Finally! Vindicated!...

In fact he did claim that in the West, German armies were destroyed by the air. One has to wonder why so much GIs and Tommies were needed then.

Indeed, he has stated that by the time the air attacks had finnished there was actually nothing left to fight. This would of course indicate that there were a lot of allied servicemen being killed during their advance by nobody or indeed, the only other option, each other.

 

I admit to being one of those who took this thread off topic slightly, but didn't we start out discussing the German view of Allied air superiority? How did we get back to the "we didn't need the army, honest guv'nor" discussion again?
Kitty

 

Indeed, he has stated that by the time the air attacks had finnished there was actually nothing left to fight. This would of course indicate that there were a lot of allied servicemen being killed during their advance by nobody or indeed, the only other option, each other.
Oh my, a binary thinker. Its all this or its all that. You cannot speak to them in degrees. Meat is too strong for them, I must give them milk. Skim milk at that.

 

ditto.

You can't call the man's argument's specious Jimbo, If the above impression was not the one you wanted to give then there's a gulf between what you think and what you're writing chap.
Sometimes you do have to state the obvious. Sorry to say but that's true. I never said air won the war alone. I never said that fighters swooped down and killed snipers in trees and picked up prisoners. I never said the airplanes were unmanned. (I didn't mention pilots either)

Explain to me why I must speak as to children, why it would not be assumed that the world is round and the earth goes around the sun before we can talk about deeper concepts like say landing on the moon.

Surely you are brighter than to think that I think an unmanned aircraft could occupy a conquered nation. Perhaps you also thought I meant that they didn't need the Quartermasters either that food and water and fuel and ammo were not important if you had air supremacy.

The very definition of specious. Now there are two.

 

Strange the link for the Thunderbolt figures seems to be Air Force Material Division performance tests at Wright Field - do you have better info?

Figures for the P47M are also a little selective -130 built and only arriving in 1945 does not make it a typical example
Not every Spitfire was a XIV or a IX either. What's your point?

 

Oh my, a binary thinker. Its all this or its all that. You cannot speak to them in degrees. Meat is too strong for them, I must give them milk. Skim milk at that.

Uneducated skim milk would be better tbh. Funny that someone who make idiot claims like that winter alone was responsible for the failure of Barbarossa or that the British landing beaches in Normandy were uncontested tries to talk about binary thinking.

 

Its called
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle width=80> </TD><TD width=8>


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Alert In The West: A Luftwaffe Pilot On The Western Front

It's about $11.00 at Amazon.

Thanks Jim, I'll add it to my list.

 

:sign_what:

Today you can take out an entire factory with a 30lb missile because everything the factory is sensitive and easy to destroy, like computers and robotics.

Back in WW2 factory machines were big chuncks of steel weighing many tons and unless a bomb landed directly on them they were right to go as soon as the bombers flew away.

 

Jimbo. How was I with my milksop mind supposed to interpret statements like this:



and many others (Omaha beach etc. etc.) other than to have been given the impression that you believe/believed that Air power alone could solve many more problems than it actually can?? I really don't want to open that Pandora's box of circular arguments again but if you're going to use a passive/agressive approach and deny having said these things while calling people who refer to them Specious then there's a whole sack of quotes to that effect on this forum that could be bought out in evidence. I'm glad to see you seem to be retreating from such hard-lined 'assertions' but patronising myself (and PP, who's more than capable of defending himself) seems unnecesary and contrary in the light of the stance you have taken many many times before.
Get someone to explain it to you. Again I didn't say that the Army was not needed. That was your specious statement. Go reread what you speciously said. So despite the fact you (for reasons I will never know) "thought you had me here", you didn't. The statement is true that the Air forces destroyed most of the German equipment. Why is this so hard for your as you say "milksop" mind (whatever that means)? Panzer Lehr was destroyed almost entirely by aircraft. First, and according to their commander, (NOT JIMBO!) they lost half of them going 80 miles toward the beaches in D-Day. Then having reequipped in Cobra they were erased from the land of the living (or should I say existing) by a single 15 miniute strike of B-17s and B-24s and this is why Patton suddenly found NO ARMY in front of himself and started the famous "breakout".

I havent retreated from a single position you have quoted. You are loaded with meretricious claims against me.

This is not rocket science dude. The Allied ground equipment was CRAP!!!!!!!! (I had to use all upper case. Just capitalizing Crap would not do it justice). CRAP does NOT destroy heavily armed awesome well trained experenced armies and their equipment! What in the world ever made people such as yourself think that Shermans dominated German armor and blew up everything? Don't you know anything about Allied armor? The Shermans were "mankillers" not real tanks. Have you ever seen a movie or a book where they didn't point out how big of a piece of crap it was compared to the German equipment. A single movie where they didn't refer to them by some dubious term of endearment like "Tommy Cookers" or "Ronson Lighters"?

The majority of the days in 1945, the fighter bomber groups alone were destroying 1000s of trucks, 1000s of box cars 100s of locomotives EACH DAY!. The Germans started mounting 88s and 20mms in box cars in desperation! You really and truly do need to get some tactical air books VP. You have no idea how little reality you understand about WWII even though common sense should be screaming in your ears.

I don't just have air books friend. I have US Armor retrospectives. That's what led me to look into aircraft because since they said they said about their own armor prowess that were crap, someone must of have beaten the Germans. Why don't you put me together some synopsis of how Shermans took out German armored divisions. This one I gotta see. Show me how a BB gun overcomes a double barrel shotgun while you are at it. It would be easier to explain and a lot more beleivable. I have yet to hear anyone attempt that one though I have thrown the gauntlet down over and over. Not a single taker and you won't be one either. The just all come crowing like roosters and mocking (like you did) hoping that their little show will distract from their obvious embarrasment, shame and lack of answers. I am the one having the last laugh here friend at your expense. Even though you had planned it the other way!

I hope I have been instructional to you VP. No charge for the lesson. Maybe if you simply stop mocking and start reading we will have something to discuss that seems more logical. You too PP. You need to read those books when VP is done. You boys share!

 

Jim, On High Octane these days. Kona is best. My favorite but its damned expensive coffee.

 

Today you can take out an entire factory with a 30lb missile because everything the factory is sensitive and easy to destroy, like computers and robotics.

Back in WW2 factory machines were big chuncks of steel weighing many tons and unless a bomb landed directly on them they were right to go as soon as the bombers flew away.
Do you have any idea what a typical bomb run looked like? depending on the target you could have between 300 and 1000 bombers loaded with high explosives and incendiary rounds. The Germans said they would look up and see that they were coming in streams and steams as far as the eye could see to target one factory complex. Destroying a factory was not a problem. Flak was a problem. Factories...no problem.

 

Jim, On High Octane these days. Kona is best. My favorite but its damned expensive coffee.
Oh, we are just talking about my favorite subject of WWII.

 

It was meant as a compliment. Take those numbers!

 

Do you have any idea what a typical bomb run looked like? depending on the target you could have between 300 and 1000 bombers loaded with high explosives and incendiary rounds. The Germans said they would look up and see that they were coming in streams and steams as far as the eye could see to target one factory complex. Destroying a factory was not a problem. Flak was a problem. Factories...no problem.

No, bombing factories did very little to the factory itself. The best thing bombing a factory did was the bombs that missed taking out the roads around the factory.

 

Get someone to explain it to you. Again I didn't say that the Army was not needed. That was your specious statement. Go reread what you speciously said. So despite the fact you (for reasons I will never know) "thought you had me here", you didn't. The statement is true that the Air forces destroyed most of the German equipment. Why is this so hard for your as you say "milksop" mind (whatever that means)? Panzer Lehr was destroyed almost entirely by aircraft. First, and according to their commander, (NOT JIMBO!) they lost half of them going 80 miles toward the beaches in D-Day. Then having reequipped in Cobra they were erased from the land of the living (or should I say existing) by a single 15 miniute strike of B-17s and B-24s and this is why Patton suddenly found NO ARMY in front of himself and started the famous "breakout".

And according to their Maintenance officer, the Panzer Lehr was hardly destroyed almost entirely, though poor Jimbo will prolly never get the point about that.

 

Not every Spitfire was a XIV or a IX either. What's your point?

The point was that someone provided detailed comparative information on a range of aircraft performance which you said was wrong, without bothering to show where you got your more reliable information from.

You'll have to do better if you want to convince me that air power was the reason for allied victory.

 

Just give up chaps!
He really does believe all this drivel!
Abuse and accusations of sniping is all you'll get for disagreeing.
Never a reasoned argument, always just some patronising silliness followed by "HA!" or it's equivalent.

I have to agree. Standing up and telling everyone else that he is the only one who really knows about the air war and in other posts showing that he doesn't know about some simple facts about things 'aircraft' and the realities of what you can hope to see from an aircraft at low level. No wonder most are not convinced by his 'arguments'.