#1 piston fighter?

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:04:27 GMT,
(Drazen Kramaric) wrote:



The potential enemies were well-known, and the war was launched on a
German timetable, as Adolf certainly wasn't responding to external
agression. Meanwhile the British, Americans and Soviets had war
imposed on them, including the attrition endured in several major
defeats (especially in the Russian case) yet still managed to beat the
people who set the agenda. While I'm sure the individual Luftwaffe
pilots, groundstaff and aircrew did everything that could reasonably
expected, the higher direction and staff work of the Luftwaffe was
observably inferior to that achieved by their enemies. I agree with
Mr Dillard amout this issue, I'm afraid. They controlled the
development of hostilities in every case, and they lost in the end.


Something graphically demonstrated during the Hague
conference of Sept 3 1940 where Goering , Kesselring etc
basically declared victory over the RAF annoincing that they
weredown to their last 100 fighters and all that was needed to
finish the job was a series of raids on London to flush out the
last reserves.

Quote
My fellow commanders, we are now on the brink of victory. An assault and an
invasion of England is now more promising than ever before. Our intelligence
has now informed us that the RAF is now down to less than a hundred fighter
aircraft, the airfields protecting London are out of action because of the
superb and accurate bombing of our bomber forces, their communications are
in disarray, and now we are told, their air commanders are arguing with each
other.
/Quote

Only Sperle who had actually spoken to the aircrews engaged in combat
and knew of the true losses of the Luftwaffe demurred .

Keith

Drax, we have a small problem in communication. See below.
"Drazen Kramaric" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:53:22 -0400, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:


The German system allowed Hartmann, Marseilles, Roedel and company to run
up
some admirable individual scores (and more power to them). However, the
efforts of none of these experten was of much use to the Reich.

Now you only have to prove these "experts" were somehow responsible
for Reich's ultimate failure.

NO, I do not. That was not my intention or the point I am making. I do not
contend that the "experts" were responsible for the Reich's ultimate
military failure. Instead, I contend that in despite of the undeniable
accomplishments of the very succesful airmen, their efforts went to
waste--not because their prowess was somehow nugatory, but because the
SYSTEM which allowed their success failed to allow their successes to have a
real impact on the course of operations.

The major question, to my mind, when assessing fighter aircraft and
"Aces"
is: what contribution did their collective (as opposed to individual)
successes or failures make toward the achievment of their nation's war
aims?

I'd say you fail to asses how much Germany's war aims were realistic
or feasible before proclaiming German "aces" as noworthy.

Not at all. I hoped that that very assessment was implicit in my discussion.
If I gave any other impression, I apologize to the ng and to you.

When it came to crunch time, the Allies (albeit at times barely) almost
always seemed to marshall their fighter forces in such a way as to
achieve
their goals, despite not having a Barkhorn or Sakai amongst them, while
frustrating the Axis' aims at practically every turn.

Probably because Allies had a whole lot more of them. Something that
German aces can hardly be blamed for.

I assign no blame to the German aces for the failure of the Reich's military
endeavors. I am concerned in that DESPITE having such exemplars, no real
advantage ever obtained to the Reich as a consequence. As I wrote
immediately below:
Something basic was faulty about the manner in which the Axis fielded
their
forces:

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the individual pilot's combat
performance.

Precisely. Somehow, the Reich failed to lucratively exploit the successes of
those extraordinary performers.

I guess, an NBA players like Malone or Barkley who never
won the NBA championship were worse than some obscure guys who
happened to share the lockroom with Jordan.

Not at all, of course; BUT if Malone or Barkley is not supported by or
properly exploited by his organization, neither he nor his organization will
obtain the Glittering Prizes. That's what seemed to have happened with the
German superstars.


1) The Germans could not gain air superiority over Great Britain, despite
investing considerable resources, including the most modern of fighters.
Hence, no invasion, despite ballyhooed aces.

These same aces handled RAF pretty roughly over France. In order for
Sea Lion to succeed, Luftwaffe needed much more than well trained
fighter pilots. The problem with your argument is that you already
know why Luftwaffe could not create preconditions for successful Sea
Lion and you also know German aces could not win that battle.

Uh, uh. But I am left at a loss to understand how, given the availability of
such superstars, success was not achieved. I am leaning toward assigning the
responsibility for this to the system, not to the pilots. In GB at the time,
the situation was regarded as most serious; there were moments of doubt
during the BoB. It simply was not known whether the Luftwaffe would or could
generate a campaign which could exploit Britain's weaknesses and set the
stage for an invasion.

2) The Germans could not sustain air superiority over the Soviets despite

investment of considerable resources and the creation of several
ballyhooed
aces flying a/c deemed to be "superior" to the opposition.

Luftwaffe sustained air superiority over Soviet Union long enough for
Heer to lose every chance of winning. You also know how Soviets
outproduced Germans, you know the story about the Lend Lease, you know
about the growing Luftwaffe commitments outside Soviet Union, so I ask
why are you deliberately blame combat pilots for unrealistic goals of
German leadership?

I don't do that. But I do question the utility to the Reich's military
efforts in laying the groundwork for such spectacular successes and then
being unable to reap the expected rewards thereform.


3) The Germans could not gain air superiority over the DAF and later over
the Allied air forces over N Africa and the Med, despite investment of
considerable resources and astonishing individual aerial victory claims.
Hence a sad end to operations, with the Tunisian surrender.

Because British deployed more aircraft to the theatre. That's why.

That certainly didn't hurt. However, I do believe that ultimaely Lord Tedder
and his US counterparts organized or designed their forces' performance so
as to help their nations attain the goals sought. For whatever reasons,
however, the Reich could not do so, despite having certain human materiel
who performed to a quite high standard. German successes in fighter vs
fighter combat somehow did not translate into victory.


4) The Germans could not hold air superiority over the continent in the
face
of escorted daylight raids, despite investment of considerable resources
and
the inevitable presence of the vaunted experten. On D-Day, the Germans
managed maybe a couple hundred sorties, while the Allies managed
thousands
of sorties from dawn to dusk. The beginning of the end.

See above, but include Americans as well.



One link between all the above is that even as the Reich was producing
prodigies in terms of fighter aces, in not one instance did the successes
of
the various aces have a jot to do with abetting the achievment of the
Reich's aims or with frustrating the Allies from achieving their
objectives.
In every instance, the Luftwaffe found itself face to face with a task
for
which it had neither adequate planning nor adequate means with which to
successfully compete.

Than why did you start this post with a diatribe against combat
pilots?

I don't believe that I did. I have, in fact, a sneaking admiration for many
of the German experts. I find them to be impressive. But I can find no
evidence that their extraordinary accomplishments had any real impact of the
outcomes of many an operation. And, to me, at least, a soldier at war is
there in the first place to see to the accomplishment of his commanders'
objectives. A system which cannot capitalize on Marseilles' talents and
success, for example, did not garner the Glittering Prizes, which was all
that truly mattered.

They were not to blame for idiotic politics of their civil and
military leadership. These young men joined Luftwaffe for the same
reason young men are becoming fighter pilots today.

I suppose so. I personally lay no blame at their doorsteps. But I am
inclined to believe, still, that their efforts were wasted. Impressive, yes,
but not decisive. Their impresive efforts had no leavening effect on their
cohorts' performances, and were not decisive in their impact on operations,
as in general, the Allies were able to impose their will over the
battlefields.

Thats the reality that King Leonidas discovered in Thermoplyae, Confederates
during Civil War and Germans during WWII.

Wow, Drax. Incredible that you got those three forces into the same context!
Good job, and good point

v/r
Gordon

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Having a pound by pound superior military force is not a guarantee for
success
if your opponent has vastly bigger "numericals".
Thats the reality that King Leonidas discovered in Thermoplyae,
Confederates
during Civil War and Germans during WWII.

There are at least two things to remember about taking on a fight against
odds.

Never pick a fight against a bigger, meaner foe.
The other one was recounted by Emperor Napoleon: "God is on the side of the
bigger battalions."

Speaking of the latter two "causes", in both cases, they "ran wild", on the
offensive against befuddled opposition, for approximately three years, or
less. After that, it was all a downhill slide into abject defeat .
In both cases it is hard to find any redeeming qualities in the causes for
which they fought, albeit certain individuals fought for the causes with
considerable elan.

Sad to see that the simple question for the #1 fighter plane turns
into a battle that reveals the inability of some poeple to get along
with any kind of different opinion:

Person 1: What is the #1 fighter plane?
P2: the Mustang
P3: you're damn right man!!
p2: it's a pleasure to talk to you
p4: i think there could be... perhaps.... different plane....???
p2: what do you know
p3: exactly get lost you revisionist nazi
p2: shXX up or we come back and get the job finished

and so on

With respect to the question: there isn't any best fighter. Every type
had its shortcomings. The soviet La7 and Yak3 were pretty much
superior to everything else down low but not competitive at alt. The
late Spitfires and FW's were probably better than the Mustang 1on1 but
with limited range.

Don't trust anybody saying this is the winner hands down.
It's just his sole opinion and nobody here flew one of these planes in
combat.

regards

Jan Fuhrmann


"Edward French" wrote in message ...
Hello All,

Ok, is there a singular Numero Uno air-to-air ww2 pistoned-fighter?

I figure that "reliable performance with lethality" has gotta be considered
60% of the truth. Ease of manufacture, versatility, easy to pilot,
durability, etc. making up the 40%.

I'm hearing that, in all altitudes, the FW190 did the job best. How about
the HELLCAT?


--hug the day

Subject: #1 piston fighter?
From: (Jan)
Date: 7/10/03 4:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

on't trust anybody saying this is the winner hands down.
It's just his sole opinion and nobody here flew one of these planes in
combat.

regards

Jan Fuhrmann

TaDaaaa!


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:


With respect to the question: there isn't any best fighter. Every type
had its shortcomings. The soviet La7 and Yak3 were pretty much
superior to everything else down low but not competitive at alt. The
late Spitfires and FW's were probably better than the Mustang 1on1 but
with limited range.

Don't trust anybody saying this is the winner hands down.
It's just his sole opinion and nobody here flew one of these planes in
combat.


Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.

Go to the Hitech Creations website listed in my sigfile and download
the free software. That's right, it's free. You can fly offline all you want.
You can fly online for two weeks at no charge. You'll be able to compare
the best WWII fighters head to head using the most accurate flight models
in the PC flight sim industry. And, it'll cost you nothing but your time.

My regards,
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
...
On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:



Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.


Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew one and his view of the aircraft
was as follows

Quote
The La-7 was to me a complete revelation with regard to its
handling characteristics and performance which were quite superb.

It had all the qualities necessary for a fine combat fighter but not
the equipment. Its firepower and sighting equipment were below
par, its wooden construction would have withstood little punishment,
the pilot was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation was appalingly basic.

Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
I began to understand how the Luftwaffe pilots on the eastern
front clocked up such huge victory scores, but in the case of the
La-7 they would have had to work hard for their money.
/Quote

Source: Testing For Combat

Keith

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:13:17 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
. ..
On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:



Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.


Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew one and his view of the aircraft
was as follows

Quote
The La-7 was to me a complete revelation with regard to its
handling characteristics and performance which were quite superb.

It had all the qualities necessary for a fine combat fighter but not
the equipment. Its firepower and sighting equipment were below
par, its wooden construction would have withstood little punishment,
the pilot was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation was appalingly basic.

Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
I began to understand how the Luftwaffe pilots on the eastern
front clocked up such huge victory scores, but in the case of the
La-7 they would have had to work hard for their money.
/Quote

Source: Testing For Combat

Keith



Lavochkin used alloy wing spars (I believe they were actually box spars) to
add strength and reduce weight. Windtunnel testing of the La-5FN showed
that refinements to the fighter's aerodynamics could significantly improve
performance (which was pretty good as it was). Thus was born the La-7.
Below 5,000 feet, its over-all performance was only exceeded by the Grumman
F8F Bearcat and the Hawker Tempest Mk.V.

History shows that the Lavochkins proved to be very durable and battle damage
repairs were easier and required less technically skilled personnel.

My regards,
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com