Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   'Red Tails' New WW2 movie coming out ;) (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=27444)

IamNotDavid 10-28-2011 03:28 PM

Tactically the Germans had every advantage. They never had to worry about landing in enemy territory or running out of fuel. They had the initiative whenever they attacked, and could run away when they lost the initiative. They could land, rearm, and get back into the fight. They did not have to deal with the fatigue of flying long distances before getting into combat.

Sternjaeger II 10-28-2011 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid (Post 355481)
That would not have been a problem if the Germans had superior pilots.

this is a poor attempt David, pilots were superior (in experience and tactics) but in small numbers. It's actually surprising to see how they kept on delivering planes and pilots despite being under siege.

Quote:

From 1942 to 1944 the Germans had access to all the resources in Europe
All resources? Care to explain which resources you mean? Germany had the biggest resources at the time, the only two things they really used were oil from the East (until the Americans and Russians started to attack there) and the Dnepr area, which they lost soon. They did the same mistake they did in the First World War: they didn't take resources into account for more than 3 years and found themselves fighting a war of logistic attrition.

Quote:

Stupid strategic planning is no excuse.
what? Where were they supposed to fish their pilots exactly? the USA alone had half a million people living there, with no threats and factories working at full steam.. I'm afraid you're missing some important aspects of WW2.

Quote:

boo...hoo...
how is that supposed to be a comment worth a reply?

Quote:

I Follow Roads. There are no roads at sea, sparky. The idea that no landmards is better than landmarks is completely absurd.
Yeah, brilliant joke, never heard of it :rolleyes: Pilots that relied on landmarks landed in England thinking they were in France and viceversa.. I don't think you have an understanding of IFR man, so, to paraphrase your suggestion of some time ago, Google it before sounding like a complete moron.

bw_wolverine 10-28-2011 03:35 PM

So hey, how about that Red Tails huh? Looks like a typical Hollywood flag waver flick, but could be fun. I'll check the reviews and if it gets a decent enough rating, I'll check it out.

Sternjaeger II 10-28-2011 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid (Post 355486)
Tactically the Germans had every advantage. They never had to worry about landing in enemy territory or running out of fuel. They had the initiative whenever they attacked, and could run away when they lost the initiative. They could land, rearm, and get back into the fight. They did not have to deal with the fatigue of flying long distances before getting into combat.

That's what they did, that's why they have such impressive aerial victory figures. Still, it takes time and efforts to climb to 10k feet if not more, with fighters waiting and having tactical and numerical advantage, against a sea of bombers.

I still think you don't fully realise the odds here.

Sternjaeger II 10-28-2011 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine (Post 355490)
So hey, how about that Red Tails huh? Looks like a typical Hollywood flag waver flick, but could be fun. I'll check the reviews and if it gets a decent enough rating, I'll check it out.

yep, fair point, let's try and stay on topic. I'll watch the movie when it comes out, I have to say that the second trailer was a bit more exciting (apart for the odd one or two scenes..).

IamNotDavid 10-28-2011 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 355488)
All resources? Care to explain which resources you mean?

You were the one whining about lack of resources. They had all the resources in Europe.

I'll give you one thing, the Luftwaffe fans are definitely better at coming up with excuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 355488)
Yeah, brilliant joke, never heard of it :rolleyes: Pilots that relied on landmarks landed in England thinking they were in France and viceversa..

Where do you think carrier pilots landed when they mistook one patch of empty ocean for a different patch of empty ocean?

Seriously, trying to argue that landmarks are worse then no landmarks is so idiotic that I'm really amazed that you're not trying to pretend you never said it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 355488)
I don't think you have an understanding of IFR man, so, to paraphrase your suggestion of some time ago, Google it before sounding like a complete moron.

This is quite comical coming from someone who thinks that landmarks are a disadvantage.

IamNotDavid 10-28-2011 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 355491)

I still think you don't fully realise the odds here.

Neither did Hitler, apparently.

The Germans had a huge tactical advantage. That's why many of then had such high kill numbers. It had nothing to do with their pilots being superior.

bongodriver 10-28-2011 03:55 PM

Anyway....werent carriers equipped with DF (huffduff) in the latter parts of the war? that certainly makes finding home easier.

Sternjaeger II 10-28-2011 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid (Post 355494)
You were the one whining about lack of resources. They had all the resources in Europe.

I'll give you one thing, the Luftwaffe fans are definitely better at coming up with excuses.

they hadn't, you probably didn't inform yourself well enough.


Quote:

Where do you think carrier pilots landed when they mistook one patch of empty ocean for a different patch of empty ocean?
it hardly happened, because they used radio navigation, which is a form of IFR. I'm surprised I'm even having to explain this to you.

Quote:

Seriously, trying to argue that landmarks are worse then no landmarks is so idiotic that I'm really amazed that you're not trying to pretend you never said it.
you're changing my words. I said that IFR is safer than VFR, because there's less margin for error. In some cases landmarks can be misinterpreted and cause the pilot to get lost, if you ever flew on a small plane you would know this. The fact that you want to have an opinion on things you know zip about and have no experience with is somewhat grotesque, you don't socialise much out of here, do you?

Quote:

This is quite comical coming from someone who thinks that landmarks are a disadvantage.
Read above.

And for the record, this is the last answer I give you here, if you want to continue this conversation and make a buffoon out of yourself, feel free to start a thread in the off topic forum.

Now, back to Red Tails..

IamNotDavid 10-28-2011 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 355500)
it hardly happened, because they used radio navigation, which is a form of IFR. I'm surprised I'm even having to explain this to you.

What do you think pilots used when their radio navigation equipment was damaged? How do you think that process worked for carrier pilots?


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.