Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-02-2013, 04:56 PM
pandacat pandacat is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 87
Default

Once again, sorry about beating this old dead horse. I believe some of what horseback said and argued are valid points. I just don't buy the arguement that P51 is inferior to 109 and 190, and this plane won the war by sheer numerical suporiority and better pilots. Let me point out several fallacy of this arguement. First of all, allies won the airwar over Germany. That's a fact. There shouldn't be any "well, maybe.", "yeah, but" crap for this right? Ok, there are several factors contributing this victory: number, pilot, plane and tactics.

1. Number. Yes on paper, western allies is numerically stronger. But it doesn't necessrily mean in every battle, P51 outnumbered opponents vastly. There were many instances where P51s were outnumbered by attacking 109 and 190s. Also, as you may be aware from your gaming experience, big battles quickly disintegrated into smaller group battles, team battles and individial battles. At this point, superior overal number means nothing. Moreover, air combat is nothing like ground wars where armies of millions clash with each other and numbers have important impact. In air, number helps but to a much less extend. Convincing? no? Let's go on to the next point.

2. Pilot quality. By the time, USAAF entered the conflict, LW had already been a seasoned veteran for many years. They battled French, British, Poles and Russians and prevailed most of times. By the time big bomber operations started in Western E, LW had produced numerous aces. Just counted how many pilots who had 50+ kills and were still active at that point of time. Compared to LW, USAAF was a much younger force. You may say, oh americans had more fuel and they can train their pilots more thoroughly. I don't deny that. American's pilot training may be superior. But one hr of training in a peaceful world or even in a simulated environment is nothing compared to one hr of actual heated combat. Pilot learn their skills and gain experience in actual combats. Even big aces who had adequate training before going into the combat still fumbled in the cockpit the firs time they flew into actual war. It was years of war that forged aces like Eric Hartmann, not hundreds of hours training school. You may also argue that toward the end of war, attrition burned way cream of LW pilot cadre. It is somewhat valid, but all the way until the end of war, LW is still formidable force to be rekoned with. The big turkey shoot in pacific has never happened in western theater. Even at the battle of bulge, LW still put up a tuff fite for western allies. It's a testiment of the quality of LW pilots.

3. Planes. Ok let's say for now P51 is shit compared to 109 and 190. Ok if 109 and 190 are so superior and their pilots are skilled, then why would P51 have much greater kill ratio? In ETO alone, the plane had 4950 kills vs 2500 losses (to all causes, enemy actions, operational mishaps etc). How come LW didn't pull the same performance on this plane as what they did when facing swarms of I-16s at the beginning of Russian campaign? If you have a numerical superior, but qualitatively inferior force (ie inferior equipment and less experienced personnel), you are bound to have higher loss ratio. But the fact doesn't reflect that. Look at russians. Russian beat LW in numbers especially later in the war, but they also suffered higher losses. Also, be mindful, most battles that P51 fought were fighter vs fighter fites. Not like battle of britain, there are no juicy fat bombers to chew on.

4. Tactics. German tactics were bad? Inferior? You tell me? By 1943, they had gone on war for 3+ years and they didn't know what they were doing?

Taken all together, let's look at the pic that IL2 painted for us in a real combat scenario. On the morning of a summer day in early 1944, a group of heavy B-17s escorted by p51s entered German aerospace. Suddenly they were attacked by a group of 109s. Jimmy, the number 4 of the p51 flight, was on his first combat mission. Suddently he found himself right behind a 109. Excited and eager to grab the kill, Jimmy quickly moved stick to bring the gun sight onto the target. "Oh, crap, why my nose is wobbling all over the place" "shit, I forgot trimming this sucker". "let's see. Trim Trim Trim. Nose down trim trim, still wobbling. Oh right, ball not centered, 5 degrees of rudder to the right." All the while Jimmy's left hand reached down to his trim controls, Hans, the pilot of 109 number 1, flew leisurely towards the bombers. Suddenly, his plane screamed at him, "bandit 6 oclock, break" Hans, lighting a ciggerate, "what can I do? The other guy had more hours of training school than me" "I am green" "We can do it," said 109, "I am a superior plane. We can outclimb, outrun and outturn this guy." "Ok, outclimb, how? Tell me. which nobs?" Hans snuffed his ciggerate, apparently excited. About the same time, Jimmy finally trimmed out his p51. Target deadly centered on his sight. "Fire", he pressed trigger. His 6x50 cal peashooters started spitting out a large number of beans. Immediately, he saw the effect of his shooting. Debris and paints flew off 109's wings and fueslage. But 109 just won't die and target getting smaller and smaller in Jimmy's sight. Suddenly, a red light shone on his instrument panel. "overheat?" "Why am I overheating?" "oh crap, prop pitch and rad". While, Jimmy fumbling with his overheating issue, Hans' 109 number 1 finally had enuf. "know what? This Hans dude sucks." "I am gonna get him bail out" "Getting shot at by shitty plane like p51 is an insult" It nosed over into a dive. "I am damaged and crashing. u better get out" said 109. Hans quickly released his belts and jumped out. Now the pilotless 109 gained a new lease of life. It pushed throttle into overdrive and engaged boost. Speed built up rapidly. A quick sharp turn 109 is behind Jimmy's plane. Jimmy tried to follow, but his p51 threatened to stall out of control. More power and engine complaint too hot. Now the p51 is dead center in 109's gun sight. "Gotcha" 109 bursted into a big smile. All guns fired away. 109's aim is true, there is no wobbling. Everything is stable. 2 hits, P51 bulching smoke from a dead engine and right wing broke off. "I told ya. Stang is shit." 109 bursted into a laughter. "Bang" something hit the 109. a couple of trcers flew by. 109 looked back, "shit, a group of at least a hundred more p51s. "Man, these people just won't quit. I am going home" 109 pitched nose over and accelerated away from the enemies. The leader of this new group of p51s is the cousin of Jimmy and also named Jimmy. Let's call this guy Jimmy 2. Jimmy 2 yelled in his radio,"Gentlemen, enemy turned tail. We won". Back at the base, general of the 8th airforce was smoking a cigar, "Tom u got the report yet?" "Yes sir. 10 kills and 49 losses." "What is the mater with you." general smacked down on young Tom's head."Have you graduated from you high school?" "It's 10kills and 4.9 losses." "How could we have 4.9 losses?" Tom rubbing his head. "Make it 5 then, u idiot." In his Berlin base, Hitler was reading a translated American newspaper. "What? 2-1 losses?" "Gorling you ruined my LW." "Mein fuhrer." Gorling grunted, "Please allow me to explain this complicated math." " They had more planes, more fuel, and better trained pilots...." "oh, enuf, we have better planes." "Yeah, but..." "enuf, enuf... I had enuf. U ruined my LW. Without LW, we are gonna lose." "I won't see myself under trial for war crimes." Hitler dropped the newspaper and pulled his lugger. "Bang" a shot thru his temper....
This is a story how shitty planes and vast numbers can win the war.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-02-2013, 07:29 PM
Woke Up Dead Woke Up Dead is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
Taken all together, let's look at the pic that IL2 painted for us in a real combat scenario...
Is this what happens when YOU fly the P-51? I get a better experience, and I'm probably just an above-average pilot in that plane.

The 109 is one of the easiest to fly and most stable to shoot with planes in the game, and the P-51 isn't. Once you get good with the P-51 though, you'll be able to out-fly and eventually shoot down any 109, even the G-2 and the K-4.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-02-2013, 09:09 PM
horseback horseback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead View Post
Is this what happens when YOU fly the P-51? I get a better experience, and I'm probably just an above-average pilot in that plane.

The 109 is one of the easiest to fly and most stable to shoot with planes in the game, and the P-51 isn't. Once you get good with the P-51 though, you'll be able to out-fly and eventually shoot down any 109, even the G-2 and the K-4.
And historically, the Mustang was one of the easiest to fly (and land, in direct contrast to the 109) and stable to shoot with of all WWII aircraft.

The in-game trim requirements are much too high in all late-war US fighters; in the case of the Mustang, you need to make rudder and elevation adjustments (not an adjustment) for every 10kph of speed variation, which is more than 6kph more often than the RL P-40 actually needed (and the P-40 was easily the biggest trim hog in the US inventory by every account). Obviously that is several times more often than the in-game versions of the P-40.

The only thing that is consistent about the 'ball' in the game's Mustangs is that if you are flying anything but straight and level at constant speed, it will be wrong; switching from cockpit view to Wonder Woman, the Turn & Bank indicator will usually be contradicted by the vector ball, and the error is not consistent the way most other aircraft instruments are depicted--always to one side or the other--it can go either way, and it seems more a matter of the luck of the draw than the direction you are moving or how abruptly you are changing direction.

People who have mastered the Mustang in-game have done so through long hours of practice, many, many more than most other aircraft require and inversely proportional to the learning curve of the real thing in the context of high performance single engine aircraft of that era. While I recognize that effort and skill, and absolutely agree that you should be proud of it, it should never have been necessary.

It certainly isn't realistic.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-03-2013, 12:44 AM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback View Post
And historically, the Mustang was one of the easiest to fly (and land, in direct contrast to the 109) and stable to shoot with of all WWII aircraft.

The in-game trim requirements are much too high in all late-war US fighters; in the case of the Mustang, you need to make rudder and elevation adjustments (not an adjustment) for every 10kph of speed variation, which is more than 6kph more often than the RL P-40 actually needed (and the P-40 was easily the biggest trim hog in the US inventory by every account). Obviously that is several times more often than the in-game versions of the P-40.

The only thing that is consistent about the 'ball' in the game's Mustangs is that if you are flying anything but straight and level at constant speed, it will be wrong; switching from cockpit view to Wonder Woman, the Turn & Bank indicator will usually be contradicted by the vector ball, and the error is not consistent the way most other aircraft instruments are depicted--always to one side or the other--it can go either way, and it seems more a matter of the luck of the draw than the direction you are moving or how abruptly you are changing direction.

People who have mastered the Mustang in-game have done so through long hours of practice, many, many more than most other aircraft require and inversely proportional to the learning curve of the real thing in the context of high performance single engine aircraft of that era. While I recognize that effort and skill, and absolutely agree that you should be proud of it, it should never have been necessary.

It certainly isn't realistic.

cheers

horseback
The new P-40 flight model requires plenty of trim now... more like the test reports although I'm not sure if by the numbers or not. Hopefully if the Mustang FM gets a once over we'll see that need to re-trim diminish and it'll be a more pilot friendly type than it is right now.

I will say that it is very easy to land in-game. One of the easiest in its year range for sure. I still have some difficulty fighting in it which is another matter.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-03-2013, 01:22 AM
horseback horseback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceFire View Post
The new P-40 flight model requires plenty of trim now... more like the test reports although I'm not sure if by the numbers or not. Hopefully if the Mustang FM gets a once over we'll see that need to re-trim diminish and it'll be a more pilot friendly type than it is right now.

I will say that it is very easy to land in-game. One of the easiest in its year range for sure. I still have some difficulty fighting in it which is another matter.
I've spent a few hours in the P-40 series since 4.12 came out and have noticed that it does need more trimming to get the most out of it (as well as addressing the performance of the M version vs the E).

However, as both stand, the Tomahawk/Warhawk series still require less constant adjustment of down elevator-down elevator-down elevator-down elevator-right rudder-right rudder-right rudder then up elevator-up elevator-left rudder, ahh, that's got it--!???!--bloody hell!--down elevator-down elevator- ad infinitum of the Mustang series.

Of course, the iconic Grumman F6F is even worse; God only knows what the Northrup Black Widow would have been treated like...

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-03-2013, 07:53 AM
MaxGunz MaxGunz is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 471
Default

Rudder trim is because propwash torque on the tail changes with speed, engine, and prop settings. Below a certain speed you need rudder to one side and above you need rudder to the other. They joked that Hartmann walked in circles because one leg was stronger from holding rudder at high speed.
The stabilizer is offset to make 0 rudder needed at cruise speed which helps reduce heaver low speed propwash torque, if you don't have rudder trim you get to move the pedals instead. If you do have trim then complain about that. Step on the ball instead.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-03-2013, 10:51 AM
majorfailure majorfailure is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
1. Number. Yes on paper, western allies is numerically stronger. But it doesn't necessrily mean in every battle, P51 outnumbered opponents vastly. There were many instances where P51s were outnumbered by attacking 109 and 190s. Also, as you may be aware from your gaming experience, big battles quickly disintegrated into smaller group battles, team battles and individial battles. At this point, superior overal number means nothing. Moreover, air combat is nothing like ground wars where armies of millions clash with each other and numbers have important impact. In air, number helps but to a much less extend. Convincing? no? Let's go on to the next point.
I disagree. Numerical superiority helps even in smaller battles. Even an 10:9 superiority means 1 pilot out of ten can engage the enemy at will. And if the LW managed to get 300 planes in the air to engage the bombers and say 100 P-51, then it looks like a huge numerical superiority for the LW, but may in fact have been 100 P-51 against 30 LW planes and this ten times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
2. Pilot quality. By the time, USAAF entered the conflict, LW had already been a seasoned veteran for many years. They battled French, British, Poles and Russians and prevailed most of times. By the time big bomber operations started in Western E, LW had produced numerous aces. Just counted how many pilots who had 50+ kills and were still active at that point of time. Compared to LW, USAAF was a much younger force. You may say, oh americans had more fuel and they can train their pilots more thoroughly. I don't deny that. American's pilot training may be superior. But one hr of training in a peaceful world or even in a simulated environment is nothing compared to one hr of actual heated combat. Pilot learn their skills and gain experience in actual combats. Even big aces who had adequate training before going into the combat still fumbled in the cockpit the firs time they flew into actual war. It was years of war that forged aces like Eric Hartmann, not hundreds of hours training school. You may also argue that toward the end of war, attrition burned way cream of LW pilot cadre. It is somewhat valid, but all the way until the end of war, LW is still formidable force to be rekoned with. The big turkey shoot in pacific has never happened in western theater. Even at the battle of bulge, LW still put up a tuff fite for western allies. It's a testiment of the quality of LW pilots.
The Luftwaffe of early 43 was good. But the decline in quality and quantity of pilots and material was rapid and by mid 44 the LW was only a shadow of its past glory. By end of 43, when P-51s came into the theater the RAF and P-47s had made quite some dents into LW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
3. Planes. Ok let's say for now P51 is shit compared to 109 and 190. Ok if 109 and 190 are so superior and their pilots are skilled, then why would P51 have much greater kill ratio? In ETO alone, the plane had 4950 kills vs 2500 losses (to all causes, enemy actions, operational mishaps etc). How come LW didn't pull the same performance on this plane as what they did when facing swarms of I-16s at the beginning of Russian campaign? If you have a numerical superior, but qualitatively inferior force (ie inferior equipment and less experienced personnel), you are bound to have higher loss ratio. But the fact doesn't reflect that. Look at russians. Russian beat LW in numbers especially later in the war, but they also suffered higher losses. Also, be mindful, most battles that P51 fought were fighter vs fighter fites. Not like battle of britain, there are no juicy fat bombers to chew on.
If the LW had had plenty of good high-alt planes to counter the P-51 (109G-10, K-4) the Pony could have faired worse, but some of the enemy planes were Bf110 and derivatives and Fw190As, that at bomber altitude did not have good performance
Quote:
Originally Posted by pandacat View Post
4. Tactics. German tactics were bad? Inferior? You tell me? By 1943, they had gone on war for 3+ years and they didn't know what they were doing?
The LWs tactics were not optimised to keep the fighter losses//Mustang kill ratio low. They tried to shoot down as many bombers as they could, and most of the time did so by throwing fighters in small portions at the bomber stream. And their intended target were the bombers.

And besides that - if the enemy manages to carry the fight to your homeland, than you are at a severe tactical disadvantage -you can not act, you react.

The Pony in Il-2 is fine (maybe except for the trim requirements). It is FAST. In a shallow climb or dive you outrun almost anything. And it keeps its speed if you don't hamfist it. At speeds where a P-40 would start losing parts it is stable like a brick. It climbs reasonably well and accelerates okay.
It has endurance a Bf-109 will never achive. It can carry a useful load of ordinance, or even more fuel. Now if I only could hit anything while flying it...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-03-2013, 07:21 PM
horseback horseback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
I disagree. Numerical superiority helps even in smaller battles. Even an 10:9 superiority means 1 pilot out of ten can engage the enemy at will. And if the LW managed to get 300 planes in the air to engage the bombers and say 100 P-51, then it looks like a huge numerical superiority for the LW, but may in fact have been 100 P-51 against 30 LW planes and this ten times.
Your 100 Mustangs engaging 10 consecutive 30 plane attacks would lead to a certain amount of wastage; aircraft would be lost, some would expend too much fuel or ammo and have to RTB, and some would get separated from the main body and not be able to rejoin. By the time the 10th group of 30 LW fighters arrived, they would be facing a seriously depleted escort, even had the Mustangs managed to destroy or disperse the previous 270 fighters.

The LW had radar plots & aircraft shadowing the bombers from the North sea onwards as they headed to their targets; they systematically kept track of each bomber formation’s altitude, course and speed, where the escorts were most heavily concentrated and tried to calculate how soon they were likely to depart or be replaced for the next ‘leg’ by another group of escorts. LW interceptors were kept well-informed of all of this as they waited for takeoff orders and as they climbed to position for their attacks.

The whole point of these practices was to ensure numerical superiority at the point of attack, and as a practical matter, they were often successful. But even if they were successful, an aggressive escort positioned in the right place could break up an attack and inflict disproportionate casualties. The sky is a big place and you cannot keep track of everything. There is the glare of the sun, contrails, clouds and sheer distance to contend with. The 8th Fighter Command had some very good minds who worked very hard at coming up with new ways to vary courses and schedules to throw the Germans off the scent, but most of the time, it mainly came down to the escort being in position for the bounce and being better than the opposition.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-03-2013, 07:32 PM
horseback horseback is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
The Luftwaffe of early 43 was good. But the decline in quality and quantity of pilots and material was rapid and by mid 44 the LW was only a shadow of its past glory. By end of 43, when P-51s came into the theater the RAF and P-47s had made quite some dents into LW.
I love this recurring meme; the poor jagdewaffe in the West being run ragged by huge numbers of Spitfires and P-47s nibbling at the fringes of European airspace and fighting desperately to stem the tide of thousands of B-17s and B-24s that were striking at Germany itself and implying that this was the case immediately after the United States entered the war.

I’m not familiar with the numbers of Spits on the Channel, but the best figures I can get for their reach is about 90 miles (145 km) past the French coast, and that was only in certain areas where France and England were fairly close. In terms of attrition, they were a minor concern to the LW; they could largely be avoided or ignored. A P-47C/D with a single belly tank (the twin wing pylons of the late D models didn’t become available until late spring of 1944) could have an effective combat range out to the edges of German airspace, and it took the USAAF about six months to develop that capability after the P-47 was introduced to operations (March, 1943).

The P-47 was introduced early spring of 1943 and it was still a developmental aircraft in many ways; mechanical and radio aborts were fairly common well into the fall of that year, and it was quickly established that the Thunderbolt was not competitive at altitudes below 20,000 ft. Additionally, of the three 8th AF fighter groups, only the 56th FG had had any previous time in the type; the more combat seasoned 4th FG had previously flown Spitfires under British control and the 78th was stripped of its P-38s and most of its pilots to supply the Torch/N. African campaign—it was mainly a shell of senior officers and newly trained pilots dropped into modern fighters right out of the gate. The 4th lost a good number of experienced pilots and leaders who were sent to other AAF units to provide combat experience and leadership (and dilute the RAF mindset they had). Basically, two of the three fighter groups in England started operations in the P-47 already resentful and shorthanded.

For most of the summer and early fall of 1943, these three groups of roughly 45 aircraft each could field a maximum effort of maybe 110-120 fighters to escort (in shifts) a fairly limited number of B-17s over (mainly) France, and they were getting their asses kicked. The Germans were destroying aircraft and killing or capturing trained aircrew about as quickly as we could build or train them & get them across the Atlantic most of that year. In the case of bombers and crews they were taking them out even faster than (less experienced) new ones could be brought in for most of 1943.

In fact, there was a great deal of discussion of at least suspending the daylight bombing effort entirely by mid-October of that year, in order to finally gather up a big enough force to overwhelm the German defenses (although without effective fighter escorts past the German border, it might have simply led to even greater losses to no benefit). During that fall and early winter of 1943, about five or six new fighter groups joined the 8th AF, but their participation in combat operations were limited by the ‘breaking in period’ required partly because production of USAAF first-line fighters had not reached the point where they could be used for advanced training, which meant that the first time the newly trained pilots actually got meaningful time in the fighter model they would be fighting in was after they had arrived in England and partly because they still had to be trained and briefed on the latest tactics and radio procedures in the theater.

That breaking in period was extended by truly atrocious weather that fall, which slowed their progress and led to several fatalities in training while the original three groups not only continued their combat operations, but ‘loaned’ key personnel to the new groups to train and evaluate them.
8th AF combat operations during the period from mid-October ’43 until mid-February of ’44 were spotty and erratic due to the weather and the ongoing debate about which direction the bombing campaign would take; Escort To Berlin, the combat diary of the 4th FG, shows just over 40 missions for the group (often squadron sized or less) during that 123 day period, making contact less than half the time, and barely breaking even in terms of victories and combat losses (add in operational casualties, and they were losing, and badly). Only the 56th FG was enjoying a measure of success at that time; the 78th and the 4th were probably still sulking over being stuck with the P-47 and all the key personnel they’d had stolen from them to stock other groups in England, Italy and the Pacific.

Meanwhile, the poor LW was busily patting itself on the back and painting victory bars and pictures of Iron Crosses on their tail fins, ignoring the fact that the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost by the U-boats and that now the steadily increasing production of the US factories and training bases could be brought to England without losing a meaningful percentage first. They thought that they had already won the Battle of Germany, and their leadership simply didn’t believe that reports of the P-51 equipped with a Merlin 60 series engine could a) have the range to escort the bombers over Germany or b) be effective even if it did. Morale at Christmas of 1943 was very good, and confidence was high. Most fighter pilots were more concerned about what Goerring might do to them than what the Americans would do.

Certainly there had been some attrition, but they were winning and doing so easily. There had been sightings of P-38s, but these were poorly flown by half-frozen, half-trained pilots in limited numbers, and the Lightning was never well thought of by the pilots of the Luftwaffe unless they were shot down or nearly got shot down by one (and some not even then, like Galland). It had good range, but it was a twin, and it was an article of faith that twins couldn’t compete with single engine fighters. The P-47 was sometimes dangerous up high, but it was short legged and useless below 6500m, where any extended fight was likely to end.

A German fighter pilot stationed in the West at the end of 1943 was well trained, well rested and confidant; he had more combat experience, proven leaders in every unit, excellent aircraft, reliable weapons, good tactical doctrine, and an extensive early warning and ground control system. He probably would have thought himself in a better position than the Tommies were over southern England in the summer of 1940. There were lots of Tommies and Americans, it was true, but they could be avoided most of the time and once the bombers got past the French border, they were alone and practically sitting ducks. More victory bars and fancier medals for the tail fin display were on the horizon, and once they finally learned that the Fatherland was not to be trifled with, they would come to terms with Germany and maybe even join in on the destruction of the Soviet Union.

That's both sides of the story; 1943 was a very good year to be a German fighter pilot, and most of them thought that there was no end in sight for their continued dominance over their own airspace. At the start of 1944, the Germans were convinced that they had everything well in hand in the West. They certainly made no efforts to increase training schedules or the number of fighter units in the West until the situation became a crises.

cheers

horseback
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-03-2013, 08:06 PM
JtD JtD is offline
Il-2 enthusiast & Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horseback View Post
Certainly there had been some attrition, but they were winning and doing so easily.
Since 1939, until the end of 1943, the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe had suffered about 800% losses, meaning every unit was completely wiped out and replaced 8 times. About 3 times in 1943 alone. Pilot losses were nearly half of that.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.