Oh man.....quality counts......hm how far do you get with the best fighters and the best pilots in the world with no fuel? That is what put the Luftwaffe pretty well and the Wehrmacht out of action no fuel. Not masses of killed people. But I am certain you will come up with some arguement saying that is so not right. As to your chute shooting squadron, just try it...I know for sure you would be then banned from the WoP servers real fast, and most squadrons that have been around for some time, have a lot of contempt for chute shooters, if you enjoy flying in a squadron no one wants to fly against, have fun, I am certain you will have lots of matches......

I absolutely agree with winny carrying on here is pointless, as a door has more understanding.

Really? Stalingrad counted not? Did they run out of fuel in North Africa too? Interesting :lol: Now tell me, why they run out of fuel?

And by the way, you ran out of arguments faster than Wehrmach ran out of fuel :lol: according to your ad hominem :lol:

About Chute Shooters Club I have said it is just stupid since this game should be fun for all people. Good anyway you told Chute Shooters would be banned, was interesting.

Thats the way to win an argue, simply proclaim yourself a winner and insult everyone disagreeing the best you can. Unique.


Anyone who knows anything from this subject should know that there was no one issue for the Luftwaffe that prevented it from effectively intercepting USAAF heavies and later claiming aerial superiority even over its own soil.

Industrial capacity. By late 43, U.S. built just B-24s at a rate of 1 per hour, 24 a day. All in all, 200-ish combat aircraft every single day, of which about 1/5th to 1/4th were directed to the Pacific. Add to this all Soviet, British, Canadian etc. production. Germany could manufacture a mere fraction of the hardware that could be used against it.

Technology. While the Germans certainly had "better" equipment early on, the Allies, especially Western ones, were quickly gaining on them. Combined to industrial might, it kind of doesnt matter if you happen to fly a 20kmph faster fighter, if the opposing air force has the numbers to park 50 il-2s 5 times a day over your airfield with hundreds of aircraft escorting, and with your 109 blown to pieces, there is nothing you can do about the same 50 il2s bombing and strafing up your already hugely outnumbered troops. Or how the Allies landed in Normandy, and during the whole day, Luftwaffe managed to fly 2 sorties over the beaches. Allies flew 21,000 and continued their bombing campaign over Low countries and Germany.

Leadership. The unbelievable mistakes done by the very high HQ were the ones that that left Luftwaffe in the well known situation in the first place. Inability to use possessed resources to their full extent, waging war on 3 fronts simultaneously, thinking that arranging fancy parades in Berlin starring pale skinned blue eyed and yellow haired aryan "supersoldiers" is more important than winning the war. Actually decreasing the fighter production in the middle of the Battle of Britain... anyone?

In the end of the war, Luftwaffe was outnumbered 20:1 or worse, the enemy had the range for the Luftwaffe to have no place to hide, its aircraft were no longer better than its opponents, its pilots' average skill had gone down because German HQ never bothered to set up a proper pilot training in time, and when it tried it was too late, and had they had the time to fully train their pilots, they would not have had the fuel to do so.

By the way, there are a lot of objectionally written books on this topic. I recommend at least moilami to read a couple of them...

Maybe we should make a poll of it, "what won the war"?

a) P51
b) americans in normandy
c) germans were cowards

:grin:

Rofl I vote P51! :lol: That I call art in making a poll where all selections are equally hilarious. Though if I would have to select one of those for real I might select b.

I have read Turning Point Stalingrad or something like that. Some time ago I checked the local library for WW2 aviation books but there was nothing much worth to read. I however borrowed the book Kadonneen Brewsterin Metsästys,* which was interesting reading, and left me with mixed feelings. Thanks for the author anyway, appreciated. I would gladly offer her a cup of coffee anytime with a chat no matter what other people say. By the way USA people, gief our Brewster back or restore it a new!

Will read more books when I find something.



* English translation by me "The hunt for the lost Brewster" (edit).

The international Banking Mafia won the war and enslaved the ethnic sovereign States of Europe.

Who should we thank for that? eh? :P

Alot of interesting ideas and belives in this post, but war is a something that cant be understood, and cant be regulatet...Each culture have there way of thinking war, they have there own rules of war. These rules are set by culture, not by moral and ethics.

On top of that you throw in the information you give to the soldiers, so you can manipulate them to do what you want.

All armys have there own culture, that is made from there countrys history, and any leader will use this to "direct" there troops in war.

It sounds awsome mentioning moral and ethics when there is talk about war, but moral and ethics are not native to war. We are trying to make war look pretty and that is just imposible, why? well you thow in the human factor and added to the chaos of war you will end up with less and less control (many commanders doing all time have looked the other way when some soldier did something wrong) why to keep control...

Any war is a dynamic creature, there is so many factors involved that its easyer to wright two words "ethic/moral" than sit down and break war up to the layers it realy is...

One thing is for sure

You cant regulate a dynamic situation like war with a static rule set to be used in the war. Way way to many factors involved.

If you fight a war for right or wrong, you end up loosing. If you fight a war for win/loose you got a better chanse of winning....

Static rules for war will only prolong it. War should be fought as that, a war. Not using static rules, but using ROE`s specific for the war.

Conventions sounds good, we throw on a human face to somthing that simply cant ever be "pretty"

If you go to war, accept that and accept that war is bloody darn ugly and no matter how much makeup you put on it, it stil looks ugly so why use the bloody makup in the first place...

for the record
**I have been in 3 conflict zones, seen both civilian and conventional warfare that is how i learned about war**

LTbear

There most certainly are, but you're more likely to learn something from the the objectively-written ones :-P