ARM: REview - DML 1/35 Scale M4A3E8 "Thunderbolt VII"

If you look at the numbers, and consider that all of the German aces were three-digit shooters, what does that say about the capabilities of ANY aircraft other than that we could build planes faster than the Germans could shoot them down?

Not so much a "negligable effect on the war effort" as it is a statement about the infrastructure and manufacturing capacity of the Allies....even more so, considering that we in the U.S. weren't getting bombed regularly while we were trying to manufactuer said armaments. If

109s, 190s, and even 262s had been of "negligable effect", the war should have ended much sooner.

ironhead sporty. twin 8" shoels, laced up on almost any rim you wanted. fit virtually any home made hardtail becuse it was simple to shim. bet he had an akront 18" rim.

I've posted this here before, but in the interests of keeping us all informed, I'll do it again!

Have a look around and find a book titled "Why the Allies Won", by Richard Overy (Amazon has it, or try your local library - remember them?) It's a refreshing look at the whys of the Allied victory - like someone said hereabouts, we built more than they could shoot down. Full of interesting information and telling reasons why the Germans lost.

Definately recommended.

Rob

I said that the Me262's and Me163's had a negligible effect - due to their small numbers - not the Me109 and FW190.

(kim)

It wasn't just about numbers. Allied fighters flew top-cover which meant they always operated at optimum speed and altitude whereas German jets and rockets had to reduce speed and altitude dramatically in order to attack allied bombers. That made them sitting ducks for allied fighters.

(kim)

that's kind of an old and obvious idea. are there new insights that make this stand out? always up for a fresh read.....

worst was take-off and landing. yeager speaks of hanging around airfields waiting for them to land where he would just jump on their tales and blamo.

most wellington's and hurris were out of their original jobs. the whimpeys were trainers and tugs and the hurris were mostly grounf attack and nuisance bombers. they did not comprise much of the main bomber or fighter force after late 43. even the fastest and best version of the hurricane were an easy mark for the later 190's and 109's.

That was a typo. I was thinking of the Haliax heavy bomber.

But the Hurricane was available in numbers when it was needed most in 1940.

(kim)

I know - I was just being all-encompassing, as I have given up trying to define "which fighter was better" a long time ago.

Sort of...

ok, i understand typoers.

indeed, but that wasn't your claim. i know what you meant, though.

Or, in the case of the Sherman tank..............Wars are won by more of having more of something not as good than something much better can knock out ;~)

Who was it said "You fight a war with what you've got, not what you'd like to have"! Ex. Curtiss P-40, Bell P-39, Hawker Hurricane, Bf-109, Sherman and Grant/Lee, etc:

Bill Shuey

Rufus wrote in news:PDoEg.92424$FQ1.15131@attbi_s71:

Which is why I get nauseated at every idiot mention of "proportionality" of response. These intellectual black holes haven't a clue as to how to win a card game, let alone a war.

Frank

AussieRob wrote in news:Xns9820BAE5A8554rgrinbergspamspam@203.87.95.150:

Indeed. I found it a very enlightening read. But it isn't the first book to assess it correctly. I have a book on naval warfare written in 1942. The writer very astutely evaluated the previous 2 to 3 years and projected eventual victory. If I can recall correctly it had to do with power projection, the ability to collect supplies from anywhere in the world and attack anywhere relatively undisturbed by enemy naval elements. The thrust was that the allies had ports including refueling and repair facilities throughout much of the world, whereas the Axis did not and the ability to build more. It is interesting that he made this observation in 1942 while the U-boats were still a considerable threat.

I always thought the loss of the Graf Spee and the Bismark were inevitable. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau certainly had some success but the writng was clearly on the wall for deploying capital ships in ones and twos with no escort (read that as air protection). Imagine if a carrier had been with Bismark and fighters had been able to have a go at the Swordfish. I never quite understood why the Germans didn't use the Arados more aggressively for defense, they were well armed and faster than the Swordfish.

Interesting stuff.

Frank

yes, come at me with a close fist and i have no qualms about blowing big holes through you. if you start it, don't expect any reasonable response, expect as much as i can give without injuring myself.