Two stage joke. First read this below (found in a different topic area) Then read this below Then laugh. I did. Galland B.T.W. -exec- I don't expect you to believe any sources that don't say what you want them to.
-=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=- -Pilots ROTFL Thank you Galland, I could not have said it better. -hrtman -=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=--=<o>=-
Sorry exec, but you asked for this. I leave it to the reader to decide how truthful these two posts are. And the quote above by Galland Thanks, you saved me the trouble. I would also like to know why it is that everytime a resource, that conflicts with the modelling of the planes added to WB, by freehost, is quoted, it is immediately dismissed as inaccurate. The second resource Hartmann listed is the resource I was looking for, and before I even see it posted, you are calling it into doubt. Well you can take that glimmer of doubt and dine on it for all I care. That recourse is right. The planes they captured were crap. Why else would they not fly the more then 100 planes they captured, at least as trainers, and meanwhile they scavenged every bit of material they coud get there hands on to fly the handful of b17's and take time and resources make the spitfires airworthy for use in training pilots. I ask you the reader, when actions speak louder then words, what do the germans actions tell you? [This message has been edited by Snoopy (edited 31 May 2001).]
If you are interested, I declare that soviet war and especially postwar descriptions of Luftwaffe technics are not true. The only soviet texts about Luftwaffe could be true are hot tactical experience published throughout soviet regiments during the war. These sources contain mostly comparisons between soviet and german units, rarely direct data. Also, Soviet data about American and English units are slightly mispresentated. Soviet propaganda says that Soviets destroyed 95-99% of Germany's military potential. Huh? Personally I suppose this number may happen to be 60-70%. The same behaviour I expect from Germans about Soviets and Americans about any other country. So, you must understand that we must seek for data carefully concerning WWII and Cold War propaganda, that may made naif many people till now. 9 American sources of 10 report that Mustang was simply the best fighter of the War, while B-17 was simply superior to all other bombers. And America is main and very probably the only winner of WWII "with a little help from my friends". Really. Huh? 9 Soviet sources of 10 report that Focke-Wulf was inferior to any soviet fighter. And soviet bombers were far better than germans. You believe it? 9 German sources of 10 report that Luftwaffe downed incredible mass of soviet aircrafts that were no match for their brave fighters. Even more than sum of soviet aircrafts produced by soviet data. You believe it? Now do you understand why you cannot trust first and any web-site? For example I see that 4000lbs is ultimate maximum load of Flying Fortress, from soviet book. But I know that she can lift and deliver at least 6000lbs, or even more. Would you respect me if I announce loudly that Fortress is bad bomber that hardly could take 1816kg? Even two engine Tupolev-2 can take 4000kg with top speed 550 km/h, still being dive bomber! You did the same thing recently about Il-2. _____________________________________________ Another sample of doctrinal influence for technics, tactics and strategy is Lead-Lease: except Airacobra, Willis, Studebecker and tinned meat, soviets are not glad about Mitchels, Havocs, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, Thunderbolts etc. Mustangs were only 5 in USSR, and soviet fighter pilots renounced fighting in Mustangs. There were few Thunderbolts, again, disregarged by flying staff. Soviet test pilot of Jug: "This is an excellent and comfortable aircraft for long time and long range flight, but no fighter at all." Sounds expressively. I just conclude that Mustang is absolutely not designed for low level dogfights took place at Western Front. Nothing more. Would you respect me if I announce loudly that Mustang is "heavier-than-air apparatus" that could not dare to encounter german fighters, and hope to survive? Just from the fact that Soviets rejected Mustangs. You decided that Il-2 was poor aircraft basing just on fact that Germans did not used trophy Il-2. _____________________________________________ As for Il-2 Stormovik for Luftwaffe. It's just ridiculous things you say about it's usage in Luftwaffe. Please tell me what Germans could train with this unique attacker? First flight lessons? I really doubt it. The airplane is easy to fly, but not too easy. Attacking? Germans have no attackers, except strange and few Hs-129. And tactics of Il-2 must be different from tactics of Hs-129. Hit-n-run strikes? Il-2 cannot do it because of low speed. Level bombing? Il-2 afaik have no level bombing sights. Dogfight? No chance! Use it as "Aggressor" division? LOL! Don't think Germans are too stupid to use Il-2 for pilots training. Don't abuse me with it. _____________________________________________ Finally. I am really glad that at least 1 of 10* Americans (ok. 5 here of 50 there ) are folks without prejustices, trying to seek the truth. And looks like you are here. But be careful posting non-testatur information here, because we are all pretend to be experts _____________________________________________ I am ready to beg pardon for inadequate answer posting that pic. Sorry. But I expect from you more accurate information to agrument. _____________________________________________ *Note: statistics "1 of 10", and it's contrary "9 of 10" are universal for any street, country, planet and galaxy. No discrimination at all. [This message has been edited by -exec- (edited 31 May 2001).]
Imagin yourself that IN THE MOMENT you just pressed the button to post this Reply, your internet shots suddently down, and all of you wrote, DELETED! lol!!! Muhahaha [This message has been edited by seahawk (edited 01 June 2001).]
I think I said this once already and I understand your pride. I believe that, in general, each country seems to think thier own planes are the best planes and thier own pilots the best pilots. Even if they were not the best. Galland .
AFAIK: Mustang was only that devestating coz it was so numerous... of course it's a great plane... but not an immortal plane... greetz, Zembla
Galland>-exec- I don't expect you to believe any sources that don't say what you want them to. and I understand your pride. I believe that, in general, each country seems to think thier own planes are the best planes and thier own pilots the best pilots. Even if they were not the best. Hmm... How do you expect me to understand you when you don't me? I'm trying to say that Pony is great escort and high-alt fighter sweep plane. I'm trying to say that La-5/7 is great low altitude superiority front fighter. I'm trying to say that Il-2 is great (and the only for WWII) attacker (not strike airplane). I'm trying to say that Tempest and FW-190A-8 are great interceptors and fighter-bombers. But Ponys is bad front fighter, Yak's are poor interceptors, Lavochnkin's are not good escort fighters at all. And FW-190 at Eastern Front is not pretty good idea. I'm trying to say that I select sources to trust comparing them with others, and of course sources must not contain nonsenses. If the source says that MiG-7 is next version of MiG-3 - I throw it away. If the source shows serial numbers of airplane versions, I guess I must rely upon it. If the source says that Pony is the super-puper airplane of the Universe in all roles, I discard it. If source says that Ki-44 carries 37mm, I'm afraid I must treat it very carefully. And if the source tells about Rumbock or Wilde Sau tactics, and verbosely reports technical means for them, I have no choise, but trust it. If the source ensures me that Volksjagers are equipped with a pair of MK-108, I must ingore it, because W.O.L. reports recoil of 2*MK-108 is too high for He-162. If the source says that MiG-3 had a barrel firing through the airscrew spiner, and other proves that AM-35 engine don't allow it by its construction, I must not trust the first source. Can't you see it?
As I see it there are three things wrong here -exec- #1 Sounds like you are saying, "If the source has one bad fact then it is all junk." Of course if a site says the IL2 is just a simplified ME262, then it is obviously wrong about THAT fact, but does that mean that it is wrong when it says that Erich Hartmann almost exclusive flew the ME109 during WWII. #2 Actually it is one step worse. This is based on WHAT????? Please site specific example(s) of how this american site, or any other site in question, is not accurate. #3 When we question your integrity you start grasping at straws, and spouting information, instead of answering the question at hand. Whether your information is factual is still in question, so I won't drop to the level of calling it untrue. You don't seem to be getting what the members here, are trying to point out. Everytime one of us backs you into the corner, you try to jump out and grab some sideways piece of the topic, or simply call the facts we bring to the table "unreliable." So please try staying on topic. FOCUS for a couple of minutes and tell me: 1. Why you can say the first two quotes above. 2. And make a nationalistic joke in the process, after you just reprimanded another user for making one (which you did apologize for, Thank you,) but this still calls YOUR character into question, and 3. how can you expect any of us to respect your obviously biased opinions. Would you fight us on our data if our accounts were registered in Russia, or Brazil, or Cuba, or someplace else? Personally I am sick of it, and I just want the facts. If you go to the site that Hartmann listed above and find fault with someting in the site then tell us what you find at fault, besides the fact that it is american. That is no more a sin then being Russian, German, Polish, or any other. So please get off your high horse and lets just look at the facts here. BTW: I don't disagree that the pony is a high plane nor that the Russian planes you listed are low planes. But are they modelled that way in FH? Or is the Foo just EIN's ripp off of the Russian planes from FreeHost? [This message has been edited by Snoopy (edited 01 June 2001).]
Thank you Rgreat ok I have somethign to add...but in more relaxed way from what I wanted to write up there.. TO ALL : DEAL WITH IT!
Snoopy>Sounds like you are saying, "If the source has one bad fact then it is all junk." Source proven to have an obvious error somewhere could turn to mistake in other unpredicted place. I cannot rely upon it. -exec->I think that American data about Soviet airplanes are not objective. Snoopy>This is based on WHAT????? Please site specific example(s) of how this american site, or any other site in question, is not accurate. This is based on that fact that I consider Soviet sources about American planes to be not objective. How I decide "objective/not"? Comparing sources. 4000lb of fortress' load by soviets contradicts with fortress >6000lb load from Joe Baugher. Why I chose Bauhger? Because his article about B-17 much more detailed than soviet source we took for an example (Igor Andreev, "Military Airplanes", ISBN-later). You may insist that I seek for inexact sites at InterNet? Wow! Snoopy>When we question your integrity Since english is not my native language I may happen to skip words unfamiliar to me, when I suppose they are not keywords. O.K. Looking at dictionnary, trying to figure out what do you mean. Wow! "Honesty". Cool. Is it what you mean? I don't want to answer before you clearly reformulate your questions about my honesty. Snoopy>Everytime one of us backs you into the corner This is the first time someone says that he's not happy of my point of view here. And I'm not a mind reader. Snoopy>1. Why you can say the first two quotes above. Source proven to have an obvious error somewhere could turn to mistake in other unpredicted place. Why I say this? Because it is my point of view. Snoopy>I think that American data about Soviet airplanes are not objective. This is based on that fact that I consider Soviet sources about American and German planes to be not objective. Summarising 2+2 I conclude that it is consequence of doctrinal war. And i spread this idea to American sources about Soviets. Snoopy>2. And make a nationalistic joke in the process, after you just reprimanded another user for making one (which you did apologize for, Thank you,) but this still calls YOUR character into question You must not thank me. Just apology or not. I see that you don't. Shame on me. Why I issued (be more precisely "reposted") this joke? My mistake. I misaddressed the answer to all Americans, not to persons posted opinionately bad mention of Il-2. That time I was irritated by another thread in russian forum, that chased attackers on FreeHost (I understand it as 228ShAD). Snoopy>Personally I am sick of it, and I just want the facts What the facts should I answer on general declaration: hrtman>It says IL2 is so bad... Germans captured over 100 of them and would not even use them for training... they would rather take the time and money and man power to build a new plane! and that says alot! lol Over modled on free host... you decide without any facts. You have pretensions, so you first strike must be based on facts. Say "Sustained turn time of Il-2 by that source is XX, but at FreeHost it is XXX". Huh? Snoopy>If you go to the site that Hartmann listed above and find fault with someting in the site then tell us what you find at fault, besides the fact that it is american. That is no more a sin then being Russian, German, Polish, or any other. If you go to the site that Hartmann listed above and find the precise parameters mismatch Il-2 model at FreeHost I would seek for data. Battle of words meets battle of words. Why should I spend more time than Hartmann to argue his uncertain opinion with real facts referencing reliable sources? I am not Don Kihote[spelling?] to break my spears against windmills. Snoopy>So please get off your high horse and lets just look at the facts here No facts but "Germans don't like Il-2". Bollean logic. What can I say? They have the right not to love it. But I answered that you must seek for reliable sources, when the flame begun. And Pony's model at FH is exactly IEN's. Would you discuss it at AGW or IEN?
plz dont let your pride hurt the other (im talking to all) and no, not you, -pryde i guess i dont have much national pride (maybe since i was born in one country and live in another), so i see this arguement as pointless. though i dont disrespect your pride. just thought i should put my ideas here.
Im sry but ihave to agree with the others on this one. Many of times ive come here and posted tech data and the first thing out of any FH staff is how they think the data is wrong and so on. Its obvious that each country is going to boast their planes more then the others so why dont we try to find a source that is not government contracted and is not a member of anyone governemt? Such as Janes. They are a private group that gets data from test that they do and witness. Im sure we could find some data from them that is good. As for the whole ubber soviet planes in FH it is true im sry to say. why dont you FH people try flying on golds side for about 2 TODs and see how well your soviet planes are. Im sure you will change your mind when you find that every soviet plane can kill you with very little effort in the game. I will also stat it again that i think red needs to have some restrictions on their planes. If gold is forced to have "inaccurate" restrictions then red should be forced to have the same. I right now proclaim that the Yak-9T (i think it is, the one with the 30mm+ cannon) is nothing more then a Me262 on the red side. So i want it restricted. It seems when reds complain about the Me262 FH staf listen (prly cause they fly red themselves) so i now want restrictions on red planes. I want it so some red planes can only be flown for like one hour each TOD and that hour is always late night so that it hardly ever gets flown. I mean it would only be fair right? ive said it before and i will say it again this game gets less and less fun each time a new plane is added cause all it does is bring up arguments about how they are inaccurate and false and imbalance the game.
He-162 did have 2xMk108 ( 50 rds per weapon ) in the first batch. Later aircraft had 2x Mg151/20 , 120 rds per weapon. I don't know for sure how many of each were built. 37mm on a Ki44... no, that's incorrect. The Ki-44-IIc had 2x 12.7mm on the nose and 2x Ho301 low-speed, cartridge-less 40mm cannon mounted on the wings. exec, for you how valid is this info? mcosta Sturmtruppen
afair typical ki44 have 2x12+2x7mm small numbers have 2x12+2x20, and little have 2x12+2x40... but use of these planes was limited to ground support due to terrible ballistic stats of Ho301 guns and afair ?last? versions of Ki44 was: Ki44-IIIa have 4x20 cannons Ki44-IIIb have 2x20+2x37 cannons but it was too little build as production lines shifts to much more promising ki84... ------------------ Roman aka rgreat
I know nothing about japanese guns. But at http://www.j-aircraft.com/ there was a thread where someone stated that Ho-203 37mm japanese cannon could not be carried by japanese fighters, because of enormous size and weight and probably recoil of Ho-203. He supposed that this is common mistake originated probably from misreporting about 37mm for Ki-44 when observer saw 40mm Ho-301. Sigh this thread now is removed into archive or something like that. I don't believe that guy at once, but now I'm carefully listen to 37/40mm on Ki-44 opinions. Last He-162 with MK-108 cannons is He-162-V5 and He-162A-1 by Wings Of Luftwaffe (W. Green). A-1 was not produced or the serie was very short (I cannot get it from text quickly). Because of recoil, a pair of MK-108 was replaced by a pair of MG-151/20 (120rpg) for He-162A-2. I know nothing about production of other series of Salamander. ------------------ Luck Yedyge aka exec[228] aka Killer Crayon mail2duc@stones.com [This message has been edited by -exec- (edited 05 June 2001).]
On the other hand, http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fr.html reports weights of guns: Ho-301 49kg, Ho-203 90kg o.b. Ki-44 may happen to be capable to carry a pair of Ho-203 cannons
