Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ( Go to first unread post ) |
dead-cat |
Posted: August 13, 2004 11:14 pm
|
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
probably depends on the type.
AFAIK B17C could carry 4800lbs while the He111 H6 could carry 2800kg of bombs (which amounts about 5600lbs, if i'm not mistaken) taken from here but i'm no aircraft specialist, so if anyone has more reliable data, i stand corrected. |
dragos |
Posted: August 13, 2004 11:32 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
The bombload of 12,800lb is given for B-17G while the 4,400lb is given for He111H3
|
Victor |
Posted: August 14, 2004 05:28 am
|
||||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
That actually happened.
On 21 April 1944, adj. av. Spiridon Matei from the 58th Fighter Squadron/7th Fighter Group was shot down near Ramnicul Valcea by 31st Fighter Group's P-51s. He bailed out, but was shot in the parachute. |
||||
Dénes |
Posted: August 14, 2004 03:02 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
There were more than one occasion when American pilots shot on Rumanian pilots descending on their parachutes.
One can find same reports from Hungarian sources as well (not to mention German). Col. Dénes |
Dénes |
Posted: August 14, 2004 03:10 pm
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
I have a note in my loss files that he was shot down by Lightnings. BTW, do you have the tail number of his I.A.R. 80/81? Col. Dénes |
||
mabadesc |
Posted: August 14, 2004 06:36 pm
|
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 803 Member No.: 40 Joined: July 11, 2003 |
I've been watching this thread from its inception and have been quite amused and sympathetic with Victor's repeated attempts to prove his point through objective statements, only to be shut down by completely irrelevant, subjective arguments which have nothing to do with Air Force "EFFICIENCY".
Victor came up with simple, objective, and to-the-point arguments, all relevant to the USAAF/RAF's efficiency in WWII. It seems, however, that some people cannot put aside their dislike/hatred/envy of the US even for one moment. Their dislike of the US is so great that they simply will not concede that the US was the best at anything, never, ever, period. If you bring objective arguments that they have no answer to (like Victor did), they will just change the topic or come up with irrelevant criticism. I knew this was going to happen in this thread as soon as someone would mention the USAAF as being the most efficient airforce in WWII, and surely enough, that's how it happened. So, in conclusion, here is the summary of this thread: The Luftwaffe was the most efficient WWII airforce at all levels and at all types of missions. (Even though the USAAF had the best fighter of the war (P-51) and the best strategic bombers of the war (B-17, B-24), and even though they could conduct any type of mission, including large-scope strategic ones, which the Luftwaffe could not) Why was the Luftwaffe the most efficient WWII airforce? Simple: it's because their pilots exhibited chivalry and would not shoot at parachuting pilots with the same frequency the allies did. How can you argue with this line of thinking? These are rock-solid, relevant arguments in establishing efficiency. :roll: |
dead-cat |
Posted: August 14, 2004 09:56 pm
|
||||
Locotenent Group: Members Posts: 559 Member No.: 99 Joined: September 05, 2003 |
would you please bother to quote who exactly claimed that? Jeff said something about the Luftwaffe not displaying chivalry to which i pointed out an obviously frequent USAAF custom of shooting at bailed out pilots. the conclusion that, because the luftwaffe command did not encourage such a beaviour, the luftwaffe is the most efficient air force is entirely yours.
i'd say it's the Me262. there is another category: night fighter but when discussing the best fighters (more than just from a technological point of view) the quality of the pilot is even more relevant. and since german pilots flew on average more missions they gained more experience than most allied pilots. hence the high(er) numbers of aerial victories. |
||||
Victor |
Posted: August 15, 2004 06:35 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Mabadesc, there is no need to flame things, so calm down.
|
i16stealth |
Posted: August 15, 2004 09:08 am
|
||
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 20 Member No.: 170 Joined: December 20, 2003 |
The Soviets didn't shoot also. |
||
Victor |
Posted: August 15, 2004 10:01 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Not exactly. See the case of lt. Mihail Oncioiu here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?p=757
|
Victor |
Posted: August 15, 2004 10:18 am
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
The average pilot quality, especially towards the end of the war, was higher on the USAAF side, than on the Luftwaffe side. I believe it was Pierre Closterman who said that the Luftwaffe had 20% superb pilots and 80% future victims, or something like that. The American system relied more on large numbers of good pilots (hence the over 1250 aces) than on fewer superb Experten. |
||
C-2 |
Posted: August 15, 2004 11:51 am
|
General Medic Group: Hosts Posts: 2453 Member No.: 19 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
All nations participating pilots ,some were shooting at parachutes :cry: :cry:
|
cipiamon |
Posted: August 15, 2004 01:32 pm
|
||
Sublocotenent Group: Members Posts: 471 Member No.: 115 Joined: October 06, 2003 |
I heard that before and i don't agree whit it, it's logic for me that they also have the most high ratio of surviving, so they were better pilots From all non-propagandistic material i read it was not the quality of the pilots who matter in the end but he quantity, you can't win a battle when is 17:1. |
||
Huck |
Posted: August 20, 2004 01:27 am
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 20 Member No.: 41 Joined: July 11, 2003 |
Among the major airforces, LW was definitely the most efficient. The very best pilots using the very best material. Lethal to the last day (in the west), in spite of TR dissarray.
A better use of resources might have led to a different outcome, but the chances were slim. What was expected to happen, happened. LW was better than any of its enemies, but not good enough to defeat them all. |
mabadesc |
Posted: August 20, 2004 05:18 pm
|
||
Locotenent colonel Group: Members Posts: 803 Member No.: 40 Joined: July 11, 2003 |
The Luftwaffe was definitely a formidable tactical force (though not nearly as much in '44 and '45). However, what were its strategic capabilities? |
||
Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5 |