Yes…twin 30mm cannons mounted on the wings. This was a common conversion later in the war for use against Armor on the Eastern Front. I think each cannon could only fire about 20 rounds apeice–'cuz that’s all the Stuka could carry!
Ozone27
Stukas sound the coolest. I like the Jap Zeros as well, the white ones. Its a tight little aircraft.
Yeah, the zeros were amazing aircraft. The Nakajima Ki-84 was probably one of the finest all-around aircraft of the war. The only problem was that most Japanese pilots (after 1943) were inexperienced and unable to effectively pilot such an aircraft.
Well thats what you gey for raming your planes into amarican ships.
i like the RAF hurrican, good bomber killer and better handling then the spitfire
Of all the things about WW2 that ive read or watch, never once had i heard anything about Russain aircraft.
The russians had some very excellent designs, although generally inferior to German aircraft. They were often much cruder machines although German pilots generally respected the flying characteristics of such outstanding aircraft as Yaks and La-5/La-7s
On 2002-03-26 16:46, mini_phreek wrote:
Well thats what you gey for raming your planes into amarican ships.i like the RAF hurrican, good bomber killer and better handling then the spitfire
it is “American”, and i believe the kamikaze attacks (organized ones) started in 44.
the spitfire was 100 MPH faster (well,later ones…)
i said better handling that means it has better stall recovery and the turn and bank is smoother.
A big problem with Western Historians is that they tended to regard the the reason why Germans aces were able to amount such an amazing kill rate on the Eastern War as due to “inferior” Russian design and pilots. But the Yakovlev Yak 9 and La-7 was one of the best fighters of the war and Herman suggested that the Germans avoid dogfighting with the La-7 at altitudes below 5,000 meters.
On 2002-03-26 17:18, Soon_U_Die wrote:
For its role…hands down the Russkie Sturmovik ground assault aircraft.Joseph Stalin…promptly ordered that production of the Sturmovik was to take priority over production of all other weapon systems, ground or air.
SUD
Yes, the Ilyushin 2 was an awesome aircraft–nicknamed the flying tank (much like the American P-47 “Thunderbolt”) because of its ability to take incredible damage and still bring one home–definitely a plus for the pilot…
I, too think ground-attack planes deserve more of the limelight…
Ozone27
A lot of the german aces shot a good deal of aircraft down before Russia.
Still, by statistics, the Russian planes were inferior (well, maybe equal to a crappy Me 109.)
The ME 109 was not a “crappy” aircraft.
Actually at lower altitudes (where most of the fighting on the Eastern Front took place) Russian planes had the advantage. The only exception I can think of to this are the MiGs; they were fairly poor below 16,500 ft but they were great above that, being a full 30 mi/hr faster than a Bf 109 at altitude. Since there were no Bf 109s (or other German aircraft) at that altitude MiGs were used as high altitude recon craft.
I believe that most German aces on the Eastern Front got a large number of their kills when strafing the virtually unprotected airfields in the early days of the invasion when an unholy percentage of the VVS was destroy.
I don’t think that the Me-109 would be a crappy aircraft if the Germans produced over 30,000 of them (the highest build of any fighter).
A pilot doesnt get a “kill” for shooting up aircraft on a runway.
Stukas did most of the ground damage anyway.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-03-27 17:09 ]
I think in the first day of operation barbrossa, 1500 russian planes were destroyed, somewhere around 5,500 in one month. some good times for the luftwaffe.
my “crappy” me 109 comment stands. that guy named Kurt Tank who designed the Fw190 said the Me 109 was a “thirdbred racehorse”, and Heinkel came out with the He100, which came out barely after the me109 and was far better (especially speedwise.) I do not know how simple to build the Me 109 was, so maybe that was a factor…but maybe it wasn’t.
Was Kurt Tank a pilot?
It was a fine plane for most of the war.
Well if you look at the characteristics of the Me-109 was a formidable opponent. Its low speed handling qualities were excellent and its rate of climb matched the Spitfire.
It had a higher service ceiling and the major advantage of fuel injection. This allowed the Me-109’s powerplant to run flawlessly regardless of the aircraft’s attitude, which did not cut out at of negative G.
I think that the weakness of Me-109 were more on logistics and design rather then actual preformance. The cockpit of the M-109 was very small, poor visibility, poor range and endurance, hard to land.
However compared with the likes of the P-51 Mustang the 109 was definately obsolete.
Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much
[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-27 19:47 ]
Kurt tank was an aircraft designer, who also designed the Ta-183, the father if the Mig 15.
Some Me109 statistics:
first Me109: Bf109a, designed september 1935
many types later, the ones in the beginning of the war were the Bf 109 D,E, and E-0 had MG17 machine guns for firepower.
The Bf 109 E-1 introduced 20mm cannons, and had a top speed of 354 MPH (first made in the beggining of 1939.)
near the end of the war, Me109s had speeds over 429 MPH. Two were operational before wars end (the K-14) that was as fast as 450MPH top speed.
The He100, which was competing to be built, but the Me109 was chosen, even though the He100 was better. Initial stability problems were fixed, and it had a top speed of 416MPH armed with two MG17s and a 20mm cannon, with a range of 625 miles.
I don’t have time right now to go into other aircraft…i’ll get back to you guys later.
