Dieppe (crossposted on the AH boards)
Seeker
Reading these boards, I see a constant anti-Spit whine, which normally goes
roughly along the lines that the Spit shines where the LW planes suck due
to:
A) Unhistoric fight altitudes (sub-10K)
B) Lemming-like ganging (could be true, but I reckon applies to all)
C) All pervasive Dar robbing the Lw of the 100% surprise they actually
achieved in wartime.
And the reason I titled this Dieppe is that while the Spit's superiority to
the 109 had already been clearly demonstrated by end 1940,as far as I'm
aware the first time the RAF came up against the 190 in strength was the
Dieppe landings, where:
A) The fights were low alt
B) There was tremendous ganging
C) The Lw had absolutely no element of surprise.
......and the RAF had it's arse handed to it.
So I'd like to ask the anti-Spit whiners, in the light of the above:
Just where do you people screw up so badly?
Seeker
Otter
--
Otter
Seeker <rexk...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:qn7K7.65662$Te5.2...@nnrp3.clara.net...
Oldman
goes
> roughly along the lines that the Spit shines where the LW planes suck due
> to:
I've never read - anywhere - of a pilot on either side who thought his plane
was superior to the Spit in 1 v 1 fighting capabilities (except for that
period when the first FW190s were flying against Spit Vs - and then everyone
says just the reverse).
On a broader note: Seeker, don't trouble yourself about luftweenies. Their
side lost, on the merits. They weren't overpowered; they were out-thought,
out-planned and out-fought on their own turf by people with less combat
experience. The whining you describe reminds me of the way football fans
complain when their team loses - bad referee calls, wrong players injured,
sunspots - anything other than the fact that the other team was better.
- Oldman
DanielR
"Oldman" <jwe...@sackslaw.net> wrote in message
news:HccK7.65752$Te5.2...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>
> On a broader note: Seeker, don't trouble yourself about luftweenies.
Their
> side lost, on the merits. They weren't overpowered; they were
out-thought,
> out-planned and out-fought on their own turf by people with less combat
> experience. The whining you describe reminds me of the way football fans
> complain when their team loses - bad referee calls, wrong players injured,
> sunspots - anything other than the fact that the other team was better.
>
> - Oldman
Some of those guys identify a little too closely with Nazi Germany.
-MZ-
Dan Johnson
severely outclassed by the 190. The Spit IX was just making it's appearance
evened the balance out again.
It, like all the fighter comparisons was a battle of one upmanship. 109E and
Spit I/II esentially equal. 109 had the negative G carb but the RAF boffins
found a solution. 109F upped the ante. Then came the Spit V that was a bit
better. 190 shows up and the Spit V is in trouble, 109G as well. Oops here
comes the Spit IX, XII, VIII and the Spit has the edge both at alt and down low
or at least can fight on equal terms with turning radius always playing to the
Spit. Later on its the D9 and the XIV.
Ultimately I think in a flight sim, where range is not an issue, the Spit is
always going to shine. Most fighter pilots would not argue with the fact that
the Spit was the best "knife fighter" there was.
BUT. Throw in the range issues of the real war, and the Spit lost it's edge to
the 51 and the other allied fighters with longer legs.
That being said, the LW fighters had the same range problems so the LW folks
have little to complain about.
As for Dieppe itself, the failure was not so much in the Spits, as in the lack
of ground air coordination. I did my senior paper in college on the Dieppe air
battle. While it as a "disaster" at the time, the lessons learned paid off over
and over again both in the Med and during Allied air operations over France
during and after the invasion. Considering the disadvantages both in
performance and ground conrtrolling, the RAF boys did an admirable job over
Dieppe.
Dan
+Tiff
Seeker
. Considering the disadvantages both in
> performance and ground conrtrolling, the RAF boys did an admirable job
over
> Dieppe.
>
> Dan
> +Tiff
Doubtless, but that in no way blunts the point I was making.
When do we get the PDF on that Dieppe stuff, I'd love to see it, Granddad
trained the Canadians and went on the boats.
Seeker
Dan Johnson
electric typewriter, 1979
Dan
+Tiff
Of the Spit fanatic fan club :)
J_A_B
"uber hispanos"
The true signature of a dedicated luftwhiner is they ALWAYS have an excuse.
J_A_B
Otter
--
Otter
Oldman
- oldman
"Dan Johnson" <dlj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BF99C2A...@earthlink.net...
Otter
should happen careless like <strikes wooden match on +Tiff's left nostril,
lights handrolled cigarette, pauses admiring flame>ya know what I mean
Professor?
--
Otter
Oldman <jwe...@sackslaw.net> wrote in message
news:qtAK7.66075$Te5.2...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> It's better to do it the Philadelphia way. Send El Elefante up to visit
> Tiff and show him some things about his thumbs if he doesn't cough up the
> paper.
>
> - oldman
Dan Johnson
For what it's worth, the professor didn't like the paper much. I thought AVM
Harry Broadhurst was the clear connection between Dieppe, the Desert Air Force
and Overlord air ops, and that the tactics he helped develope with Cab ranks
and air to ground communications were a result of the Dieppe failures. He
didn't think I proved it :)
Dan
+Tiff
Seeker
Seeker
"Dan Johnson" <dlj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BFB0CD4...@earthlink.net...
DamnedWind
Wind
"Dan Johnson" <dlj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BFB0CD4...@earthlink.net...
Dan Johnson
Dan
+Tiff
Seeker
www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=012610
I think I might have catalysed something :-)
Seeker
"Dan Johnson" <dlj...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BFBFFC5...@earthlink.net...