violent manouvering. Given the role and range of the interceptors mentioned previously their OTAS was more than sufficient to see them home safely even if they needed to fly at high throttle settings for most of the way.
The OTAS argument is again irrelevant due to the fact that aircraft are maintained and replaced. No sound factory fresh fighter of any side would exceed its OTAS capabilities in the course of one battle unless it was very badly flown. In which case it would be a wonder if it would survive long enough to test the point.

I thought this was just a discussion on hether or not the Mustang was the fastest WW2 piston engined fighter anyway.

Originally posted by Blackout
I assume you've never heard of Field Marshal Erich von Manstein then.

- Don't be silly.

Manstein had trapped the Red Army and was ready to crush them.

- You can cite all the tactical successes and possibilities you like, the fact is the Russians could (and did) practically afford to lose everything and begin again and go on to win.

Manpower isn't everything in warfare.

- Whilst there is truth in this it did matter for Germany as she had neither the forces to begin with nor the reserves to sustain the campaign and replace their enormous losses.

Manstein was indeed a terror for the Red Army. Zhukov, in his journal, praised Manstein for his leadership and intelligent strategy.

- I don't deny it but Manstein was no match for 30 000+ T34's nor 30 000 IL2's (and the rest).

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- Whilst there is truth in this it did matter for Germany as she had neither the forces to begin with nor the reserves to sustain the campaign and replace their enormous losses.
(and the rest).

Nevertheless if Germany wasn't engaged in a foolish two front conflict and was able to bring her full might to bear in her initial attack on the Russians then Moscow may have fallen. Do you think that Stalin could have endured this setback. Doubtess he wouldn't have believed they were in the city unless Hitler himself burst through the door with an MP40.

Originally posted by Renegade_Storm07
Has anyone heard about the Daimler Chrysler C? some massive Nazi concept plane, im looking for information / picts, but ive found are cars.

Nope-
To my knowledge, the only flying Benz is the E-Class CPII, being built exclusively for the New York Bridge and Tunnel Authority. It's powered by the Thule Tachyonator 70, almost the same model as used for the Hauneburg III / Vril V Series in 1942.
Pictures courtesy of Mercedes-Benz Neu-Schwabenland, Antarctica.

P-51D wasnt too fast, but P-51H was really fastest with 487 mph maximum.
www.aeromuseum.org...&Missiles/p51.html
Unfortunately, it was introduced to combat units just before end of war and never seen combat.

Have you seen my thread on the fastest piston fighters of WW2?

In there we featured several fighters of a similar performance level to the P-51H. The DH Hornet, Supermarine Spiteful, Do 335 and many others were examined here

- Whilst there is truth in this it did matter for Germany as she had neither the forces to begin with nor the reserves to sustain the campaign and replace their enormous losses.

But she did have the strategical expertise to win; the only obstacle was the idiotic and power-hungry fuhrer.

You can cite all the tactical successes and possibilities you like, the fact is the Russians could (and did) practically afford to lose everything and begin again and go on to win.

It wasn't Russia's ability, it was Hitler's stupidity. It was Hitler that mistimed Operation Barbarossa. Why do you think Russia was being completely crushed at the beginning of the operation? Why did you think the Red Army was running faster than a kid being chased by Michael Jackson? The truth is, the Red Army could not even begin to compare to the Wermacht when it came to technology or tactics. Their only advantage was manpower; which was rendered useless by Manstein had it not been for Hitler.

I don't deny it but Manstein was no match for 30 000+ T34's nor 30 000 IL2's (and the rest).

Ah, but he was my friend. I'm going to repeat that it was Hitler's doing that allowed the Red Army to advance. Manstein punished the Red Army every single time he had a chance. The sun was probably shining in the tundras of Russia for the Red Army when Hitler fired Manstein .

In 1942, at Germany's height and at the time Russia was crumbling, the typical mentality was that the Nazi war machine was invincible. If you examined WW2 really closely, you will notice that Hitler gradually took more and more control - especially after his failure in Russia due to HIS mistiming. Germany once controlled all of Europe, and within a short time they were retreating on all fronts. What do you think that's a result of? The generals receiving braindamage? The technology becoming inferior overnight? No, it was actually the fuhrer's braindamage overnight...

Originally posted by Adam_S
P-51D wasnt too fast, but P-51H was really fastest with 487 mph maximum.
www.aeromuseum.org...&Missiles/p51.html
Unfortunately, it was introduced to combat units just before end of war and never seen combat.

And Me 163B reached 600+ MPH...

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
And The T-34 was the best tank of the Era.

50 T-34's probably couldn't take on one King Tiger. Neither could your Stalin (such as IS-2) heavy tanks. Once again, I quote:

"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Blackout]

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by Adam_S
P-51D wasnt too fast, but P-51H was really fastest with 487 mph maximum.
www.aeromuseum.org...&Missiles/p51.html
Unfortunately, it was introduced to combat units just before end of war and never seen combat.

And Me 163B reached 600+ MPH...

I believe the discussion was about piston fighters, and in any case the Me163 was more lethal to its own pilots than it was to the allies.

Originally posted by samtalkington
man they sure weren't good. we killed them in ww2. usa

3 things lost the war for Germany;

1. No long range heavy bombers.
2. Invasion of Russia.
3. Lack of fuel.

Yes the Germans were way ahead in aircraft design.
The first ballistic misile, the V2.
First true jet aircraft the Heinkel He 178
First vertical takeoff jet
They even designed Saucer shaped jets, the V-7 project.

www.naziufos.com...

Some of you guys are just strange about Germany in WW2.

The plain fact is Germany had from 1941 - 1944 where she could turn the bulk of her attentions to Russia alone............ and she lost, so utterly and comprehensively.

The reason why is obvious when one considers her ability to produce. Those nicely made, very capable Tigers and Panthers were produced in such (comparatively) tiny numbers.

Approx - 1350 Tiger 1's
- 480 Tiger 2's
- 5000 Panthers

Compared to 19 000 T34 and approx the same number of T34/85's plus all the IS 1 & 2's, plus all the Su 85's, plus all the Su100's, plus all the Su122's.
Nevermind all their lesser models (things like the KV1, BT7, Su 76's, T40's, T60's or T70's) etc etc.

10 to 1 'kill rates', or even greater, by a fairly small number of expert tankers - whilst impressive - were never going to be anywhere near enough.....

....just like the record of the German air 'aces' on the eastern front was as impressive as it was utterly inconsequential and a mere interesting footnote to the conflict.

Hitler's Germany was like the infantile gambler that thinks they can get up and leave the table after a few quick wins, thankfully there were sufficient others with the resources (far beyond hers) to see things throught to certain victory.



[edit on 26-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by ANOK
They even designed Saucer shaped jets, the V-7 project.

www.naziufos.com...

So site owner Maurizio Verga " has been a guest lecturer for several Congresses and Seminars in Italy, as well as lectured in many countries, and given countless interviews to newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations ".

Really? With statements like "No really hard historical evidence about the undisputable existence of such advanced technology has been presented so far." ??

I was wondering if anyone on here bought/read/likes books like these:

Sminkey, as far as industrial capacity is concerned, the tiny country of Germany had the largest mechanized force and most powerful airforce in 1939. It doesn't matter how many thousands of T34's were/could have been produced because the simple fact was that they were no match at all for the small number of Panthers and Tigers that you've listed. The Panther and Tigers I/II had such thick armor (and sloping armor too, might I add) that, while the T34 was better than their Sherman counterpart, was still no match for the German heavy tanks which German factories began favoring during the latter half of the war.

And forget the 10-1 kill ratio. Konigstiger alone was capable of a 40-0 kill ratio on average (refer to the quote that I've posted twice now if you can't believe this). There was never any documented evidence of Konigstiger being destroyed on the battlefield by enemy fire. Not even the Red Army's most dependable heavy tank, the IS-2, could have matched King Tiger. 10 IS-2's could have smashed King Tiger with tank shells simultaneously only to annoy the driver from the resulting dust and smoke - not the damage.

The greatest advantage Germany had - which I've been stressing for quite a while now - is the tactical/strategical advantages. No Allied commander is noted in the military hall of fame for their tactical genius - especially as opposed to the Nazi commanders. One must realize that it was due to strategy alone that Germany conquered nearly all of Europe. France, in many respects, had superior technology to Germany. And let's not forget the Maginot Line. With such bristling and powerful defenses, how do you suppose France fell - and rapidly?

Furthermore, it should be noted that Germany advanced much faster than they retreated even in the face of being outnumbered 20-1. So whoever stated that the Reich had their forces spread thin (especially on the Eastern Front), I challenge you to think again. For if such were the case, the war would have ended much sooner. Someone also mentioned that the Wermacht was starving and freezing to death in Russia due to inadequate supplies. Keep in mind that the bulk of the supplies were being shipped to the Eastern Front.

Rommel, in the brutal deserts of Africa, suffered from even less attention as far as supplies were concerned but still punished the Brits there thorougly. Not only did Rommel lack supplies, he lacked just about everything. He had an insufficient amount of troops. When Hitler promoted him to Field Marshal, he stated that he would have much rather preferred another division. The Desert Fox didn't get his nickname from nowhere. The Brits were fighting in the deserts for what seemed and endless time against Rommel's fake tanks. The majority of Rommel's tanks were literally cars with a tank chassis stacked on top to create the illusion that Rommel had under his disposal many powerful and flexible Panzer divisions. The fake tanks merely acted as bait that British tanks chased until they were blown apart by flak cannons hidden in the desert sand.

With such tactical genius and technological superiority, I find it difficult to not win a war. Therefore, I'm convinced that my position still holds true: Hitler was the paramount reason for Wermacht failure and the dissolving of the Third Reich. Germany had everything it needed to conquer Europe, Russia, and perhaps even the world save favorable leadership at the very top of their heirarchy. I won't deny that Hitler was a political genius, but for politicians to meddle in military affairs is a formula for disaster - tantamount to George W. Bush managing the strategical to divisional aspects of the wars we die in.

The Russian mantra was, and always has been:

Make it as good as you can, then build a billion of them.

It was the British who used fake tanks to fool the Germans and defeat them in Africa, there was a special unit created specifically for the deception task and for a time they even had Douglas Fairbanks Jnr (Hollywood star) attached to them. This was one of Britains great wartime efforts and is often overlooked.

Thank you Waynos, you beat me to it.

Although reading the lengthy glowing appreciation of all things WW2 German one wonders how this can be so.....

......indeed how did those super-geniuses get misled by the leaden slow silly old Brits not to mention ending up losing so totally and utterly ( )!