Thrawn's Revenge

Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: Raptor on September 01, 2007, 09:30:28 PM

Title: The Best
Post by: Raptor on September 01, 2007, 09:30:28 PM
If you vote, please post.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Noret on September 01, 2007, 09:47:42 PM
P-38
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: sarcronis on September 01, 2007, 11:08:44 PM
Is the 262 the jet/rocket fighter?  If it is it is the best.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 02, 2007, 03:21:30 AM
ME262 was the first mass produced jet fighter in history. and the best fighter plane in WWII.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Kratas on September 02, 2007, 05:25:56 AM
spit fire they represent the pride of the british
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 02, 2007, 06:39:13 PM
Im gonna go Mustang
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Slornie on September 03, 2007, 06:30:10 AM
Hurricane.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on September 03, 2007, 09:36:21 PM
Mustang for me. 262 might have been better had Hitler not made it part bomber.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 04, 2007, 01:00:40 AM
how could it have been better? It was built as a fighter.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Mandalore-the-Inquizitor on September 05, 2007, 12:07:08 AM
i vote the yak-1 russian fighter
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 05, 2007, 07:08:43 PM
Im sorry but the Yak-1 was not nearly the best at all
Faulty engineering, failed government testing but still was produced because the Soviets needed a fighter

Wasnt as fast, well armed, or didnt have nearly the range of a Mustang
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Mandalore-the-Inquizitor on September 05, 2007, 10:04:44 PM
dosent mean i cant like it and The russian had the best jets Late 40 to the 80s
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 05, 2007, 10:22:08 PM
Dont even start talkin about post-war here
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 06, 2007, 12:59:16 AM
well he could mention Yak-7 and Yak-9.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on September 24, 2007, 09:01:38 PM
Meteor Mk. 3, it was the fastest jet of WWII.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 25, 2007, 12:34:48 AM
did it participate in any battle or action?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 25, 2007, 07:45:49 PM
From Wikipedia

"The Gloster Meteor was not an aerodynamically advanced aircraft, nor even the world's fastest aircraft on introduction"

Apparently it wasnt the fastest
Unless you're talking about the 2 meteor's specially modified to go for the air speed record, which weren't nearly combat capable
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on September 25, 2007, 11:01:25 PM
Then what was?

I mean no offense to Wikipedia but that might not be true, as it is for everything there. Also it was so long ago so no one can really tell. Its more of an opinionative question.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 26, 2007, 01:13:18 AM
well if wikipedia  doesn't always tell the truth why do you think the claim that it was the fastest is truth?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 26, 2007, 08:26:10 AM
it could only hit 415 mph
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 26, 2007, 09:01:33 AM
that's what? 660 kph?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 26, 2007, 06:50:05 PM
No idea, but the me 262 could hit 415 and the me 163 could hit like just over 590 (mph)
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 27, 2007, 01:11:33 AM
but you have to remember that ME-163 was a rocket propelled plane, not jet.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 27, 2007, 10:02:05 PM
Fine, but the 262 was faster
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 02:22:09 AM
ME-163 could get over 1000 kph in dives. but even with faster speed it was inferior to ME-262 because it had an operation time of about 5 min.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 28, 2007, 04:35:55 AM
i say the good old fashioned spitfire. pwned the Germans in Battle of Britain.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 06:17:30 AM
but it was inferior to german planes that entered the war later.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Slornie on September 28, 2007, 06:23:57 AM
Maybe, but it isnt just the hardware that is important..
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 06:54:26 AM
yep. pilots count too. and germans had the best pilots. no one can claim otherwise.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 28, 2007, 10:00:58 AM
so...the german pilots were better....they out numbered the Brit Fighters at least 3:1 in most battles....and they had better planes...yet im not speaking German. am i missing something?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 10:31:17 AM
well maybe the fact that it was because off bomber losses germans gave up. if one fighter penetrates the defending ones it can do great damage in tight bomber formations. plus the fact that german fighters had small range at that time. they din't have fuel for long time of dogfighting. and the fact that germans had better pilots is true.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 28, 2007, 11:35:00 AM
not neccesarily, just maybe more amazing ones
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 12:00:09 PM
well if they weren't better than allied pilots who did they achieve so much more victories?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 28, 2007, 12:05:07 PM
they didnt...whenever the RAF was about, the germans NEVER could get Air superiority, unless of course there was absolutly no allied ground forces.

for example, the Battles near Malta. the RAF fighters launched from there were such a pain to the Axis war machine in Africa they allocated a ridiculous amount of forces in an attempt to blockade Malta and make them run out of fuel for the fighters. yet the RAF always kept the Axis forces out of a perimeter around Malta.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Kratas on September 28, 2007, 12:29:01 PM
i knew the RAF were good but WOW
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 12:49:40 PM
but on Malta they met mostly Italian fighters and pilots. and if RAF always had air superiority, where were they in 1940 when Wehrmacht stormed through France undisturbed? No RAF planes to protect. And Luftwaffe had air superiority in France all the way to 1942 when usaaf came to Europe to aid RAF. without americas help RAF would never have been able to defeat Luftwaffe. it was american parts that were used to repair british planes so that they were able to fight again in battle of britain. Only air force worse than RAF in WWII was propably Italian AF. but I'm not counting air units that came from NZ, Canada or Australia.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Kratas on September 28, 2007, 12:58:04 PM
teh uk was severely outnumbered and what happened in your country poland isnt it at least we could protect our borders
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 28, 2007, 12:58:54 PM
in 1940 ground units pulled out before the RAF, they stayed to give cover, which is why i said as long as there were ground forces.

same with when France was occupied by Germans. no point attackin, because no ground forces.

and for your final point, who was flying them? Brits.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 28, 2007, 02:00:29 PM
and volunteers from usa, canada and some other countries. and in 1940 what cover did RAf give? there wasn't planes in france if you don't count few individual ones. and what was the point of attacking german cities if it is pointless without the ground forces? you bombed those cities from 1939 onward and first ground units came 1944.

teh uk was severely outnumbered and what happened in your country poland isnt it at least we could protect our borders
what do you mean? No understand.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 28, 2007, 02:18:39 PM
Quote
and in 1940 what cover did RAf give? there wasn't planes in france
the planes were there giving the ground forces cover as they retreated, actually. read about Dunkirk.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Slornie on September 28, 2007, 02:59:09 PM
and what was the point of attacking german cities if it is pointless without the ground forces? you bombed those cities from 1939 onward and first ground units came 1944.
What was the point of the Germans bombing British cities? The first ground units never turned up :P
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Kratas on September 28, 2007, 03:32:54 PM
the uk was severely outnumbered and what happened in your country poland (isnt it) at least we could protect our borders
what do you mean? No understand.
i mean poland didnt exactly last long aagainst the germans did it
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Slornie on September 28, 2007, 03:35:17 PM
i mean poland didnt exactly last long aagainst the germans did it
I'll give you a hint, Meyer's from Finland..
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 28, 2007, 06:27:42 PM
And why does it matter if they got their parts from the US or if they didn't show up in France?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the abilities of the pilots
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 29, 2007, 01:59:34 AM
Quote
and in 1940 what cover did RAf give? there wasn't planes in france
the planes were there giving the ground forces cover as they retreated, actually. read about Dunkirk.

there were two hurricanes over dunkirk. german planes could do what they wanted.

and what was the point of attacking german cities if it is pointless without the ground forces? you bombed those cities from 1939 onward and first ground units came 1944.
What was the point of the Germans bombing British cities? The first ground units never turned up :P
The bombing of cities started in a weird way. first it was one german bomber that got lost in a fog. it dropped bombs when they thought they were in right place. well the bombs were dropped in some english city or village can't remember the name. then raf retaliated and bomber a few german citites. well Hitler wasn't very happy about it and ordered G
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 29, 2007, 02:30:18 PM
Well it doesn't say much if nearly all historians say that if germans had kept bombing rafs air fields for few more weeks there wouldn't have been any resistance after that. So the fact that Operation Seel
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Kratas on September 29, 2007, 03:47:59 PM
air fields arnt necessarily needed for takeoff
 planes can be hidden in barns as can there fuel and ammo
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 29, 2007, 03:55:35 PM
there were two hurricanes over dunkirk. german planes could do what they wanted.
i have no idea where you got that information, but it is definitly wrong. The RAF were providing cover for the French and British units retreating from the Lufftwaffe.
The bombing of cities started in a weird way. first it was one german bomber that got lost in a fog. it dropped bombs when they thought they were in right place. well the bombs were dropped in some english city or village can't remember the name. then raf retaliated and bomber a few german citites. well Hitler wasn't very happy about it and ordered G
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 29, 2007, 04:26:09 PM
air fields arnt necessarily needed for takeoff
 planes can be hidden in barns as can there fuel and ammo

That will work for a few planes, but not enough to defend all of England
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Kratas on September 29, 2007, 04:29:12 PM
true
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 29, 2007, 06:43:04 PM
there were two hurricanes over dunkirk. german planes could do what they wanted.
i have no idea where you got that information, but it is definitly wrong. The RAF were providing cover for the French and British units retreating from the Lufftwaffe.
The bombing of cities started in a weird way. first it was one german bomber that got lost in a fog. it dropped bombs when they thought they were in right place. well the bombs were dropped in some english city or village can't remember the name. then raf retaliated and bomber a few german citites. well Hitler wasn't very happy about it and ordered G
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 29, 2007, 06:47:03 PM
They didn't get most their planes from the US, they made them in England, the US wan't even in the war at that time, much less building stuff for them

And someone gave you american made documents with British experts?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 29, 2007, 06:50:38 PM
and american experts and a few germans even. and USA did help gb before it entered the war. by delivering machine parts, selling aircrafts and other consumer goods.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 29, 2007, 06:54:17 PM
I know, but they didn't set up British plane factories, the British themselves made most their aircraft
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 29, 2007, 06:55:32 PM
from american made parts. but you are right. it's wrong to say americans made the planes.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on September 29, 2007, 07:02:12 PM
Then why did the germans try to destroy BEF from air? it would have been very stupid if the British had had manny planes over Dunkirk. And the RAF wasn't building enough planes. the got many of those from USA. and had the germans keep destroying the fields like they were the RAF would have been forced to retreat to Scotland. And that info was given to me by american made documents were had many british experts in them. I don't knoiw what they have taught you but you should check all angels and not just simply assuming that everything what is told to you in school history lessonsis true. And remeber most importantly: History is ALWAYS winners history.
they tried to destroy the BEF from the air because of some British commanders notgetting their act together. the RAF gave very little cover while they were in Belgium, but only because of the leadership. by dunkirk, however, the RAF were providing Air cover.

their is obviously a difference in opinion between our two sources because although i acknowledge that the Americans made some of the parts the RAF needed, a lot more was made in Britain. America mainly provided the money needed.

also, my sources say that on average it took just 3 days for a runway to be completely fixed and fully operational after a heavy Luftwaffe bombing raid, hardly enough to force us to Scotland.

my sources are a mixture of War Veteran testimonies from German and British soldiers, as well as History books and good old wikipedia

i do try and explore all angles, and will only argue a point after that process has finished. if isee something to persuade me otherwise, i will change sides. oh, and thats my quote...thief :P
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 29, 2007, 07:04:45 PM
but germans were bombing runways daily. they wouldn't wait for three days so that it could be fixed. and the reason why Luftwaffe wasn't able to destroy BEF in Dunkirk was that their bombs didn't blow in the soft shore sand.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 29, 2007, 07:06:05 PM
And the runways were'nt the only problem, also the fuel depos, ammunition stores, communication and radar towers and hangars took a lot longer to fix at the airfields
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 29, 2007, 07:29:39 PM
yep. RAf couldn't have won the battle without the boming of cities. so it's always said that how dreadful it was. but it also saved GB.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 29, 2007, 07:41:30 PM
I agree, Hitler was a retard for that one
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 30, 2007, 02:10:05 AM
I think that Hitler helped allies a great deal in winning the war.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 30, 2007, 09:59:40 AM
Not a great deal, remember he was the one that started the war and came up with blitzkrieg
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on September 30, 2007, 01:23:30 PM
but thanks to him BEF wasn't destroyed at dunkirk, RAF got time to replenish and soviets were able to beat germans at Stalingrad.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on September 30, 2007, 01:48:42 PM
I'd say he did more bad than good for the allies
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on September 30, 2007, 09:54:05 PM
Me too, although he did screw himself. You could also argue that he helped the US by starting the war.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 01, 2007, 12:43:44 AM
yep. he shouldn't have done that. but he tough that Japan would deal USA.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on October 01, 2007, 08:25:40 AM
I doubt people saw it was a good thing the war started, even though it wasn't all bad
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on October 07, 2007, 09:34:40 PM
I personally do. Who knows when the US would have gotten out of the Depression.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on October 07, 2007, 09:39:16 PM
Eventually, and that was a good thing about it, but i dont know if that was worth tens of millions of lives and countless cities destroyed
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on October 08, 2007, 12:10:14 AM
That, for me too, is the only thing that bothers me about it.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 08, 2007, 12:23:33 AM
you can count it on population control. we don't want the Earth to become overpopulated, do we?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on October 08, 2007, 07:16:22 PM
Well, we dont need war for that, just look at Europe and their population, its stabilized and in some countries declining, all we need is for India and China to become developed
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Slornie on October 08, 2007, 07:18:43 PM
Which they are doing..
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on October 08, 2007, 07:55:48 PM
Im not saying they aren't, but only when they do is when the Earth will stabilize population wise
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Mandalore-the-Inquizitor on October 19, 2007, 01:29:56 AM
and if not prepare for war
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: GrndAdmrlPellaeon on October 20, 2007, 09:11:10 PM
Sharpen your pitchforks!  ::)




I believe this topic is about to die.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 21, 2007, 02:36:46 AM
I belive it has already died, but just refuses to go down.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 23, 2007, 07:24:28 AM
i'll say hurricane
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 23, 2007, 07:53:04 AM
Hurricane! Are you out of your mind! that plane was a piece of crap.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 23, 2007, 08:09:34 AM
TBH, i was just trying to get 125 posts
i dont even know what it looks like
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 23, 2007, 08:30:55 AM
now that's low.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 23, 2007, 08:34:39 AM
i was one away iand i had nothing to post on
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 23, 2007, 08:40:51 AM
you could have just waited.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 23, 2007, 08:41:54 AM
1 post
and no offence, but speak for yourself
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 23, 2007, 08:44:30 AM
I have no need for more posts. I already see all I can get access through posting so it makes no difference. and lately I have mostly answered to your posts which has allowed you to getmore posts. but back to topic. So you don't think hurricane is the best plane of those on the list?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 23, 2007, 08:49:21 AM
no
i wanted another post and chose a random plane
i should of chosen a more significant one
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: s-t-n on October 23, 2007, 10:50:22 AM
i think it was instrumental in defending britain during world war 2. cheap, expendable yet highly effective vs the better german planes.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 23, 2007, 11:13:17 AM
in fact hurricane was only better against german bombers. against fighters it was outmatched.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on October 23, 2007, 03:45:54 PM
who cares? it beat the German fighters didnt it
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 24, 2007, 12:38:02 AM
mostly it was being chased by german fighters.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Scarecrow63 on October 24, 2007, 03:53:07 PM
RAF still won over the luftwaffe
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 25, 2007, 01:15:10 AM
yeah. because germans made the mistake that they started to bomb cities instead of airfields and other military installations. and they lost bombers mainly, not fighters.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 25, 2007, 07:52:12 AM
the greater good
that was where the heavy damage laid, and we countered it, got to lose some things to take some things
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 25, 2007, 09:42:40 AM
not that's stupid logic. Why should you lose somethnig to get something?
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 25, 2007, 11:10:07 AM
you'd lose a lot more lives letting bombers through
the hurricanes minimised losses
and FYI, the spitfire was used (i think)
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: Meyer on October 25, 2007, 03:03:08 PM
Spifire lured german fighter cover to engage them and then hurricans attacked the the bombers.
Title: Re: The Best
Post by: vadereclipse on October 25, 2007, 03:18:06 PM
there you go
minimised potential losses