Wow, the Germans had damn good pilots in WW2

[uclaLabrat]

Sure you will, just keep sending out new ones.



But if the war had dragged on much longer, they would have started to face Allied jets and that advantage would disappear.

😕😕😕
Just send new ones? The ploesti raid alone lost over 600 men (58 planes) in terms of air crews...in one day. That's an unsustainable rate of attrition. It takes what, 1-2 years to fully train an air crew? At those loss rates, assuming 1-3 raids per week during april to october for good weather, you're looking at having to replace 18,000-70,000 air crewmen per year. How many were we training at the height of the war? I think we actually got up to around 100,000 in 1944, but that seems ambitious.

Also, Ploesti was a fairly small raid, only 178 planes took off for the first one. In 1944-45, we put up raids that were 1000 bombers strong with up to 800-900 fighters. So while the relative loss rates were high for the ploesti raids, 50 planes on a large raid would be fairly acceptable. It's still amazing we were able to keep up. Of course, loss rates tumbles at the end after the mustang was introduced and the luftwaffe was smashed to oblivion.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

wow, lots of strange opinions and bogus "facts" in this thread.

the luftwaffe developed its technical advantage in the 1930's and then stagnated. the me-109 was absolutely elderly for the majority of the war.

the p-51 was easily the best fighter of the war. it also was developed much later in the conflict and fought a weakened enemy. it was the successful combination of a superior but underpowered north american airframe and the outstanding rolls-royce merlin engine used in the supermarine spitfire. the spitfire itself was an extremely deadly aircraft, but limited to defense only.

the tiger, tiger 2 and sherman were not the best tanks of ww2. that would be the t-34 - extremely spartan, producible and reliable. as a medium ww2 tank, it defined the main battle tank for the post-war era and introduced the critical development of sloped armor.

most over-rated weapon of ww2: the nuclear bomb. over 60 more important japanese cities were destroyed with conventional munitions before hiroshima and nagasaki, with zero effect on the japanese "will to fight". what signaled the end of the japanese was stalin's eventual breaking of their non-aggression pact.

most under-rated weapon of ww2: the liberty ship. in war, like the universe iteslf, it's easier to deny or destroy than it is to accomplish or create. despite this, liberty ships succeeded in bringing the enormous u.s. productivity to europe and keeping england not just alive but in the fight as well.

 

[BladeVenom]

the p-51 was easily the best fighter of the war.

I think the F4U-4 was superior in almost every way except range and fuel efficiency.

Then there's the Messerschmitt Me 262 to consider.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

I think the F4U-4 was superior in almost every way except range and fuel efficiency.

Then there's the Messerschmitt Me 262 to consider.

the f4u-4 was a bit better in performance, the p-51 had better armament and endurance. not having flown either, i say it's a push when each is used appropriately.

the 262...nobody considers that to be mainstream or influential on the battlefield. certainly the template for all jets to come, but not a factor in ww2. too late, too few, too expensive, too thirsty, and even deadlier to noobs than the f4.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

wow, lots of strange opinions and bogus "facts" in this thread.

the p-51 was easily the best fighter of the war.

There's the most bogus "fact" in this thread. The P-51 was an excellent bomber escort and arguably the most important plane of the war as it greatly improved Allied ability to knock out German industrial centers. As a dog fighter though it was far inferior to a bunch of fighters. The Spitfire, the K variant of the ME-109 and the Focke Wolf 190-D, the P-38 and the F4U Corsair all had the capability to outperform the Mustang if the pilots were equally skilled.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

There's the most bogus "fact" in this thread.

you're a bogus fact

 

[BladeVenom]

the f4u-4 was a bit better in performance, the p-51 had better armament and endurance. not having flown either, i say it's a push when each is used appropriately.

the 262...nobody considers that to be mainstream or influential on the battlefield. certainly the template for all jets to come, but not a factor in ww2. too late, too few, too expensive, too thirsty, and even deadlier to noobs than the f4.

The F4U-4 could carry heavier armament than than the P-51. It could carry 4x20mm cannons instead of 6x.50 machine guns. It could also carry twice the bomb load.

The ME-262 may have come to late, but it was still better.

 

[skyking]

Those are not fighter characteristics. The F4U filled a couple of roles quite well. As close air support it was utilized in the Korean conflict, with one recorded kill of a MIG-15.
It was my dad's favorite plane from the war. He witnessed many ground attacks on bunkers on Iwo Jima.

 

[blankslate]

Then there's the Messerschmitt Me 262 to consider.

the 262...nobody considers that to be mainstream or influential on the battlefield. certainly the template for all jets to come, but not a factor in ww2. too late, too few, too expensive, too thirsty, and even deadlier to noobs than the f4.

This is true but what if circumstances were different and Germany was able to introduce it just as the P-51 came into the action and in significant numbers. Say one or two squadrons with their experienced pilots?

Might be a topic for historical sci-fi. Similar to the Novel "Guns of the South" in which the Confederate soldiers are given AK-47s from the future.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

"They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." ~Ronald Reagan

was that ronald reagan, union president or ronald reagan, union buster?

 

[EagleKeeper]

was that ronald reagan, union president or ronald reagan, union buster?

Union buster. When the union puts its principles above the those that they are to protect, they deserve to fall.

People like to cherry pick, ignoring circumstances/setting for quotes.

 

[blankslate]

was that ronald reagan, union president or ronald reagan, union buster?

That's the point. He said this as POTUS

 

[ichy]

most under-rated weapon of ww2: the liberty ship. in war, like the universe iteslf, it's easier to deny or destroy than it is to accomplish or create. despite this, liberty ships succeeded in bringing the enormous u.s. productivity to europe and keeping england not just alive but in the fight as well.

I don't think that anyone who actually knows something about WW2 would underrate the importance of the US's ability to built a shit ton of shipping.

 

[adlep]

T-34 was not the best tank of the WW2. It was good but Panthers and Tigers were better.

However, the Soviets were able to outproduce Germans.
In a 1 to 1 combat Panther and Tiger > ALL

 

[phucheneh]

However, the Soviets were able to outproduce Germans.
In a 1 to 1 combat Panther and Tiger > ALL

Pfft. No match for the mighty Grasshopper.

 

[Remobz]

T-34 was not the best tank of the WW2. It was good but Panthers and Tigers were better.

However, the Soviets were able to outproduce Germans.
In a 1 to 1 combat Panther and Tiger > ALL

Imagine if Hitler had produced a tank like the T-34 in mass quantities. Scary!

On another note, what the US Army did to J. Walter Christie was an injustice!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Christie

 

[preslove]

Pfft. No match for the mighty Grasshopper.

Yup. My grandfather was an artillery officer in WWII and he spotted in those & piper cubs. He must have knocked out a bunch of advanced German tanks, and killed many of the infantry & support crew attached to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare#Field_artillery

 

[anikhtos]

Imagine if Hitler had produced a tank like the T-34 in mass quantities. Scary!

On another note, what the US Army did to J. Walter Christie was an injustice!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Christie

lol the funny thing is that germany when advancing was seizing tons of soviet equipment. Thus in their best time had 1000 t34 operating in the german army.
Lol the tank in vast numbers in the german army was not of a german design lol

 

[ALIVE]

lol the funny thing is that germany when advancing was seizing tons of soviet equipment. Thus in their best time had 1000 t34 operating in the german army.
Lol the tank in vast numbers in the german army was not of a german design lol

well also to Stalin decision to describe all russian surrender to the germans traitos and they will be executed when the red army wins made the german able to reuse the soviet prisoners as an army against russia. 1 million russian fought against Stalin in an attempt to save their lifes. The russian formation had all the officers germans thought.

 

[phucheneh]

Yup. My grandfather was an artillery officer in WWII and he spotted in those & piper cubs. He must have knocked out a bunch of advanced German tanks, and killed many of the infantry & support crew attached to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare#Field_artillery

...your grandfather wasn't Bazooka Charlie, right? Although I think the 'recoilless rockets on a spotter plane' thing was done by a few different people; Charles Carpenter was just the one who did it the best and got the attention. Seems like he was a BAMF in his own right, though. I don't think you'd see a modern USAF pilot hopping on a tank and directing a charge into the enemy.:awe:

Or were you just referring to the ability to pierce the thin top armor on tanks with arty?

 

[ichy]

Ok, enough with all this ridiculous T-34 hype. The reason it gained such a reputation was because German tankers had to go up against it in 1941. The Sherman was just as much of a world-beater at that point in time. The T-34 had a multitude of flaws (awful crew ergonomics come to mind) and a Panther or Tiger could blow it to bits just as easily as it could knock out a Sherman.

In the Korean War there were a number of instances of American Shermans fighting North Korean T-34s. The Shermans held their own quite well.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Ok, enough with all this ridiculous T-34 hype. The reason it gained such a reputation was because German tankers had to go up against it in 1941. The Sherman was just as much of a world-beater at that point in time. The T-34 had a multitude of flaws (awful crew ergonomics come to mind) and a Panther or Tiger could blow it to bits just as easily as it could knock out a Sherman.

In the Korean War there were a number of instances of American Shermans fighting North Korean T-34s. The Shermans held their own quite well.

yeah right, world beater 🙄

the m4 was designed with 1 philosophy: weenie swarm. they were poorly armed, poorly armored and cheap.

ergonomics? t-34 was legendary for being awful to be in. that's not what it was made for. it's reputation is based on combat effectiveness, not creature comforts like paint and seats. and, it was significantly harder to kill than a sherman, a.k.a. ronson, because it lights on the first strike, a.k.a tommycooker, a.k.a the burning grave.

please don't compare well-trained american crews to the chinese in korea.

 

[ichy]

the m4 was designed with 1 philosophy: weenie swarm. they were poorly armed, poorly armored and cheap.

By the standards of 1942 the Sherman was well armed and had good armor. It completely outclassed the Panzer Mk. III and IVs that it faced in North Africa. The big mistake the US Army made was not pushing ahead with an earlier upgrade from the 75mm gun. Later 76mm armed Shermans would have been a lot more potent against the tanks it faced later in the war.

ergonomics? t-34 was legendary for being awful to be in. that's not what it was made for. it's reputation is based on combat effectiveness, not creature comforts like paint and seats. and, it was significantly harder to kill than a sherman, a.k.a. ronson, because it lights on the first strike, a.k.a tommycooker, a.k.a the burning grave.

Ergonomics is more than just crew comfort. One of the biggest flaws with the early T-34s was that it had a two man turret with only a loader and commander. The commander had to shoot the main gun since there was no gunner. That was a big disadvantage in combat and was corrected with the T-34-85.

The T-34s armor protect wasn't that much better than the Sherman's. The reason it gained such a fearsome reputation was because it initially had to face off against the anti-tank weapons the Germans had in 1941. The Sherman would have done almost as well under those circumstances.

 

[ichy]

the m4 was designed with 1 philosophy: weenie swarm. they were poorly armed, poorly armored and cheap.

Also, the philosophy that actually resulted in the M-4 being designed the way it was was that tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks. The US Army had this notion of Tank Destroyers being used for shooting it out with enemy armor. The Shermans were supposed to be used offensively once a breakthrough into the enemy rear had been achieved. Reality didn't end up working this way of course but your "weenie swarm" comment is complete nonsense.

Edit: Yes it's a wiki article but it's a well written one that cites legit sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-4_Sherman#Doctrine

As the US approached entry in World War II, armored employment was doctrinally governed by FM 100-5 Operations (published May 1941, the month following selection of the M4 tank's final design). That FM stated that:

The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.[9]

In other words, the M4 was envisioned to primarily fill the role of a cruiser tank — although the US Army did not use that doctrinal term. The M4 was not primarily intended as an infantry support tank; in fact, FM 100-5 specifically stated the opposite. It placed tanks in the "striking echelon" of the armored division, and placed the infantry in the "support echelon". Neither was the M4 primarily intended for tank versus tank action. Doctrinally, anti-tank engagements were the primary role of tank destroyers. The field manual covering the use of the Sherman (FM 17-33, "The Tank Battalion, Light and Medium" of September 1942) devoted one page of text and four diagrams to tank versus tank action (out of 142 pages).[10] This early armored doctrine was heavily influenced by the sweeping initial successes of the German blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately, by the time M4s reached combat in significant numbers, battlefield demands for infantry support and tank versus tank action far outnumbered the occasional opportunities for cruiser tanks.

Although envisioned primarily as a cruiser-type tank, US doctrine did also contemplate the M4's use in other roles. Unlike some other nations, which had separate medium tank designs tailored specifically for anti-tank roles (e.g., the German PzKw III) and support roles (the PzKw IV), the US intended the M4 to fulfill all roles. Although not optimized for tank versus tank engagements or infantry support, the M4 was capable of performing these missions to varying degrees.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

you're absolutely right, dude. i'm total nonsense. the m4 was easily the best thing anyone ever made.