War Thunder

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: War Thunder

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 23 Dec 2014 14:15

I cited a book that literally dismantled your entire stance on the French air force. I trust it more than someone who only knew the French through gunsights. That 600 German planes were shot down doesn't mean anything without the greater context of why they were flying over France, and if the other not 600 planes were able to achieve their missions.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

User avatar
Darkmil
Brigadier
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2012 15:17
Location: Massy
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Darkmil » Tue 23 Dec 2014 14:25

panzersaurkrautwefer wrote:I cited a book that literally dismantled your entire stance on the French air force. I trust it more than someone who only knew the French through gunsights. That 600 German planes were shot down doesn't mean anything without the greater context of why they were flying over France, and if the other not 600 planes were able to achieve their missions.

Then read "The First and the Last" from A.Galland and we'll be on par. 600 plane in 6 weeks is as much planes downed per day as in Battle of Britain, and considering Luftwaffe's work was a lot easier above France (nearby airfield, not dealing with an organized AAA because of the advance of panzer's, an enemy air force that can't even repair it's plane since the airfield are captured one by one), what you are saying is that French pilot were inept. I could say the same of U.S. Pilot in the Philippine who were slaughtered in the opening month of the war, but that would be an atrocious lie, they fought the best they can in dire conditions so did French pilots.
Image

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: War Thunder

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 23 Dec 2014 14:39

I'm not exactly arguing the pilots themselves were bad, but the US military in the Philippines was just as defeated, and just as ill prepared as the French military in France. While ultimately 600 planes may have been destroyed by the French Air Force, it was at the expense of 1400 or so French planes. This does not indicate a "good well trained, well equipped air force" nor was the bombing force over the UK significantly reduced by the missing overall 1200 total lost Luftwaffe planes. It wasn't the net total around 3000 destroyed airplanes and associated crews that stopped the Battle of Britain, it was the inability of the planes that remained, and were still bombing in number until the end, to achieve meaningful success.

This is getting to the key of what you're not understanding. If the French Air Force killed instead 2000 German planes, as long as it did not impact the ground fighting by either protecting the ground forces (which it did not) or disrupted the German offensive (which it also did not), then it entirely failed to contribute to the battle. If the RAF had only shot down 2 German planes, but so heavily chased all the ones it didn't shoot down, that they were unable to drop bombs, or attack targets, then that would still ultimately be a victory.

So the fact the French Air Force drew blood as it was defeated, does by no means indicate it was a useful tool for continued resistance, and as I have pointed out, the French nation was beaten militarily from top to bottom, which again points to France defeated, vs France giving up for politics.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

User avatar
Darkmil
Brigadier
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2012 15:17
Location: Massy
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Darkmil » Tue 23 Dec 2014 14:49

1400 planes... Most of them destroyed on the ground... And some others in suicide raids...
Image

User avatar
Mr0Buggy
Brigadier
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon 27 May 2013 15:57
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Mr0Buggy » Tue 23 Dec 2014 16:02

Maybe you two gents would like to get a thread of your own to get all the tension worked out, hmmm ?

User avatar
Swingfire
Warrant Officer
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat 2 Mar 2013 15:55
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Swingfire » Tue 23 Dec 2014 16:21

No tank busts my balls more than the Sherman Jumbo, whatever it's called. The gun mantlet might as well be armored with depleted uranium, and despite the fact that the hull is much thinner, my shells just explode against it without penetrating
Image

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Killertomato » Tue 23 Dec 2014 16:23

Swingfire wrote:No tank busts my balls more than the Sherman Jumbo, whatever it's called. The gun mantlet might as well be armored with depleted uranium, and despite the fact that the hull is much thinner, my shells just explode against it without penetrating


Well, it does have more frontal armor than the tiger 1...

Also, wtf the Brits were thinking with eight .303 guns on the hurricane I do not know. I can literally hose these BF 110s with fire for like four seconds and yet they live.
Last edited by Killertomato on Tue 23 Dec 2014 16:25, edited 1 time in total.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
LoneRifle
Major-General
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:11
Location: Cackalacky
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby LoneRifle » Tue 23 Dec 2014 16:23

I enjoy off topic derailments. A spirited debate is good for Wargame morale! :P
Image

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: War Thunder

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 23 Dec 2014 16:46

Also, wtf the Brits were thinking with eight .303 guns on the hurricane I do not know. I can literally hose these BF 110s with fire for like four seconds and yet they live.


WELL LET ME TELL YOU

In a nutshell the British used their measurement for determining the optimal fighter weapons systems as lead delivered into a target over a set amount of time. The arrangement that put the heaviest amount of lead, into an airplane sized target in the allotted time was the whole mess of .303 guns. In practice it was sub-optimal, although had the unexpected effect of inflicting pretty drastic casualties on German bomber air crew, while leaving the plane still flyable, which left to some awesome moral boosting stories with HE-111s returning with a lone survivor at the controls.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

User avatar
Mikeboy
General
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat 27 Apr 2013 21:59
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: War Thunder

Postby Mikeboy » Tue 23 Dec 2014 17:00

It's actually better than the 2xCannon + 2xMG setups. Those you get a few seconds of cannon ammo with which to kill and then have only the most pointless and ineffectual pair of guns ever attached to an aircraft.
Last edited by Mikeboy on Tue 23 Dec 2014 17:02, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 3blondegirl6, Mp4sexyaleta and 10 guests