If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
Which would make the Gloster Meteor and the Hawker Tempest more important
for the later war-effort... "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem? Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "alf blume" Date: 7/7/03 8:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: Which would make the Gloster Meteor and the Hawker Tempest more important for the later war-effort... "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem? Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer Agreed. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem? No - both pilots are doing their own critical duties. The crews I know that hunted V-1s at night were also constantly on the lookout for German a/c and dealt with them on occasion. Both pilots volunteered and fought the war the way they were required to. I know its not a popular view, but in my mind, Combat Wounded sets folks a rung above their mates. "Being there" counts, regardless of what capacity you serve - the entire military force could volunteer but it wouldn't change the fact that without cooks and typists, there would be no bombs hitting the target. Flyers owe their success, every bit of it, to the guy that feeds them and pours oil in the engines. When flyers succeed, its because they are standing on the shoulders of thousands of other that are serving with every bit as much heart - and your ground crew, whose names are probably lost in time, have every reason to be proud of their service. How many volunteered to fly but through some failing of education or body kept them on the ground? Thousands. So they served in other ways, in roles utterly without glory or acknowledgement. Three years driving a tractor in the snow, rain, or sweltering heat in some forgotten theatre of war isn't going to earn them a medal, but maybe in sixty or seventy years, someone will appreciate that you built a runway for crippled bombers to divert to. v/r Gordon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ubject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "James Linn" Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And an ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come back and do it again. Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a pretty picture. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It was a job that had to be done, and some one had to do it. It was their turn in the barrel. Walt Absolutely. And a whole lot of people on the ground were sure relieved that they learned the skills necessary to defeat the "Doodlebugs", but only after a painful time for those within V-1 range. In the other thread, I noticed that folks disagreed that V-1 chasing was combat - I am interested in that idea, but I feel it should count as combat, if not in the actual "victory" totals for the pilots leading to ace status. Its like Frank Luke and the barrage balloons - the balloons themselves didn't shoot back and were usually abandoned prior to the attack, but there were inherent dangers associated with attacking them. Same for the V-1s, in my mind. The guys that hunted V-1s did so in a war zone, filled with every danger that a fighter pilot facing a more traditional opponent would provide. Add to it the near certainty that a successful attack would include a detonation of about a ton of torpedo-grade explosive within a couple hundred yards of the nose of your straining, flat-out racing fighter - as someone else reported, more than one defending fighter was lost several severely damaged in the attempt. At night, it was worse - German fighters were in the air at times that the interceptions were underway, and GCI was hard pressed to sort the friendlies and ghosts during the V-1 raids due to their low altitudes and fast inbound tracks. Its a mess for airborne IFF at night and there were definite losses due to friendly fire as a result. That's aerial combat to me, my friend! v/r Gordon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtKramr" wrote in message ... ubject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109? From: "James Linn" Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And an ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come back and do it again. Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a pretty picture. Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and dropped it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a V-1 against the same target - which would you chose? The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air superiority over Britain by 1944. The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty successful at shooting them down. James Linn |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: "James Linn" Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... ubject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109? From: "James Linn" Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And an ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come back and do it again. Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a pretty picture. Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and dropped it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a V-1 against the same target - which would you chose? The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air superiority over Britain by 1944. The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty successful at shooting them down. James Linn I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all. Let the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important at all. Interesting analysis. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"James Linn" wrote in message ... "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... ubject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109? From: "James Linn" Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And an ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come back and do it again. Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a pretty picture. Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and dropped it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a V-1 against the same target - which would you chose? The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air superiority over Britain by 1944. The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty successful at shooting them down. James Linn The V1 never was a *tactical* weapon, its only use was to try and to lower the morale of the Brits, After the heavy bombing they had experienced the V1 or V2 did not have all that bigger impact on the population . BMC |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109? From: "James Linn" Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... ubject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109? From: "James Linn" Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And an ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come back and do it again. Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a pretty picture. Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and dropped it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a V-1 against the same target - which would you chose? The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air superiority over Britain by 1944. The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty successful at shooting them down. James Linn I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all. Let the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important at all. Interesting analysis. Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at the front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the target and land harmlessly in a field. James Linn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can anyone help, PLEASE - searching for zip-cord (aka: mono-cord, speaker wire, shooting wire, dbl hookup, rainbow cable, ribbon cable) | Striker Cat | Home Built | 6 | October 15th 04 08:51 PM |