@jagdflieger100 I'm not discrediting the courage of the brave British and Irish fighters who took to the air to stop the Nazis controlling the skies over the North Sea. But had Hitler concentrated on bombing British airfields instead of other strategic targets like factories and fuel supply depots and civilian areas. The Battle off Britain would have been lost.
@BigGee84 Do the names Billy Fiske and Paddy Finucane mean anything? Idiot. Listen we Americans might have a short History compared to Ireland, Scotland and Poland etc. But don't you dare attempt to obtain a history for England when you stole everything from the Celts. You English have no history. You're a damn hypocrite.
@angels77100 We don't need to 'obtain' our history dickhead. England has existed as a nation for over 1000 years, and has impacted history arguably more than any other nation. And don't mention Scotland and Ireland. You couldn't even locate them on a map.
"You English have no history."
Proof your educational system is a fucking embarrassment. This is not ONE country, save perhaps China, than can claim to have as an illustrious history as ours.
@BigGee84 Exactly. I didn't say Britain doesn't have a history. I said the English have no history. England's history is stolen. The real English are the Welsh who were driven out by the Normans. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Spain, Poland are old nations with real history. You English are just as young a nation as America. Touch down to me I believe.
@BigGee84 They know your right so they flag your comment as 'spam'. You are right, You know it, I know but most importantly they know it. But they choose not acknowledge it.
'angels77100 clearly doesn't fully understand the comment he posted.
I think he forgot things like Magna Carta and all the English Wars against France for example.
@angels77100 I suggest you re-Educate yourself for the subject at hand. The United States was founded after 1777. Thus being many, many years younger than England. Magna Carta for example was created in 1215 - A very important milestone in English history, Which foundations are still used even today. I also suggest you take notice of 'BigGee84' since he and I has given you an example of English History. Only which a fool will fail to acknowledge.
@HL5IHarrier Listen to me you old bastard. There's no such thing as an English man. Look at you for example. Who was your Father and your Grandfather? Was he Irish, Polish, German? Was your mother Welsh? Was she French? Was your Grandmother Indian? You have no history. England is a tiny little nation that has only existed for a couple of hundred years, like the USA.
@angels77100 First off im not old im 19. Second - no, My Parents are English, just like my GrandParents. They were English. And so was there Parents so on so forth. Are you reffering to English DNA genetic History or actual English history events? For example - England was Unified as a single-Governed counrty in 927 AD, The Roman Invasion, Boudica, French Invasion 1066, Agincourt, The Crusades, The Spanish Armada.. All English History.
@angels77100 Ultiamtely, Yes the English has a very rich History. And we are not a young Nation like the USA as you put it. By the looks of you posts it seems you a reffering to the DNA History of the People of the British Isles, (Which you have no clue about) and in no way pointing out the English History. Either that or you are choosing to deny the fact of English History events. You angels77100, have Failed ..
@HL5IHarrier I apologize on behalf of America for idiots like angels77100..... We seem to have had a recent bumper crop of morons here in the states. LOL
@JaleelJohanson62 Its OK there my friend, Dont worry about it. I wont judge a Country just from 1 idiot. You come across them from time to time. regardless of Nationality lol.
@angels77100 Bollocks. I'll have you know that the English have been around for a very long time, mate. Not a couple of hundred years. We were in Baghdad when you were in your dad's bags. I don't mean the British Isles, I mean the English. We along with the Welsh had an identity before even the french had one - read your history. And yeah, 80% of English (and British) people today still have the DNA of the original Britons - from the Basque region. Now you read your history.
@dpsherry Sir, I am talking real history going back thousands of years. The Irish didn't need an English invasion to wield the axe in anger against an enemy. Do you know why? Because there was no such thing as English. The Irish were fighting themselves long before there ever was an England. Same goes for Scotland and Wales. England is just a young nation like the USA.
@angels77100 There was no Irish nation until 1920 when Ireland became independent. Ireland itself was subject to many migrations, e.g. vikings, and others. Scotland was also populated by Irish and subsequently Ireland was populated by Scots; then there wast the armada. Irish migration to England didn't occur until the industrial revolution - which was wn the US was created.Henry VIII called himself English. Henry V called himself English.
England on the other hand, was "english" as early as 1
@dpsherry I beg to differ sir. You are talking about Celtic history (Britain). Most everything you mentioned previously is Celtic Britain. Sorry but you are strengthening my argument about there being no such thing as English history up until the 19th century.
@angels77100 I'm sure Henry V would not describe himself as a celt. Neither would Alfred The Great.Elizabeth 1 described herself as English and her grandfather did also. Richard the Lionheart also described himself as the king of England and when William the Conk invaded he was claiming the English throne. I think you really do need to do a little more reading and a little less dope smoking.
@angels77100 "The battle of Britain was the USA vs Nazi Germany. People seem to forget that the British were defeated and out of the war by this stage."
LOL!
So who flew the RAF's Spitfires and Hurricanes? God? America hadn't even ENTERED the war at that stage. Do you actually get taught history in school? Or does history class consist of 'USA NUMBER 1 etc etc..'? The ignorance of Americans is utterly astounding. And you wonder why America is regarded in the way it is.
@BigGee84 Is that what they taught you dumb Brits at school? Listen Buddy. It was Irish and Americans who fought the Battle of Britain, and Irish/Americans. You British guys were hiding under bunkers in your yards and living like rats down vaults while the brave Americans and Irish and Irish/Americans fought your war in the skies against the Nazi swarms.
Hey i think thats aswome that the men that fought and died for the defence of the UK are irrelevant stopping the V3 from killing so many ..Do still need someone to explainits would take years of slapping you around like school girl ..seeing it never worked the first time. Theres no hope for you Your name is RICHARD?!!! and you call someone else dickhead??? NOW THATS FUNNY !! good luck DICK!!
So like i said in at the start of all this your points were wrong and had to go in to a long list of why which now you agree and your asking me to stop because you already agreed to my argumemnts so now your right i have no argument ..The japannise Bring honor to there country before all else planes tanks ships they would fight till there Emperor asked them to stop ..which he did after 2 bombs
The Spitfire is the greatest propeller plane ever made according to many top aviators. Being as it was easy to fly is just another one of its great characteristics.
If Germany had a high altitude heavy bomber it would have been all over in 6 months. Hitler killed that program, another bout of his strange 'madness' that occurred at strategic points in the war I suppose.
@Silvertrine That is mere supposition & history proves your point to be quite wrong. IE The RAF & USAAF possessed huge fleets of heavy bombers & they flattened every major German city. Did the Germans wave the white flag as a consequence of bombing? ANSWER- NO! Ergo, you cannot argue that germany would automatically have prevailed even if they had possessed a four engined heavy, they simply would not have had enough of them. The RAF took two & half years to amass a potent strike force......
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH England is a small country, and Nazi Germany had airbases fairly close to England. If they had a large fleet of heavy bombers flying around the clock doing high altitude bombing. England would have surrendered the damage would have been so catastrophic. Germany didnt surrender because the leaders of the party knew they would all be executed because of their crimes.
@Silvertrine If's & buts & supposition are of no consequence. It is facts that count and nothing else. The fact is, the Luftwaffe was ill prepared for a strategic bomber campaign, it was geared predominantly to a tactical support role for the Wehrmacht, hence it's aircraft were wholely unsuited to a strategic campaign, they carried an insufficient bombload. You must possess a crystal ball to be so certain the UK would have surrendered. Your view point is grossly over simplified.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Wrong on all counts. There were German heavy bombers ready to go into production early in the war but Hitler made a ridiculous directive that all German bombers be capable of dive bombing. Another episode of 'insanity' by Hitler?
@Silvertrine Wrong. The Germans placed their entire emphasis on creating a TACTICAL bombing force, which they developed in the mid 1930's post Guernica. Hitler wanted the MAXIMUM number of aircraft,(to impress) and that meant twin engined light-medium bombers. You imply that Germany had 4 engined bombers that were ready to enter the frontline-WRONG. Any projects they had did not make it past prototype stage, your point is irrelevant. They failed to produce a successful heavy bomber.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Just not correct. The Hitler directive that all bombers be capable of dive bombing forced alterations of the plans of existing heavy bombers and stopped the possibility of a legitimate Allied style high altitude heavy bomber. Without Hitlers interference the Luftwaffe would have had a high altitude heavy bomber and they would have forced England to capitulate.
@Silvertrine Your 'opinion' is one of complete supposition. There is NO historical evidence/event that backs up you assertion that Britain would have surrendered had the Germans possessed a four engined heavy bomber. Fact is, they did not have such an aircraft. You are simply splitting hairs & being pedantic. If anything, history demonstrates that bombing civilians serves to stiffen their resolve & determination to win. Bombing alone has NEVER brought victory in the history of aerial warfare.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH No evidence? Germany could have bombed the UK round the clock with much larger tonnage of bombs with much lower bomber losses. The Allies totally annihilated Germany's capability to wage war using similar tactics and their bombers had to fly a much longer range.
@Silvertrine Point number one- allied bombing did NOT 'totally annihilate Germany's capability to wage war. Were that so, Germany would have collapsed & sued for peace, she fought to the bitter end, which clearly implies she still maintained the capacity to fight. Secondly, the massive allied bombing far outweighed anything the Germans could theoretically have caried out against Britain in terms of bombing. Ergo, your point argument falls at the first hurdle.
@Silvertrine "Germany could have bombed the UK around the clock with much larger tonnage of bombs." WRONG. It took the RAF three years to build up the most powerful bomber force in WW2. Germany did not have the spare industrial capacity to manufacture sufficient numbers of heavy bombers due to the fact that she was fighting on more than one front. The bulk of Germany's industry was concerned with tank & fighter production. The allies did NOT annihilate Germany's capability to wage war.
@Silvertrine "The allies totally annihilated Germany's capability to wage war." Entirely inaccurate statement. How can that possibly be the case when German output of fighter aircraft actually peaked at a time when allied bombing was at it's most intense. Read "Bomber Command," by Max Hastings & "Bomber Boys," by Patrick Bishop. Neither of these two respected authors would agree with your assertion that the allies "annihilated Germany's capability to wage war.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH My point about the 303 was that English pilots were dieing the same like German ones Vets or not they all died the same way Britian needed help. Where Germany was alone Had it not been for the extra help from other countries all over the world England as a whole would of lossed due to lack of pilots and time Even if Germany stopped bombing airfields. And if you can count passed 10 and read the numbers of British pilot numbers to German and each 1 to 1 ace kills It is GERMAN
@freakyflow Could we have that in English please? It makes very little sense. Your 'argument,' such as it is, appears totally erratic & contradictory. I am now officially bored, I will just repeat, read "Bomber Command," by Hastings, and "Bomber Boys," by Bishop. Neither of these highly respected authors would agree with your statement that allied bombing "annihilated Germany's capacity to wage war." To date, NO country has ever surrendered purely as a result of aerial bombing, NOT ONE. The End.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH awww your bored ..hmmm no country suurendered due to aerial bombing Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The combined shock of these events caused Emperor Hirohito to intervene and order the Big Six to accept the terms for ending the war. So once again your FULL OF SHIT Amercians also won the air war at sea causing the IJN to pull back after the loss of there "Main fleet" as of to date look at the falkland lslands in 1982 Argentina lost
@freakyflow Once again, you highlight your stupidity with your comment re the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. First of all, Japan was engaged by the allies in savage land campaigns in Burma & Malaya by the British & the home islands & Philippines by the US. Her navy was shattered at Midway. Correct me if I am wrong, but these actions constitute WARFARE. As I said, NO NATION EVER SURRENDERED PURELY AS A RESULT OF AERIAL BOMBING. Japan fought a savage & intense war before the A-bombs.
@freakyflow You also ignore the fact that Japan was subject to an intense carpet bombing campaign by B-29 Superfortresses. Every Japanese city was pulverised & devasted, yet did Japan surrender? NO. As I stated earlier, there is NO historical case of a nation being defeated by another state purely as a result of an aerial bombing campaign. Therefore, your opinion that Britain would have surrendered had Germany possessed four engined heavy bombers, is nothing more than supposition- aka BOLLOCKS!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH DUDE since the V3 wasn't real You had me laughing at your crap ..So japan was bombed by B-29's then huh? I guess dolittle raid was just a hollywood make up cause those were B-25's Oh wait IT WASN'T 1944 so it never counted !! Lets see December 7, 1941 To Aug 8th 1945 Bunch of fighting Land, Sea and Air No surrender ..Aug 9th 1945 73,000 people die in a blink of a eye @ Nagasaki Due to 1 Bomb....5 DAYS later Emperor Hirohito go's on radio for japan to Surrender
@freakyflow The V3 DID exist, it simply did not work effectively, and it was not a missile/cruise type wpn, it was a shell projectile. You brought the V3 into the debate, I simply highlighted that it was totally ineffective. SO YOUR POINT IS??! lol Japan was defeated after a protracted land sea & air campaign fought in Burma, Malaya, the home islands etc. Japan was NOT defeated purely by an aerial assault. She had already been defeated in military terms by the time the two A bombs were dropped.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Japan was defeated before the 2 A bombs were dropped? Thats like saying Japan knew the lost when they bombed pearl harbor
And yes it's eazy to say..Now However Production lines were still pushing out tanks. Planes, Subs, Yes at one point USAF had the upper hand which gave them a way to deliver the A bomb which ended the war. They didn't surrender because the lost the air war It was 2 bombers Another point is if you have look up what i already know and proven why bother?
@freakyflow Yes Japan WAS defeated militarily prior to the dropping of the two A bombs. Her Navy was shattered, her airforce was a vestige of it's former self & Japanese land armies were suffering defeat after defeat. The Japanese position was beyond any hope of redemption.The issue was that due to Japanese culture, they simply refused to surrender, the A bombs solved that problem. You have no argument, so cease babbling drivel now please old chap.
@freakyflow Further discussion is futile. Let us agree on ONE fact. I prefer to base my opinions & argument on hard historical FACTS. You are an individual who prefers your own conjecture & supposition, and you prefer to dismiss long established historical truths. Your 'argument,' such as it is, is entirely subjective & based exclusively on YOUR personal opinion, as opposed to having any historical foundation to support it. Let's leave it there.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Yup we can agree we see two diffrent things Evn when facts are put infront of you you dismiss them (V3) your first comment of it was it did not exist! after you googled it you found out you were wrong and set any further comments of it aside till now you NEVER said it was ineffective which is two differnt things and my point. all together because i would agree on that ..It was used only a few times and then the test base was bombed by a lancaster
@freakyflow The V3 was totally irrelevant in military terms-just as your attempts to proffer an 'argument' are irrelevant. You twist & turn & evade solid historical facts. You continually go off at a tangent from the main thrust of argument. You continually introduce totally irrelevant points/issues Eg V3, Doolittle raid. You continually harp on about the V3, you were not even fully aware what is consisted of yourself, yet you posture as an expert! lol Stop waffling & talking bilge.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH oh and shall we bring up ur p-51 you talk about sooo much LOL Just the fact you never even knew they had one till i told you and you had to look it up makes me laugh that you can tell anyone there wrong about tatics war history or anything to do with this You tell everyone there wrong with there fact ..when infact you have none of your own
@freakyflow Clearly, you are nothing more than an internet troll, an imbecile in fact. You now resort to ridiculous & nonsensical comments. Please feel free to highlight any comment I made that suggests I was not aware of the existace of the P-51 Mustang? I am well aware that this aircraft was ordered according to a BRITISH air ministry specification. I am well aware it initially used the asthmatic Allison engine, and that Rolls Royce engineers modifed the airframe to accept the Merlin. MORON.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I also see you can't bring to fact you were wrong about the v3 as for the p-51 I would take a tempest over a p-51 anyday and as for scotsman talking about british specs thats a joke too its like orr willie talking about transformers on fried mars bars Good show ole chap smashing smashing what what !!
@freakyflow So sorry old chap, I don't speak, 'IMBECILE,' so you will have to run that last post by me again in clear concise English. Please do tell me why you assume I a Scot, as opposed to an Englishman? You are wrong on that count too. V3? Totally irrelevant, why are you still babbling on about it? Chin chin Dickhead, do carry on with your mud pies!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH #1 a Englishman knows when to shut up as for youtube whore you have over 3,000 comments dude find a job! wow lol your comments are irrelevant the V3 is irrelevant cause it proved you wrong as for my chin chin and your dickhead ..sorry if you like men try another to slap it off don't know why you would bring anything sexual into this but like i sadi a englishman knows when to shut up
@freakyflow Evidently you do not appreciate when to shut up. Each new post contains yet more innane drivel. V3? Please do explain what you think you have proved about the V3. You cited it as a weapon that was used against the UK as part of the ROCKET attacks in late 1944. Obviously it is YOU who talks through your hat. I pointed out to you that there was no such missile used against Britain-a point of FACT. The V3 is just like you, totally irrelevant & of no consequence. Cheerio Richard!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH anytime you want to prove i'm a internet troll feel free to make a video and pot it on your profile I know you never seen the upload button before but it you like i'll add another video and make a HOW TO POST A VIDEO FOR DUMMIES Or you could just ride on the coats of everyone elses videos and tell everyone there wrong LOL!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Ever city wasn't Devasted If you EVER get to go to japan ..I have been 6 times You will see buildings there 100's of years old Even more from pre ww2 If you had any culture or history you would know this Emperor Hirohito Surrendered After the 2nd Atom bomb was dropped and the main reason was They went for Attacking to defence and still couldn't stop 1 High alt B-29 from dropping 1 Bomb and killing so many Least you know about the V3 Now try to catch up to the rest of it
@freakyflow You talk utter bilge. Japan's major cities were carpet bombed by mass B-29 formations. Doolittle's raid, which was a token effort designed to boost US morale after getting a hiding at Pearl, is totally irrelevant to the discussion. When did I ever dispute the circumstances associated with Japan's surrender? The FACT is, Japan was NOT defeated purely as a result of aerial bombardment. She fought a land/sea & air war for several years. V3? Why are you still rambling on about that?!
@Silvertrine yup your right and had it not been for support from usa and others Thus why you had daytime B-17's with escorts and Lancasters at night ..but by then germany was on the defence and losing ..you would see a b-17 taking off when it was battle of britan ..Had germany won the war over britain It would of givin them time to produce there 4 engine bomber and improve there jet tech
@freakyflow If's, buts. maybe's, would have, should have might have been..........Meanwhile back in reality, Germany had NO effective heavy bomber force, whilst the RAF pressed the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling etc into service and the rest as they say, is history. You will be arguing that if Germany had possessed the atom bomb before the US next they woud have won WW2......Meanwhile, back in reality!! lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Reality ? ok your on the internet and out of many people making statements There all wrong in your eyes even if the sky is blue. Reality.. Where in all of my post have i said anything about a atom bomb? See now your trying to put words in my mouth ..come on you can do better then that Notice the "IF" Germany..... I thought we passed IF's Buts?? Meanwhile back to reality.....your still going in circles
@freakyflow You miss the point, YET AGAIN. My comment about Germany possessing the atom bomb, ie "What if........" was used to highlight the futility of your argument which is based entirely on, "What if's," "Maybe," & "Perhaps." Ultimately, your argument is based purely on your own supposition, as opposed to hard historical fact. As I pointed out to you, NO country has EVER been forced to surrender soley due to aerial bombing. Your argument about the UK capitulating is utter nonsense.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH YA i'm going to have ifs and buts from someone that said there was no V3 Then found out there was after LEARNING IT FROM ME now your going to have pipe dreams of germany with a Atom bomb ?? after saying lets talk about reality ?? zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
@freakyflow They had a 4 engine heavy bomber ready to go into production in 1937 but Hitler's directive that all bombers be dive bombers forced huge changes to it that made it ineffective compared to Allied bombers like the B17 or Lancaster.
@Silvertrine I'm glad atleast you know the truth. Your right they had Test models Hitler had to many changes in plans to focus on 1 idea like building more ME 262 or 4 engine bombers but wanted heavy devop, on tanks and cannon and the stuka for Tank support His mind was still on ww1 and the way they fought as he himself was in the army .. might be why germany never used gas in the open field in ww2 he seen it used in ww1
@freakyflow Yeah he was 'insane'. The kind of 'insane' that makes one not see the benefit of being able to drop 100x the tonnage of bombs a night they did on London. The kind of 'insane' that makes you force the Luftwaffe to make giant bombers dive bombers.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Due to RAF USAAF Bombing Factories They did have a effect on Arms, Fuel, and other items that would of helped Did you know the spit was a carb engine but had better octane then the 109/190 with fuel injection? it was due to the Usa supplying boosted octane to the english and helped give a extra 20 to 40hp Had it been in a 109/190 with a supercharger your looking at 60 to 80hp not to menton the bombing of the V3 in france germany would of had more time and more 262 and 4 prop
@freakyflow The USA SOLD Britain high octane fuel during the Battle Of Britain, I am well aware that it provided the Merlin with an extra 30 bhp. I am also aware that the US gave us NOTHING, we paid for every drop. Gee thanks! I think you are referring to the V2, there was no V3, and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF, particularly the Mosquito squadrons.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH First of CANADA is and was a commonweath country and Ran by england and a oil producing country and one of the main shipping lines to the UK thus the wolf packs and your welcome You history needs to be re looked at TRY GOOGLE FOR THE V3 i'm NOT referring to the V1 OR V2 And it was the Tempest MK V not the Mosquito that has more "Buzz bomb" Kills more then any other. Mossy's were more used for ground attacks and night fighter roles and shipping.
@freakyflow Canada was not, and is not 'RUN' by Britain, she has her own democratically elected government. The Monarch is a figurehead and is APOLITICAL- ie has NO input/influence on politics, or the running of the nation. England is but ONE country within Britain. Ever heard of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland? England did not fight WW2, BRITAIN did. I never stated that the Mosquito scored more kills than the Tempest/Typhoon, I merely highlighted that they were involved in countering the V2
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Trying to figure out why Churchhill told Canadian staff were to fight under Montgomery. Who was churchills boss? As for Scotland, Wales N IRE. Where did this come from ? If you look at fighting Stats England fought and lost in mass compared to BRITAIN if your going to add who fought why not add all the poor souls who fought for there country Romania, Poland, Russia. USA Australlia New Zealand and so many more
@freakyflow You have no idea what you talking about. The command & control issues associated with British & Canadian forces had absolutely nothing to do with Churchill. Point of fact, some British formations found themselves under Canadian command during Normandy-does that mean that the Canadian PM directed that this be so? You are talking nonsense. I never mentioned 'stats,' I simply corrected your inappropriate use of 'England.' WW2 was fought by BRITAIN- not England.
@freakyflow During the Battle Of The Bulge in Dec 1944, at one stage, Field Marshal Montgomery found himself in command of more US troops than ANY one single US commander who was involved in the battle. Does this imply then that Britain was controlling/dictating strategy & managing US forces? NO IT DOES NOT. Canadian forces for the most part were led by Canadian senior officers, eg CRERAR, who led the Canadians in Normandy. You are confusing CO-OPERATION with CONTROL.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I guess that other guy what was his name hmmm may 4th 1944 ..hmm oh patton or something like that 7th army.. Oh yeah Command = (control of ) Co-operation = agreed or planned movement. Patton was in command of nothing in England he was there to kill 2 birds with 1 stone The president wanted him out of the lime light at home and trick Hilter that there was more then meets the eye Crerar was Under command so was Patton From England
@freakyflow This comment makes no sense whatsoever & is based on nothing more than YOUR opinion. G and study the the allied command & control system, you will find that Canadian Generals led Canadian troops, NOT the British. The Canadians CO-OPERATED with allied strategy, they were not controlled by either Churchill, or FIeld Marshal Alan Brooke, Britains most senior General.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I noticed you "Merely" bypassed to point of the V3 rocket lol Not bad for something that never was HUH ! Why you would even Highlight the facts of the Mosquito on a V2 and not The Tempest or the Lancaster that flew over to France and Bombed the V2 AND V3 inplacements Changing Hitlers idea on using them. HIGHLIGHT ! Did you know The C-47 use to transport troops.....it was a transport plane !! .....useless
@freakyflow Could you repeat this gibberish again in English please. It make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. There was NO V3 rocket deployed against Britain during WW2-think again. The fact that I stated that Msquito's also played a key part in defeating the V1 menace is entirely relevant because it is historical FACT. I am well aware that everything from Spitfires to Lancaster bombers also played their part-so your point is WHAT??! Utter garbage.
@freakyflow V3? It was never used against Britain. It was a failure. It was NOT a rocket, it was a shell projectile & it failed miserably. The concept of the V3 was to produce an explosive shell with very high velocity & long range in order to strike London from France. The project failed miserably. It was used without success during the Battle Of The Bulge. As such, it has no relevance to the discussion, and once again, you are shown to have a very poor grasp of military history.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH YOUR OWN Qutoe : ! I think you are referring to the V2, >>>there was no V3,<<< and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF
Then you say It was NEVER used.. Then you say : It was used without success
WOW MAN!! make up your mind Who has a very poor grasp? or better yet a ever changing story I noticed everyone that makes a comment you have made the return comment YOUR WRONG!! Ever thing maybe out of 6 people to 1 that there right and your wrong?
@freakyflow The USA SOLD Britain high octane fuel during the Battle Of Britain, I am well aware that it provided the Merlin with an extra 30 bhp. I am also aware that the US gave us NOTHING, we paid for every drop. Gee thanks! I think you are referring to the V2, there was no V3, and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF, particularly the Mosquito squadrons.
@freakyflow The USA SOLD Britain high octane fuel during the Battle Of Britain, I am well aware that it provided the Merlin with an extra 30 bhp. I am also aware that the US gave us NOTHING, we paid for every drop. Gee thanks! I think you are referring to the V2, there was no V3, and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF, particularly the Mosquito squadrons.
@freakyflow Actually, you are wrong. German aircraft production PEAKED in 1944, which was the year that RAF & USAF bombing was the most savage. Bombing the oil refineries did have a direct impact on the Luftwaffe. However, by that time, the Luftwaffe had lost control of their own airspace due to the P-51 escort fighters, combined with the fact that they were short of experienced fighter pilots. They had plenty of aircraft, but lacked the pilots & fuel to fly them!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I`m wrong.. in your eyes maybe. Yes German aircraft did peak. But They used Normal shifts to produce aircraft Where The UK and Canada wear using 3 shifts per day ..You also had russia and Usa producing aircraft AS for beeing short of experienced fighters thats bullshit you have it all backwards German pilots had more for the FACT they were not rotated. You land you rearm and go back up and were fighting since 1936 (spain) YOU EVER HEAR THE WORDS ( THE FEW )
@freakyflow You appear incapable of assimilating the most basic point. I never mentioned shifts, or compared productivity between the respective participants in WW2. I simply highlighted a HISTORICAL FACT, namely that despite intense allied bombing around the clock, the German output of aircraft PEAKED in 44 to it's highest point of the war. In addition, the Luftwaffe were short of experienced pilots by late 44, aside from a comparative handful of ace pilots, many were green as grass.
@freakyflow I am well aware that the Luftwaffe's SOP was not to rotate pilots from combat to training schools, as was the case with the allied airforces. I am also aware that due to this very fact, German pilot's stayed in combat until they were killed, wounded, or became POW's. It is a point of FACT that the Luftwaffe was short of experienced pilots by late 44. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Luftwaffe was bled white by the USAF P-51's over Germany itself.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH By 1944 Germany had already attacked Russia and were losing from 3 fronts Germany's mistake was building Tanks, Planes, Ships, Too well like they had the time to do so Thus the ME 262 Or Tiger tank. For every 1 262 made 2 B-17's 3 P-51 3 spitfires 4 Hurries, 2 Yak-3's were made Germany never had the FORD concept of mass production And this is why you had German Aces more so then Any other country. How could they do that if they were all killed? Your misinformed
@freakyflow Wrong again. Germany's aircraft production was based ENTIRELY on mass production. How else do you think they managed to build nearly 30,000 Me 109's during the war? They didn't do it in a piecemeal fashion did they?! lol You are confusing issues, Germany's problem was not one of mass production, but that of TOO MANY different types of tank/aircraft being produced. Had they only manufactured the Panther & the FW 190, they would have produced MORE.
@freakyflow Go and READ about the state of the Luftwaffe in late 1944. Find out what Galland, Rall and others had to say about the lack of skilled/experieced pilots. You completely miss the point, generally, the pilots who flew in late 44, lacked the EXPERIENCE levels of those who fought earlier in the war. Why? Because many thousands of experienced pilots were already dead by this stage, The Germans simply coud not make good their losses, and they also reduced the length of training courses.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH YAAAhh I'm so glad you dropped this in ...Franz Stigler is my Godfather R.I.P. he was also a ME-109 FW-190 ME-262 pilot and flew as friends with Galland before and during the war So never had to read it from "books" I talked with the man who wrote them Galland and Rall knew why to get into a fight and knew when to leave as did most by 1944 is was a diffrent war there was no leaving and they were attack with the same mass if not more brits loss the same exp. pliots no just1sid
@freakyflow Bollocks. The Luftwaffe was a busted flush by late 1944, they were desperately short of SKILLED, EXPERIENCE pilots. They could not replace casualties with anything other than hastily trained raw pilots. Your point is utterly ridiculous-you are trying to argue that the majority of W pilots were highly skilled ace's by 1944-utter drivel. The Germans had no shortage of replacement aircraft, but they lacked pilots to fly them. Buchner highlights my point in his classic book, "Stormbird."
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH No idea why you keep on about 1944 "Hey look aillies are killing all the Vet german pilots!!"" guess bringing the 303 sqaudron into the fight was because England was bored? or heavy loss of vet pilots At any rate you bore me with you ever changing stories ..unworthy
@freakyflow Evidently, you aren't too bright if you cannot assimilate a basic point, namely that by 1944, Germany was losing pilots at such a rate, the Luftwaffe was unable to replace them. Having fought constantly since 1939, many experienced pilots had been killed, injured or became POW's. The P-51's massacred the Luftwaffe over their own airspace. Your ridiculous reference to 303 Polish Sqd during the BoB actually proves my point idiot!! The RAF were running short of replacement pilots!! lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH well heard once again well use your own words to show how messed up you are : By 1944 German production had PEAKED ..hmm maybe a factor in your misleading ever changing idea on why Germany had more planes then pliots And once AGAIn german pilots were fighting since 1936 in SPAIN Not 1939 And most were pilots BEFORE the war like my Godfather. And by the time of the P-51 escorts Germany was already losing the war and were on the defence It was the hurrie and spitthatchanged it
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH At the start of the war the engine ran on the then-standard 87 octane aviation spirit and
The next major version was the XX which ran on 100 octane fuel. This allowed it to be run at higher manifold pressures, which were achieved by increasing the "boost" from the centrifugal type supercharger. The result was that the otherwise similar engine delivered 1,300 hp (970 kW). The process continued, with later versions running on further-increased octane rating and 150octane 1941
The 109 pilots had a great advantage in that they had altitude and speed which they had attained before they reached Britain. That is essentialy stored energy which they could use to their advantage.
I have a book about these two planes and it stresses that they were very much alike. Each plane had it's advantages and disadvantages but the Luftwaffe were better pilots. The big problem that the Germans had was the limited range the 109 had as it wasn't meant for any extended range escorts.
The germans had more kills than other countries because many countries the fought against. Didn't have much of an AirForce. When, they had to fight the British and Americans. They discovered that it wasn't as easy to shoot them down.
Canadians were also a challenge for the germans because canada had a history of fighting in world war one and they had many aces that helped make training for new pilots alot easier with their tactics and they also taught them how to outsmart your opponents too the americans and the british were also very good like you said
Actually what better plane is pretty much opinion, both are about even. the Spit turned tighter, but it was harder to fly on the edge due to its stall characteristics, the 109's stall was more forgiving. The 109 climbed faster, rolled faster. Both were so evenly matched it came down to the pilot ability honestly. The versions I'm refering to fought the Battle of Britain.
Good point. Have you seen both of these planes next to one another? I think the spitfire is a good deal larger than the 109 was; probably lending to the Messer's better maneuverability. I also think the Daimler engine had the edge on the Rolls Royce in the Spitfire.
The cockpit of the 109 makes movement harder, if I remember a documentary comparing the two correctly. I also seem to recall them mentioning the Spitfire had poorer all-round vision. I would say that if you add all the differences together, they're just too different to reasonably compare and optimized for very different scenarios. This seems to go along with another youtube clip, in which it is said that the Luftwaffe was never designed to fight the RAF.
the clip that you are reffering to actually said that the Me 109 had poorer all round vision because they had no back window they only had limited vision as to the spitfire which had great vision all around which allowed the pilots to see their enemy behind them
The spitfire's stall characteristics were much more forgiving. In a right hand turn the 109 had a VERY nasty stall characteristic. The design of the Spitfire's wing actually allowed the pilot to ride on the edge of a stall much longer because the tips of the wings were the last parts to stall. You have to look at the different models of Spitfires and 109's as well to accurately compare roll rates, climb rates and turning radius. Each Spit and 109 has distinct differences.
Thats because theres a long held belief that the wing buffeting you are referring to is part of the stall, its not, what it is, is a reaction of the airframe, to the lowering speeds before the stall comes in, it was a good warning to newer pilots to stay out of a stall. But once stalling the chances of you spinning are pretty high, higher than the 109 actually, thanks to the 109's excellent low speed handling, but the 109 didn't have such a warning. So again it evens out.
The warning a lot of german pilots used though was the slats the plane had, they would deploy with a loud bang, unsettling the plane for a few moments and a lot of pilots didn't like that, so they avoided it. The best pilots knew that was where the 109 was actually starting to turn, which is why the 109 is a plane of the experts. as for stalling to the right, Yeah thats true, as for climb, roll, and data like that, you'll find significant variances with different test.
both planes had alot of faults to them which made them even in matches the only thing that made those planes suceed were the pilots. the pilots needed to push it to the planes limit and also their own limit .
If a plane is easy to fly, then you can concentrate on the fight instead of the flying but then again, if the plane is hard to fly, then you have to know how to fly so you tend to fly much better in a long run. And if you give this kind of pilot a easy-flying plane, then he can do much more with it that a pilots who's only flown easy-flown thingies.
You cannot just like that compare Spitrire and 109. You have to consider, that spits had 14 (if I remember correclty) subtypes and 109 had almost 100 different subtypes and variants. If spit 1 was better than 109E, 109F might had been better than Mk1 and Mk2 etc.
The fact that allies won the war doesn't mean that their machines were better.
Since German pilots started their training as sailplane/glider pilots, they REALLY knew how to soar through the air mass with great efficiency and really read relation between landscape and the weather, and they knew that before they were trained in an engine powered aircraft. That, I think, is really what made German pilots so exceedingly skilled. The management really messed up with not pulling them regularly out to relish the less skilled pilots with their hard gained experience
Germans got more kills because they did not rotate their pilots between combat and trainer duties. As they gained experience they just kept shooting more and more planes down. This creates a situation where only about 10% of pilots are really experienced, but when the experienced pilots died, there was not much left. Same applies to the japanese. When they hit pearl harbor, they had all the top notch guys. But when those guys were killed there was not much left. Its a war of attrition
And because they killed a lot of Polish parasol-wings and Russian I-16s--Polikarpovs--which were toughlittle bastards but not up to taking on a 109. Be interesting to see a graph of top Luftwaffe ace's kill rates as they trandferred from East to West.
@bampery Always arguable, being better is a opinion, not a fact, some aces of Germany got over the 300 kills, all in a BF109, certainly not a bad plane I say. Ask a 109 pilot and a Spitfire pilot which was the best plane, they both will say their own plane is the best.
@KingBlotSven what many germany aces acounnted for in kills was inclued on the battle of spain before 1939 and thats were you had pilots that had exp, by the time ww2 started
The ME109 cockpit was more business like. Leavers and dials were to hand and accessable compard to the Spit/RAF fighters. However, the weired knock-kneed undercarrage and bizzar cannopy were receipies for an early death! The specific qualities of the 109 did provide huge kill rates for those pilots who could master the fighter.
That's the key...build a warbird that many can fly. Increase your numbers and survive by overwhelming. But...I think that not just anyone could handle a Spitfire, Mustang or Thunderbolt. They were all skilled people.
IDIOT PLANE APPROVED!
Zimbower 9 months ago 2
Happy 75th anniversary Britain. God Bless Reggie Mitchell.
orcstr8d 1 year ago
Dont forget polish and free french
TheRamseym 1 year ago
The battle of Britain was the USA vs Nazi Germany. People seem to forget that the British were defeated and out of the war by this stage.
angels77100 1 year ago
@angels77100 How if there were less than twenty Americans?
jagdflieger100 1 year ago
@jagdflieger100 I'm not discrediting the courage of the brave British and Irish fighters who took to the air to stop the Nazis controlling the skies over the North Sea. But had Hitler concentrated on bombing British airfields instead of other strategic targets like factories and fuel supply depots and civilian areas. The Battle off Britain would have been lost.
angels77100 1 year ago
Comment removed
BigGee84 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angels77100 Here are the STATISTICS of the different nationalities who fought.
Total Pilots involved: 2376
British: 1878
Polish: 141
Canadian: 88 ...
And way down the bottom, we have:
Irish: 8
American: 7
Percentage of Irish + American pilots: 15 / 2376 = 0.631%
Funny how Americans refer to themselves as 'the greatest country', yet feel the need to STEAL other countries' history. You are a fucking joke.
BigGee84 1 year ago
@BigGee84 Do the names Billy Fiske and Paddy Finucane mean anything? Idiot. Listen we Americans might have a short History compared to Ireland, Scotland and Poland etc. But don't you dare attempt to obtain a history for England when you stole everything from the Celts. You English have no history. You're a damn hypocrite.
angels77100 1 year ago
@angels77100 We don't need to 'obtain' our history dickhead. England has existed as a nation for over 1000 years, and has impacted history arguably more than any other nation. And don't mention Scotland and Ireland. You couldn't even locate them on a map.
"You English have no history."
Proof your educational system is a fucking embarrassment. This is not ONE country, save perhaps China, than can claim to have as an illustrious history as ours.
Oh, and the English are over 50% celtic. Prick.
BigGee84 1 year ago
@BigGee84 Exactly. I didn't say Britain doesn't have a history. I said the English have no history. England's history is stolen. The real English are the Welsh who were driven out by the Normans. Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Spain, Poland are old nations with real history. You English are just as young a nation as America. Touch down to me I believe.
angels77100 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@angels77100 You are one deluded fuckwit. You clearly don't know ANYTHING about English history.
"England's history is stolen"
From WHOM?
We've existed as a nation for over 1000 years. Read that AGAIN. Was Shakespeare Welsh? Was Newton Scottish? Was Nelson Irish?
"The real English are the Welsh who were driven out by the Normans"
Why the fuck am I even responding to you. Atleast get your FACTS right dickhead.
"Touch down to me I believe."
LOL! You're as bad as Gadaffi.
BigGee84 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigGee84 They know your right so they flag your comment as 'spam'. You are right, You know it, I know but most importantly they know it. But they choose not acknowledge it.
'angels77100 clearly doesn't fully understand the comment he posted.
I think he forgot things like Magna Carta and all the English Wars against France for example.
HL5IHarrier 10 months ago
@angels77100 I suggest you re-Educate yourself for the subject at hand. The United States was founded after 1777. Thus being many, many years younger than England. Magna Carta for example was created in 1215 - A very important milestone in English history, Which foundations are still used even today. I also suggest you take notice of 'BigGee84' since he and I has given you an example of English History. Only which a fool will fail to acknowledge.
HL5IHarrier 10 months ago
@HL5IHarrier Listen to me you old bastard. There's no such thing as an English man. Look at you for example. Who was your Father and your Grandfather? Was he Irish, Polish, German? Was your mother Welsh? Was she French? Was your Grandmother Indian? You have no history. England is a tiny little nation that has only existed for a couple of hundred years, like the USA.
angels77100 10 months ago
@angels77100 First off im not old im 19. Second - no, My Parents are English, just like my GrandParents. They were English. And so was there Parents so on so forth. Are you reffering to English DNA genetic History or actual English history events? For example - England was Unified as a single-Governed counrty in 927 AD, The Roman Invasion, Boudica, French Invasion 1066, Agincourt, The Crusades, The Spanish Armada.. All English History.
HL5IHarrier 10 months ago
@angels77100 Ultiamtely, Yes the English has a very rich History. And we are not a young Nation like the USA as you put it. By the looks of you posts it seems you a reffering to the DNA History of the People of the British Isles, (Which you have no clue about) and in no way pointing out the English History. Either that or you are choosing to deny the fact of English History events. You angels77100, have Failed ..
HL5IHarrier 10 months ago
@HL5IHarrier I apologize on behalf of America for idiots like angels77100..... We seem to have had a recent bumper crop of morons here in the states. LOL
JaleelJohanson62 7 months ago
@JaleelJohanson62 Its OK there my friend, Dont worry about it. I wont judge a Country just from 1 idiot. You come across them from time to time. regardless of Nationality lol.
HL5IHarrier 7 months ago
@angels77100 Bollocks. I'll have you know that the English have been around for a very long time, mate. Not a couple of hundred years. We were in Baghdad when you were in your dad's bags. I don't mean the British Isles, I mean the English. We along with the Welsh had an identity before even the french had one - read your history. And yeah, 80% of English (and British) people today still have the DNA of the original Britons - from the Basque region. Now you read your history.
dpsherry 6 months ago
@dpsherry Sir, I am talking real history going back thousands of years. The Irish didn't need an English invasion to wield the axe in anger against an enemy. Do you know why? Because there was no such thing as English. The Irish were fighting themselves long before there ever was an England. Same goes for Scotland and Wales. England is just a young nation like the USA.
angels77100 6 months ago
@angels77100 There was no Irish nation until 1920 when Ireland became independent. Ireland itself was subject to many migrations, e.g. vikings, and others. Scotland was also populated by Irish and subsequently Ireland was populated by Scots; then there wast the armada. Irish migration to England didn't occur until the industrial revolution - which was wn the US was created.Henry VIII called himself English. Henry V called himself English.
England on the other hand, was "english" as early as 1
dpsherry 6 months ago
@dpsherry I beg to differ sir. You are talking about Celtic history (Britain). Most everything you mentioned previously is Celtic Britain. Sorry but you are strengthening my argument about there being no such thing as English history up until the 19th century.
angels77100 6 months ago
@angels77100 I'm sure Henry V would not describe himself as a celt. Neither would Alfred The Great.Elizabeth 1 described herself as English and her grandfather did also. Richard the Lionheart also described himself as the king of England and when William the Conk invaded he was claiming the English throne. I think you really do need to do a little more reading and a little less dope smoking.
dpsherry 6 months ago
@angels77100 "The battle of Britain was the USA vs Nazi Germany. People seem to forget that the British were defeated and out of the war by this stage."
LOL!
So who flew the RAF's Spitfires and Hurricanes? God? America hadn't even ENTERED the war at that stage. Do you actually get taught history in school? Or does history class consist of 'USA NUMBER 1 etc etc..'? The ignorance of Americans is utterly astounding. And you wonder why America is regarded in the way it is.
BigGee84 1 year ago
@BigGee84 Is that what they taught you dumb Brits at school? Listen Buddy. It was Irish and Americans who fought the Battle of Britain, and Irish/Americans. You British guys were hiding under bunkers in your yards and living like rats down vaults while the brave Americans and Irish and Irish/Americans fought your war in the skies against the Nazi swarms.
angels77100 1 year ago
@angels77100
Americans: Don't like history, so you rewrite it. Fucking pathetic.
You need to do some research, 'buddy'.
BigGee84 1 year ago
Hey i think thats aswome that the men that fought and died for the defence of the UK are irrelevant stopping the V3 from killing so many ..Do still need someone to explainits would take years of slapping you around like school girl ..seeing it never worked the first time. Theres no hope for you Your name is RICHARD?!!! and you call someone else dickhead??? NOW THATS FUNNY !! good luck DICK!!
freakyflow 1 year ago
So like i said in at the start of all this your points were wrong and had to go in to a long list of why which now you agree and your asking me to stop because you already agreed to my argumemnts so now your right i have no argument ..The japannise Bring honor to there country before all else planes tanks ships they would fight till there Emperor asked them to stop ..which he did after 2 bombs
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Meanwhile back in reality...........
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
The Spitfire is the greatest propeller plane ever made according to many top aviators. Being as it was easy to fly is just another one of its great characteristics.
Soloman1001 1 year ago
@Soloman1001 Eazy to fly hard to produce because of it's wings compared to a hurrie or p-51
freakyflow 1 year ago
If Germany had a high altitude heavy bomber it would have been all over in 6 months. Hitler killed that program, another bout of his strange 'madness' that occurred at strategic points in the war I suppose.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@Silvertrine That is mere supposition & history proves your point to be quite wrong. IE The RAF & USAAF possessed huge fleets of heavy bombers & they flattened every major German city. Did the Germans wave the white flag as a consequence of bombing? ANSWER- NO! Ergo, you cannot argue that germany would automatically have prevailed even if they had possessed a four engined heavy, they simply would not have had enough of them. The RAF took two & half years to amass a potent strike force......
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH England is a small country, and Nazi Germany had airbases fairly close to England. If they had a large fleet of heavy bombers flying around the clock doing high altitude bombing. England would have surrendered the damage would have been so catastrophic. Germany didnt surrender because the leaders of the party knew they would all be executed because of their crimes.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@Silvertrine If's & buts & supposition are of no consequence. It is facts that count and nothing else. The fact is, the Luftwaffe was ill prepared for a strategic bomber campaign, it was geared predominantly to a tactical support role for the Wehrmacht, hence it's aircraft were wholely unsuited to a strategic campaign, they carried an insufficient bombload. You must possess a crystal ball to be so certain the UK would have surrendered. Your view point is grossly over simplified.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Wrong on all counts. There were German heavy bombers ready to go into production early in the war but Hitler made a ridiculous directive that all German bombers be capable of dive bombing. Another episode of 'insanity' by Hitler?
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@Silvertrine Wrong. The Germans placed their entire emphasis on creating a TACTICAL bombing force, which they developed in the mid 1930's post Guernica. Hitler wanted the MAXIMUM number of aircraft,(to impress) and that meant twin engined light-medium bombers. You imply that Germany had 4 engined bombers that were ready to enter the frontline-WRONG. Any projects they had did not make it past prototype stage, your point is irrelevant. They failed to produce a successful heavy bomber.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Just not correct. The Hitler directive that all bombers be capable of dive bombing forced alterations of the plans of existing heavy bombers and stopped the possibility of a legitimate Allied style high altitude heavy bomber. Without Hitlers interference the Luftwaffe would have had a high altitude heavy bomber and they would have forced England to capitulate.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@Silvertrine Your 'opinion' is one of complete supposition. There is NO historical evidence/event that backs up you assertion that Britain would have surrendered had the Germans possessed a four engined heavy bomber. Fact is, they did not have such an aircraft. You are simply splitting hairs & being pedantic. If anything, history demonstrates that bombing civilians serves to stiffen their resolve & determination to win. Bombing alone has NEVER brought victory in the history of aerial warfare.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH No evidence? Germany could have bombed the UK round the clock with much larger tonnage of bombs with much lower bomber losses. The Allies totally annihilated Germany's capability to wage war using similar tactics and their bombers had to fly a much longer range.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@Silvertrine Point number one- allied bombing did NOT 'totally annihilate Germany's capability to wage war. Were that so, Germany would have collapsed & sued for peace, she fought to the bitter end, which clearly implies she still maintained the capacity to fight. Secondly, the massive allied bombing far outweighed anything the Germans could theoretically have caried out against Britain in terms of bombing. Ergo, your point argument falls at the first hurdle.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@Silvertrine "Germany could have bombed the UK around the clock with much larger tonnage of bombs." WRONG. It took the RAF three years to build up the most powerful bomber force in WW2. Germany did not have the spare industrial capacity to manufacture sufficient numbers of heavy bombers due to the fact that she was fighting on more than one front. The bulk of Germany's industry was concerned with tank & fighter production. The allies did NOT annihilate Germany's capability to wage war.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@Silvertrine "The allies totally annihilated Germany's capability to wage war." Entirely inaccurate statement. How can that possibly be the case when German output of fighter aircraft actually peaked at a time when allied bombing was at it's most intense. Read "Bomber Command," by Max Hastings & "Bomber Boys," by Patrick Bishop. Neither of these two respected authors would agree with your assertion that the allies "annihilated Germany's capability to wage war.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH My point about the 303 was that English pilots were dieing the same like German ones Vets or not they all died the same way Britian needed help. Where Germany was alone Had it not been for the extra help from other countries all over the world England as a whole would of lossed due to lack of pilots and time Even if Germany stopped bombing airfields. And if you can count passed 10 and read the numbers of British pilot numbers to German and each 1 to 1 ace kills It is GERMAN
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Could we have that in English please? It makes very little sense. Your 'argument,' such as it is, appears totally erratic & contradictory. I am now officially bored, I will just repeat, read "Bomber Command," by Hastings, and "Bomber Boys," by Bishop. Neither of these highly respected authors would agree with your statement that allied bombing "annihilated Germany's capacity to wage war." To date, NO country has ever surrendered purely as a result of aerial bombing, NOT ONE. The End.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH awww your bored ..hmmm no country suurendered due to aerial bombing Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The combined shock of these events caused Emperor Hirohito to intervene and order the Big Six to accept the terms for ending the war. So once again your FULL OF SHIT Amercians also won the air war at sea causing the IJN to pull back after the loss of there "Main fleet" as of to date look at the falkland lslands in 1982 Argentina lost
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Once again, you highlight your stupidity with your comment re the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. First of all, Japan was engaged by the allies in savage land campaigns in Burma & Malaya by the British & the home islands & Philippines by the US. Her navy was shattered at Midway. Correct me if I am wrong, but these actions constitute WARFARE. As I said, NO NATION EVER SURRENDERED PURELY AS A RESULT OF AERIAL BOMBING. Japan fought a savage & intense war before the A-bombs.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow You also ignore the fact that Japan was subject to an intense carpet bombing campaign by B-29 Superfortresses. Every Japanese city was pulverised & devasted, yet did Japan surrender? NO. As I stated earlier, there is NO historical case of a nation being defeated by another state purely as a result of an aerial bombing campaign. Therefore, your opinion that Britain would have surrendered had Germany possessed four engined heavy bombers, is nothing more than supposition- aka BOLLOCKS!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH DUDE since the V3 wasn't real You had me laughing at your crap ..So japan was bombed by B-29's then huh? I guess dolittle raid was just a hollywood make up cause those were B-25's Oh wait IT WASN'T 1944 so it never counted !! Lets see December 7, 1941 To Aug 8th 1945 Bunch of fighting Land, Sea and Air No surrender ..Aug 9th 1945 73,000 people die in a blink of a eye @ Nagasaki Due to 1 Bomb....5 DAYS later Emperor Hirohito go's on radio for japan to Surrender
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow The V3 DID exist, it simply did not work effectively, and it was not a missile/cruise type wpn, it was a shell projectile. You brought the V3 into the debate, I simply highlighted that it was totally ineffective. SO YOUR POINT IS??! lol Japan was defeated after a protracted land sea & air campaign fought in Burma, Malaya, the home islands etc. Japan was NOT defeated purely by an aerial assault. She had already been defeated in military terms by the time the two A bombs were dropped.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Japan was defeated before the 2 A bombs were dropped? Thats like saying Japan knew the lost when they bombed pearl harbor
And yes it's eazy to say..Now However Production lines were still pushing out tanks. Planes, Subs, Yes at one point USAF had the upper hand which gave them a way to deliver the A bomb which ended the war. They didn't surrender because the lost the air war It was 2 bombers Another point is if you have look up what i already know and proven why bother?
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Yes Japan WAS defeated militarily prior to the dropping of the two A bombs. Her Navy was shattered, her airforce was a vestige of it's former self & Japanese land armies were suffering defeat after defeat. The Japanese position was beyond any hope of redemption.The issue was that due to Japanese culture, they simply refused to surrender, the A bombs solved that problem. You have no argument, so cease babbling drivel now please old chap.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow Further discussion is futile. Let us agree on ONE fact. I prefer to base my opinions & argument on hard historical FACTS. You are an individual who prefers your own conjecture & supposition, and you prefer to dismiss long established historical truths. Your 'argument,' such as it is, is entirely subjective & based exclusively on YOUR personal opinion, as opposed to having any historical foundation to support it. Let's leave it there.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Yup we can agree we see two diffrent things Evn when facts are put infront of you you dismiss them (V3) your first comment of it was it did not exist! after you googled it you found out you were wrong and set any further comments of it aside till now you NEVER said it was ineffective which is two differnt things and my point. all together because i would agree on that ..It was used only a few times and then the test base was bombed by a lancaster
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow The V3 was totally irrelevant in military terms-just as your attempts to proffer an 'argument' are irrelevant. You twist & turn & evade solid historical facts. You continually go off at a tangent from the main thrust of argument. You continually introduce totally irrelevant points/issues Eg V3, Doolittle raid. You continually harp on about the V3, you were not even fully aware what is consisted of yourself, yet you posture as an expert! lol Stop waffling & talking bilge.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH oh and shall we bring up ur p-51 you talk about sooo much LOL Just the fact you never even knew they had one till i told you and you had to look it up makes me laugh that you can tell anyone there wrong about tatics war history or anything to do with this You tell everyone there wrong with there fact ..when infact you have none of your own
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Clearly, you are nothing more than an internet troll, an imbecile in fact. You now resort to ridiculous & nonsensical comments. Please feel free to highlight any comment I made that suggests I was not aware of the existace of the P-51 Mustang? I am well aware that this aircraft was ordered according to a BRITISH air ministry specification. I am well aware it initially used the asthmatic Allison engine, and that Rolls Royce engineers modifed the airframe to accept the Merlin. MORON.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I also see you can't bring to fact you were wrong about the v3 as for the p-51 I would take a tempest over a p-51 anyday and as for scotsman talking about british specs thats a joke too its like orr willie talking about transformers on fried mars bars Good show ole chap smashing smashing what what !!
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow So sorry old chap, I don't speak, 'IMBECILE,' so you will have to run that last post by me again in clear concise English. Please do tell me why you assume I a Scot, as opposed to an Englishman? You are wrong on that count too. V3? Totally irrelevant, why are you still babbling on about it? Chin chin Dickhead, do carry on with your mud pies!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH #1 a Englishman knows when to shut up as for youtube whore you have over 3,000 comments dude find a job! wow lol your comments are irrelevant the V3 is irrelevant cause it proved you wrong as for my chin chin and your dickhead ..sorry if you like men try another to slap it off don't know why you would bring anything sexual into this but like i sadi a englishman knows when to shut up
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Evidently you do not appreciate when to shut up. Each new post contains yet more innane drivel. V3? Please do explain what you think you have proved about the V3. You cited it as a weapon that was used against the UK as part of the ROCKET attacks in late 1944. Obviously it is YOU who talks through your hat. I pointed out to you that there was no such missile used against Britain-a point of FACT. The V3 is just like you, totally irrelevant & of no consequence. Cheerio Richard!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH anytime you want to prove i'm a internet troll feel free to make a video and pot it on your profile I know you never seen the upload button before but it you like i'll add another video and make a HOW TO POST A VIDEO FOR DUMMIES Or you could just ride on the coats of everyone elses videos and tell everyone there wrong LOL!
freakyflow 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Ever city wasn't Devasted If you EVER get to go to japan ..I have been 6 times You will see buildings there 100's of years old Even more from pre ww2 If you had any culture or history you would know this Emperor Hirohito Surrendered After the 2nd Atom bomb was dropped and the main reason was They went for Attacking to defence and still couldn't stop 1 High alt B-29 from dropping 1 Bomb and killing so many Least you know about the V3 Now try to catch up to the rest of it
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow You talk utter bilge. Japan's major cities were carpet bombed by mass B-29 formations. Doolittle's raid, which was a token effort designed to boost US morale after getting a hiding at Pearl, is totally irrelevant to the discussion. When did I ever dispute the circumstances associated with Japan's surrender? The FACT is, Japan was NOT defeated purely as a result of aerial bombardment. She fought a land/sea & air war for several years. V3? Why are you still rambling on about that?!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@Silvertrine yup your right and had it not been for support from usa and others Thus why you had daytime B-17's with escorts and Lancasters at night ..but by then germany was on the defence and losing ..you would see a b-17 taking off when it was battle of britan ..Had germany won the war over britain It would of givin them time to produce there 4 engine bomber and improve there jet tech
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow If's, buts. maybe's, would have, should have might have been..........Meanwhile back in reality, Germany had NO effective heavy bomber force, whilst the RAF pressed the Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling etc into service and the rest as they say, is history. You will be arguing that if Germany had possessed the atom bomb before the US next they woud have won WW2......Meanwhile, back in reality!! lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Reality ? ok your on the internet and out of many people making statements There all wrong in your eyes even if the sky is blue. Reality.. Where in all of my post have i said anything about a atom bomb? See now your trying to put words in my mouth ..come on you can do better then that Notice the "IF" Germany..... I thought we passed IF's Buts?? Meanwhile back to reality.....your still going in circles
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow You miss the point, YET AGAIN. My comment about Germany possessing the atom bomb, ie "What if........" was used to highlight the futility of your argument which is based entirely on, "What if's," "Maybe," & "Perhaps." Ultimately, your argument is based purely on your own supposition, as opposed to hard historical fact. As I pointed out to you, NO country has EVER been forced to surrender soley due to aerial bombing. Your argument about the UK capitulating is utter nonsense.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH YA i'm going to have ifs and buts from someone that said there was no V3 Then found out there was after LEARNING IT FROM ME now your going to have pipe dreams of germany with a Atom bomb ?? after saying lets talk about reality ?? zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow They had a 4 engine heavy bomber ready to go into production in 1937 but Hitler's directive that all bombers be dive bombers forced huge changes to it that made it ineffective compared to Allied bombers like the B17 or Lancaster.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@Silvertrine I'm glad atleast you know the truth. Your right they had Test models Hitler had to many changes in plans to focus on 1 idea like building more ME 262 or 4 engine bombers but wanted heavy devop, on tanks and cannon and the stuka for Tank support His mind was still on ww1 and the way they fought as he himself was in the army .. might be why germany never used gas in the open field in ww2 he seen it used in ww1
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Yeah he was 'insane'. The kind of 'insane' that makes one not see the benefit of being able to drop 100x the tonnage of bombs a night they did on London. The kind of 'insane' that makes you force the Luftwaffe to make giant bombers dive bombers.
Silvertrine 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Due to RAF USAAF Bombing Factories They did have a effect on Arms, Fuel, and other items that would of helped Did you know the spit was a carb engine but had better octane then the 109/190 with fuel injection? it was due to the Usa supplying boosted octane to the english and helped give a extra 20 to 40hp Had it been in a 109/190 with a supercharger your looking at 60 to 80hp not to menton the bombing of the V3 in france germany would of had more time and more 262 and 4 prop
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow The USA SOLD Britain high octane fuel during the Battle Of Britain, I am well aware that it provided the Merlin with an extra 30 bhp. I am also aware that the US gave us NOTHING, we paid for every drop. Gee thanks! I think you are referring to the V2, there was no V3, and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF, particularly the Mosquito squadrons.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH First of CANADA is and was a commonweath country and Ran by england and a oil producing country and one of the main shipping lines to the UK thus the wolf packs and your welcome You history needs to be re looked at TRY GOOGLE FOR THE V3 i'm NOT referring to the V1 OR V2 And it was the Tempest MK V not the Mosquito that has more "Buzz bomb" Kills more then any other. Mossy's were more used for ground attacks and night fighter roles and shipping.
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Canada was not, and is not 'RUN' by Britain, she has her own democratically elected government. The Monarch is a figurehead and is APOLITICAL- ie has NO input/influence on politics, or the running of the nation. England is but ONE country within Britain. Ever heard of Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland? England did not fight WW2, BRITAIN did. I never stated that the Mosquito scored more kills than the Tempest/Typhoon, I merely highlighted that they were involved in countering the V2
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Trying to figure out why Churchhill told Canadian staff were to fight under Montgomery. Who was churchills boss? As for Scotland, Wales N IRE. Where did this come from ? If you look at fighting Stats England fought and lost in mass compared to BRITAIN if your going to add who fought why not add all the poor souls who fought for there country Romania, Poland, Russia. USA Australlia New Zealand and so many more
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow You have no idea what you talking about. The command & control issues associated with British & Canadian forces had absolutely nothing to do with Churchill. Point of fact, some British formations found themselves under Canadian command during Normandy-does that mean that the Canadian PM directed that this be so? You are talking nonsense. I never mentioned 'stats,' I simply corrected your inappropriate use of 'England.' WW2 was fought by BRITAIN- not England.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow During the Battle Of The Bulge in Dec 1944, at one stage, Field Marshal Montgomery found himself in command of more US troops than ANY one single US commander who was involved in the battle. Does this imply then that Britain was controlling/dictating strategy & managing US forces? NO IT DOES NOT. Canadian forces for the most part were led by Canadian senior officers, eg CRERAR, who led the Canadians in Normandy. You are confusing CO-OPERATION with CONTROL.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I guess that other guy what was his name hmmm may 4th 1944 ..hmm oh patton or something like that 7th army.. Oh yeah Command = (control of ) Co-operation = agreed or planned movement. Patton was in command of nothing in England he was there to kill 2 birds with 1 stone The president wanted him out of the lime light at home and trick Hilter that there was more then meets the eye Crerar was Under command so was Patton From England
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow This comment makes no sense whatsoever & is based on nothing more than YOUR opinion. G and study the the allied command & control system, you will find that Canadian Generals led Canadian troops, NOT the British. The Canadians CO-OPERATED with allied strategy, they were not controlled by either Churchill, or FIeld Marshal Alan Brooke, Britains most senior General.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I noticed you "Merely" bypassed to point of the V3 rocket lol Not bad for something that never was HUH ! Why you would even Highlight the facts of the Mosquito on a V2 and not The Tempest or the Lancaster that flew over to France and Bombed the V2 AND V3 inplacements Changing Hitlers idea on using them. HIGHLIGHT ! Did you know The C-47 use to transport troops.....it was a transport plane !! .....useless
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Could you repeat this gibberish again in English please. It make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. There was NO V3 rocket deployed against Britain during WW2-think again. The fact that I stated that Msquito's also played a key part in defeating the V1 menace is entirely relevant because it is historical FACT. I am well aware that everything from Spitfires to Lancaster bombers also played their part-so your point is WHAT??! Utter garbage.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow V3? It was never used against Britain. It was a failure. It was NOT a rocket, it was a shell projectile & it failed miserably. The concept of the V3 was to produce an explosive shell with very high velocity & long range in order to strike London from France. The project failed miserably. It was used without success during the Battle Of The Bulge. As such, it has no relevance to the discussion, and once again, you are shown to have a very poor grasp of military history.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH YOUR OWN Qutoe : ! I think you are referring to the V2, >>>there was no V3,<<< and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF
Then you say It was NEVER used.. Then you say : It was used without success
WOW MAN!! make up your mind Who has a very poor grasp? or better yet a ever changing story I noticed everyone that makes a comment you have made the return comment YOUR WRONG!! Ever thing maybe out of 6 people to 1 that there right and your wrong?
freakyflow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freakyflow The USA SOLD Britain high octane fuel during the Battle Of Britain, I am well aware that it provided the Merlin with an extra 30 bhp. I am also aware that the US gave us NOTHING, we paid for every drop. Gee thanks! I think you are referring to the V2, there was no V3, and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF, particularly the Mosquito squadrons.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freakyflow The USA SOLD Britain high octane fuel during the Battle Of Britain, I am well aware that it provided the Merlin with an extra 30 bhp. I am also aware that the US gave us NOTHING, we paid for every drop. Gee thanks! I think you are referring to the V2, there was no V3, and the bulk of the bombing of V2 sites was caried out by the RAF, particularly the Mosquito squadrons.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow Actually, you are wrong. German aircraft production PEAKED in 1944, which was the year that RAF & USAF bombing was the most savage. Bombing the oil refineries did have a direct impact on the Luftwaffe. However, by that time, the Luftwaffe had lost control of their own airspace due to the P-51 escort fighters, combined with the fact that they were short of experienced fighter pilots. They had plenty of aircraft, but lacked the pilots & fuel to fly them!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I`m wrong.. in your eyes maybe. Yes German aircraft did peak. But They used Normal shifts to produce aircraft Where The UK and Canada wear using 3 shifts per day ..You also had russia and Usa producing aircraft AS for beeing short of experienced fighters thats bullshit you have it all backwards German pilots had more for the FACT they were not rotated. You land you rearm and go back up and were fighting since 1936 (spain) YOU EVER HEAR THE WORDS ( THE FEW )
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow You appear incapable of assimilating the most basic point. I never mentioned shifts, or compared productivity between the respective participants in WW2. I simply highlighted a HISTORICAL FACT, namely that despite intense allied bombing around the clock, the German output of aircraft PEAKED in 44 to it's highest point of the war. In addition, the Luftwaffe were short of experienced pilots by late 44, aside from a comparative handful of ace pilots, many were green as grass.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow I am well aware that the Luftwaffe's SOP was not to rotate pilots from combat to training schools, as was the case with the allied airforces. I am also aware that due to this very fact, German pilot's stayed in combat until they were killed, wounded, or became POW's. It is a point of FACT that the Luftwaffe was short of experienced pilots by late 44. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Luftwaffe was bled white by the USAF P-51's over Germany itself.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH By 1944 Germany had already attacked Russia and were losing from 3 fronts Germany's mistake was building Tanks, Planes, Ships, Too well like they had the time to do so Thus the ME 262 Or Tiger tank. For every 1 262 made 2 B-17's 3 P-51 3 spitfires 4 Hurries, 2 Yak-3's were made Germany never had the FORD concept of mass production And this is why you had German Aces more so then Any other country. How could they do that if they were all killed? Your misinformed
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Wrong again. Germany's aircraft production was based ENTIRELY on mass production. How else do you think they managed to build nearly 30,000 Me 109's during the war? They didn't do it in a piecemeal fashion did they?! lol You are confusing issues, Germany's problem was not one of mass production, but that of TOO MANY different types of tank/aircraft being produced. Had they only manufactured the Panther & the FW 190, they would have produced MORE.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@freakyflow Go and READ about the state of the Luftwaffe in late 1944. Find out what Galland, Rall and others had to say about the lack of skilled/experieced pilots. You completely miss the point, generally, the pilots who flew in late 44, lacked the EXPERIENCE levels of those who fought earlier in the war. Why? Because many thousands of experienced pilots were already dead by this stage, The Germans simply coud not make good their losses, and they also reduced the length of training courses.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH YAAAhh I'm so glad you dropped this in ...Franz Stigler is my Godfather R.I.P. he was also a ME-109 FW-190 ME-262 pilot and flew as friends with Galland before and during the war So never had to read it from "books" I talked with the man who wrote them Galland and Rall knew why to get into a fight and knew when to leave as did most by 1944 is was a diffrent war there was no leaving and they were attack with the same mass if not more brits loss the same exp. pliots no just1sid
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Bollocks. The Luftwaffe was a busted flush by late 1944, they were desperately short of SKILLED, EXPERIENCE pilots. They could not replace casualties with anything other than hastily trained raw pilots. Your point is utterly ridiculous-you are trying to argue that the majority of W pilots were highly skilled ace's by 1944-utter drivel. The Germans had no shortage of replacement aircraft, but they lacked pilots to fly them. Buchner highlights my point in his classic book, "Stormbird."
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH No idea why you keep on about 1944 "Hey look aillies are killing all the Vet german pilots!!"" guess bringing the 303 sqaudron into the fight was because England was bored? or heavy loss of vet pilots At any rate you bore me with you ever changing stories ..unworthy
freakyflow 1 year ago
@freakyflow Evidently, you aren't too bright if you cannot assimilate a basic point, namely that by 1944, Germany was losing pilots at such a rate, the Luftwaffe was unable to replace them. Having fought constantly since 1939, many experienced pilots had been killed, injured or became POW's. The P-51's massacred the Luftwaffe over their own airspace. Your ridiculous reference to 303 Polish Sqd during the BoB actually proves my point idiot!! The RAF were running short of replacement pilots!! lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH well heard once again well use your own words to show how messed up you are : By 1944 German production had PEAKED ..hmm maybe a factor in your misleading ever changing idea on why Germany had more planes then pliots And once AGAIn german pilots were fighting since 1936 in SPAIN Not 1939 And most were pilots BEFORE the war like my Godfather. And by the time of the P-51 escorts Germany was already losing the war and were on the defence It was the hurrie and spitthatchanged it
freakyflow 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH At the start of the war the engine ran on the then-standard 87 octane aviation spirit and
The next major version was the XX which ran on 100 octane fuel. This allowed it to be run at higher manifold pressures, which were achieved by increasing the "boost" from the centrifugal type supercharger. The result was that the otherwise similar engine delivered 1,300 hp (970 kW). The process continued, with later versions running on further-increased octane rating and 150octane 1941
freakyflow 1 year ago
The 109 pilots had a great advantage in that they had altitude and speed which they had attained before they reached Britain. That is essentialy stored energy which they could use to their advantage.
gogogeedus 2 years ago
I have a book about these two planes and it stresses that they were very much alike. Each plane had it's advantages and disadvantages but the Luftwaffe were better pilots. The big problem that the Germans had was the limited range the 109 had as it wasn't meant for any extended range escorts.
lemonite1 2 years ago
The germans had more kills than other countries because many countries the fought against. Didn't have much of an AirForce. When, they had to fight the British and Americans. They discovered that it wasn't as easy to shoot them down.
jrwel14 2 years ago
Attrition.
That's the name of the game and really why most of the world isn't named Germany.
SectorNine50 2 years ago
Canadians were also a challenge for the germans because canada had a history of fighting in world war one and they had many aces that helped make training for new pilots alot easier with their tactics and they also taught them how to outsmart your opponents too the americans and the british were also very good like you said
ZachMitch1994 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RAF=OWNIGE OF NAZI WHORES
reacharound90 3 years ago
Love Gerald Stapletons mustache! what a wonderful man and a real hero.
fluffchops 3 years ago
Actually what better plane is pretty much opinion, both are about even. the Spit turned tighter, but it was harder to fly on the edge due to its stall characteristics, the 109's stall was more forgiving. The 109 climbed faster, rolled faster. Both were so evenly matched it came down to the pilot ability honestly. The versions I'm refering to fought the Battle of Britain.
tw19771 3 years ago
Good point. Have you seen both of these planes next to one another? I think the spitfire is a good deal larger than the 109 was; probably lending to the Messer's better maneuverability. I also think the Daimler engine had the edge on the Rolls Royce in the Spitfire.
number1Schumacherfan 3 years ago
yes because the daimler was injected and the rolls had a carb
UBIQUEROL 3 years ago
The cockpit of the 109 makes movement harder, if I remember a documentary comparing the two correctly. I also seem to recall them mentioning the Spitfire had poorer all-round vision. I would say that if you add all the differences together, they're just too different to reasonably compare and optimized for very different scenarios. This seems to go along with another youtube clip, in which it is said that the Luftwaffe was never designed to fight the RAF.
2206411411 3 years ago
the clip that you are reffering to actually said that the Me 109 had poorer all round vision because they had no back window they only had limited vision as to the spitfire which had great vision all around which allowed the pilots to see their enemy behind them
ZachMitch1994 2 years ago
The spitfire's stall characteristics were much more forgiving. In a right hand turn the 109 had a VERY nasty stall characteristic. The design of the Spitfire's wing actually allowed the pilot to ride on the edge of a stall much longer because the tips of the wings were the last parts to stall. You have to look at the different models of Spitfires and 109's as well to accurately compare roll rates, climb rates and turning radius. Each Spit and 109 has distinct differences.
SectorNine50 3 years ago
Thats because theres a long held belief that the wing buffeting you are referring to is part of the stall, its not, what it is, is a reaction of the airframe, to the lowering speeds before the stall comes in, it was a good warning to newer pilots to stay out of a stall. But once stalling the chances of you spinning are pretty high, higher than the 109 actually, thanks to the 109's excellent low speed handling, but the 109 didn't have such a warning. So again it evens out.
tw19771 3 years ago
The warning a lot of german pilots used though was the slats the plane had, they would deploy with a loud bang, unsettling the plane for a few moments and a lot of pilots didn't like that, so they avoided it. The best pilots knew that was where the 109 was actually starting to turn, which is why the 109 is a plane of the experts. as for stalling to the right, Yeah thats true, as for climb, roll, and data like that, you'll find significant variances with different test.
tw19771 3 years ago
both planes had alot of faults to them which made them even in matches the only thing that made those planes suceed were the pilots. the pilots needed to push it to the planes limit and also their own limit .
ZachMitch1994 2 years ago
If a plane is easy to fly, then you can concentrate on the fight instead of the flying but then again, if the plane is hard to fly, then you have to know how to fly so you tend to fly much better in a long run. And if you give this kind of pilot a easy-flying plane, then he can do much more with it that a pilots who's only flown easy-flown thingies.
opmdevil 4 years ago
You cannot just like that compare Spitrire and 109. You have to consider, that spits had 14 (if I remember correclty) subtypes and 109 had almost 100 different subtypes and variants. If spit 1 was better than 109E, 109F might had been better than Mk1 and Mk2 etc.
The fact that allies won the war doesn't mean that their machines were better.
opmdevil 4 years ago 2
The Spitfire was the better plane,ask any surviving Nazi pilot from WW2.
wwetitan 4 years ago
Thats not true.
MoxleyMauser 4 years ago
I don't think that is true at all either.
Neritoc 4 years ago
Spitfire was indeed a better plane compared to BF109 especially in late war models.
BUT the Truth is that Germans were by FAR better pilots that british and especially Americans.. who declare an Ace on 5 kills :)):)) hahaha 5 kills
bampery 3 years ago 3
ALL countries declaare a pilot an ace when he gets 5 kills you twit :)
Germans flew until they were killed. British and US pilots were rotated out to be intructors after a tour. THATS why German pilots got more kills.
Xiolablu3 3 years ago
The reason Germans got more kills is because they were far superior pilots. Pretty simple.
testomatic12345 3 years ago
Since German pilots started their training as sailplane/glider pilots, they REALLY knew how to soar through the air mass with great efficiency and really read relation between landscape and the weather, and they knew that before they were trained in an engine powered aircraft. That, I think, is really what made German pilots so exceedingly skilled. The management really messed up with not pulling them regularly out to relish the less skilled pilots with their hard gained experience
solverh 3 years ago 3
Germans got more kills because they did not rotate their pilots between combat and trainer duties. As they gained experience they just kept shooting more and more planes down. This creates a situation where only about 10% of pilots are really experienced, but when the experienced pilots died, there was not much left. Same applies to the japanese. When they hit pearl harbor, they had all the top notch guys. But when those guys were killed there was not much left. Its a war of attrition
yakovlev3a 3 years ago 10
And because they killed a lot of Polish parasol-wings and Russian I-16s--Polikarpovs--which were toughlittle bastards but not up to taking on a 109. Be interesting to see a graph of top Luftwaffe ace's kill rates as they trandferred from East to West.
8cccpeevostokzempf 2 years ago
see hans joachim marseille
Principe6900 2 years ago
@bampery Always arguable, being better is a opinion, not a fact, some aces of Germany got over the 300 kills, all in a BF109, certainly not a bad plane I say. Ask a 109 pilot and a Spitfire pilot which was the best plane, they both will say their own plane is the best.
KingBlotSven 1 year ago
@KingBlotSven what many germany aces acounnted for in kills was inclued on the battle of spain before 1939 and thats were you had pilots that had exp, by the time ww2 started
freakyflow 1 year ago
I don't see the point, the fact that a fighter is easier to pilot is a considerable advantage.
It's pretty much like saying that Italian fighters were superior because their armament was poor. Any kind of kill was pretty hard to achieve...
The Spitfire was more difficult to build, however. 3 times the amount of hours the Germans needed to build a BF-109, if I remember well.
MobiusDragon89 4 years ago 2
Actually the Italian planes were good. Very clean fighters, not alot of extras, they were built for 1 job and 1 job only.
Kingonads 4 years ago
When you are running out of pilots and have no time for training, an easy plane to fly is a huge advantage during wartime.
theslimeylimey 4 years ago
That's what happened during the Battle of Britain.
Germany and Japan also experienced a lack of pilots near the end of the conflict.
MobiusDragon89 4 years ago
The 109 was a Thoroughbred....
texasfathead 4 years ago
What a devine Briton !
CreativeCritisizm 4 years ago
"All that is complex is not useful, all that is useful is simple" Same principle of the AK-47.
racinglad 4 years ago
but ak is not precise, only powerfull
valeriobert 4 years ago
interested in kids with computer iq tecno.try reality- ask your president!
terencehooper 4 years ago
The ME109 cockpit was more business like. Leavers and dials were to hand and accessable compard to the Spit/RAF fighters. However, the weired knock-kneed undercarrage and bizzar cannopy were receipies for an early death! The specific qualities of the 109 did provide huge kill rates for those pilots who could master the fighter.
rwarreng 4 years ago
The 109 was actually more automated then the spitfire, especially the spit MK1, which the pilot had to manually adjust the prop pitch.
metube1120 5 years ago
That's the key...build a warbird that many can fly. Increase your numbers and survive by overwhelming. But...I think that not just anyone could handle a Spitfire, Mustang or Thunderbolt. They were all skilled people.
Stukadriver 5 years ago
Any Idiot Can fly a spitfire! but it took a lot of training to fly a 109...
GREAT! i love both planes!
AchtungWolff 5 years ago