![]() |
|
FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org ![]() |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
So were the Luftwaffe just mesmerized by the showmanship of the RAF allowing them to get shot down?
__________________
Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lol. I just see them freeze to ice and falling like stones to earth.
The Luftwaffe was basically outproduced, not necessarily outgunned. In fact, comparing fighter losses the numbers lost are pretty even to my knowledge. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Even if the fighter losses are comparable the RAF fighters had to shoot down huge numbers of bombers too, the LW only had to deal with fighters, so the RAF chaps had to do all that in the middle of their aerobatic routines.
__________________
Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
BTW the RAF destroyed just about 20% more aircraft than the LW with the advantage to fight over own territory. It is not to dismiss the capability of the RAF pilots who did an outstanding job nor the performance of the RAF planes. I personally think from the performance sides (planes and pilots) both sides were quite equal. Other aspects however came into the game: LW used better fighter tactics. RAF fought over own territory. LW set out to conquer air supremacy. RAF defended their home country. LW had - at least initially - the higher numbers. RAF had radar and a very clever defence system. LW had experience. RAF had better fighter production output. To my opinion having read a couple of books I think that this battle, which was overall a battle of attrition was won by the RAF by shooting down not more aircraft than the LW but by shooting down aircraft quicker than the LW could replace before the LW could achieve its objectives (also due to highly flawed German strategy). That's why Britain won. Last edited by 41Sqn_Stormcrow; 05-01-2012 at 07:38 PM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
ultimately I agree it came down to strategy but Britain was as much a prison as it was an island fortress, so the home advantage is slightly less significant, Britains production rate was subject to succesfully getting supplied from the US and were fighting a separate battle in the Atlantic for it.
And most of all I agree the sides were even in terms of performance of pilots and aircraft with each side having strenghts and weaknesses.
__________________
Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Was the BC campaign as huge as the Luftwaffe bomber campaign? Anyone have numbers for the bomber sorties?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Talking about the italian planes he said that they were well looking, with good aerobatic characteristics (italian pilots were famous for their flying skill)... he was smiling as he thought those things where useless in a war... When he talked about the 109 he changed his expression: "that was a real war machine..." he said. In the same interview another italian veteran who flew the 109 said that the Mustang was their dangerous enemy, since he could outturn them very easily (!!! ![]()
__________________
![]() A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think you missed my point Manu, especially that part where I used the term "Ceteris Paribus". You speak as if you always have advantage but in war you cannot guarantee that, just ask Al Deere.
I don't need flying advice, that's not what i'm talking about. @Von Bruhl Couldn't find your stats but mine are 37 missions, 16 kills, (0.43), shot down or hit and forced RTB twice. So, who are you online? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
But here we are talking of close escort (that 109s clearly can't do... neither any US fighter) that's the only environment in where I can think a more manouvrable plane has a real advantage. And Spitfire keeps that advantage if you switch the 109 with the 262, a flying brick with no aerobatic skill at all. The only advise I was giving to you is to rethink about the importance of the aerobatic ability in a fighter plane: by quotes and interviews those pilots seem agree with me. Glider: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/...hs/#stickforce
__________________
![]() A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 05-01-2012 at 11:17 PM. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|