In a battle between Eurofighter and F-35, both pilots claim defeat

[Bleipriester]

An example of 20 jets v 100 jets

Did you watch the video? It is about the Sidewinder, not the Harrier itself.

 

[AZrailwhale]

These are just lame excuses.

No, they are the truth. Just like the truth that both the Germans and Japanese kept their experienced pilots in combat until they were either disabled or killed. The WAllies pulled their experienced pilots out of combat so they could train the hundreds of thousands of neophyte pilots to be in the training pool.

 

[Bleipriester]

No, they are the truth. Just like the truth that both the Germans and Japanese kept their experienced pilots in combat until they were either disabled or killed. The WAllies pulled their experienced pilots out of combat so they could train the hundreds of thousands of neophyte pilots to be in the training pool.

Another very lame excuse. You are trying to hide, that the Allies lacked excellence and won with masses, instead.

 

[westwall]

German pilot 1st Lt. Alexander Grant and American pilot Capt. Patrick Pearce delivered a dogfight in German skies. They didn´t know their opponents, just were given coordinates.

Both pilots claim defeat. The German pilot says the F-35 would have killed him out of sight due to its stealth capabilities and the American pilot claims the Eurofighter would have outmaneuvered him and shot him from behind due its better thrust and maneuverability. Both aircraft were unarmed.

MSN

www.msn.com

It should be noted that such a dofight lacks realism. The Eurofighter is a bad design with a faulty fuselage. Due to that the Eurofighter may not fire its guns and may fall apart in the sky. It also may not travel further than 20 minutes far from its host. If you don´t believe me, check how many Eurofighters were used in actual euro missions, for example in Libya or Syria: Zero.

Good lord but you are full of shit.

 

[Bleipriester]

Good lord but you are full of shit.

Consider your signature my reply.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Another very lame excuse. You are trying to hide, that the Allies lacked excellence and won with masses, instead.

The WAllies had better aircraft, better pilots and far more of both than the Axis powers. Once the veterans of Spain and China were killed off the Axis air forces began an uncontrollable slide to defeat. By late 1943 the USAAF was defeating the Luftwaffe inside German radar coverage over its own airfields. That was something the Luftwaffe was unable to do to the numerically and mostly technically inferior RAF in the Battle of Britain.

The Spitfire of all marks was fully the equal of the Bf-109, the SpIt V was inferior to the Fw-190A, but the follow on Spit IX was its equal. No German fighter was capable of matching the combined range and combat capability of the Thunderbolts and Lightnings in 1943 and the Lightnings were scoring better than one to one kill ratios over Germany despite being flown by nearly frozen pilots. The Mustangs went toe to toe and won against the best the Luftwaffe could field AFTER flying four or more hours to reach the combat zone over Germany. No single engine Luftwaffe fighter had more than a ninety minute combat endurance. The vaunted Me-262 was inferior to the P-80 in every metric and had inferior engine life. On the British side, the Mosquito, Beaufighter, Typhoon and Tempest were far superior to their axis counterparts the He-219, Bf-110, Bf-210, Bf-410, Bf-109 and Fw-190.
So, you can take your OPINION and stuff it. The facts don’t back it up.

 

[westwall]

Consider your signature my reply.

Ooohhhh internet tough guy alert!

 

[westwall]

With windmills that propel it and generate the power for this at the same time?

Good heavens, but you have no clue about science, do you.

 

[Bleipriester]

The WAllies had better aircraft, better pilots and far more of both than the Axis powers. Once the veterans of Spain and China were killed off the Axis air forces began an uncontrollable slide to defeat. By late 1943 the USAAF was defeating the Luftwaffe inside German radar coverage over its own airfields. That was something the Luftwaffe was unable to do to the numerically and mostly technically inferior RAF in the Battle of Britain.

Untrue. Even though the Brits had radar coverage of their entire southern coast, the Germans won. All British airfields in southern Britain up the middle were destroyed. This was followed by the six-months bombing campaign against London, during which the Germans made the mistake of letting the Brits recover their airfields. By the time the London Blitz ended, German priorities have already shifted to the east, when they prepared for the Russia campaign.

The Spitfire of all marks was fully the equal of the Bf-109, the SpIt V was inferior to the Fw-190A, but the follow on Spit IX was its equal. No German fighter was capable of matching the combined range and combat capability of the Thunderbolts and Lightnings in 1943 and the Lightnings were scoring better than one to one kill ratios over Germany despite being flown by nearly frozen pilots. The Mustangs went toe to toe and won against the best the Luftwaffe could field AFTER flying four or more hours to reach the combat zone over Germany. No single engine Luftwaffe fighter had more than a ninety minute combat endurance. The vaunted Me-262 was inferior to the P-80 in every metric and had inferior engine life. On the British side, the Mosquito, Beaufighter, Typhoon and Tempest were far superior to their axis counterparts the He-219, Bf-110, Bf-210, Bf-410, Bf-109 and Fw-190.
So, you can take your OPINION and stuff it. The facts don’t back it up.

BS. The war in the east forced the Germans to redeploy more and more forces, including much of the air force, to the east, even during the Adrennes offensive.

 

[Bleipriester]

Ooohhhh internet tough guy alert!

Returned. You came up with "full of shit" for no reason.

 

[Bleipriester]

Good heavens, but you have no clue about science, do you.

I was joking. Can´t you grasp that? This plane, the Do 335, had two engines on one axis. It was the fastest piston engine aircraft of WWII.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Untrue. Even though the Brits had radar coverage of their entire southern coast, the Germans won. All British airfields in southern Britain up the middle were destroyed. This was followed by the six-months bombing campaign against London, during which the Germans made the mistake of letting the Brits recover their airfields. By the time the London Blitz ended, German priorities have already shifted to the east, when they prepared for the Russia campaign.



BS. The war in the east forced the Germans to redeploy more and more forces, including much of the air force, to the east, even during the Adrennes offensive.

The RAF never lost control of the air over Britain. At worst they had planned to pull back about a hundred miles which would have forced the Luftwaffe to send its bombers in without escorts. Most of the RAF fighter fields were grass and a few bomb craters wouldn’t put them out of action for more than hours. What the raids were doing was killing ground crews and destroying fueling facilities. The RAF continually GAINED power during the BoB. Yes it had trouble replacing pilots, but the Luftwaffe was taking far higher casualties and was having even mor problems replacing pilots despite having a serious numerical superiority of pilots AND far more combat veterans than the RAF. None of the Spitfire pilots were veterans because Fighter Command restricted Spits from flying into France. Goering changed targets for two reasons, he didn’t see any reduction in the RAF’s combat capabilities and Hitler threw a fit because the RAF bomber Berlin and he wanted revenge.

You have it backwards, the USAAF bomber offensive forced the Luftwaffe to call back most of its fighter force back to defend Germany. That allowed the Soviets to gain tactical parity in the air over the eastern front. The USAAF absolutely gutted the Luftwaffe’s fighter force over Germany.

 

[westwall]

I was joking. Can´t you grasp that? This plane, the Do 335, had two engines on one axis. It was the fastest piston engine aircraft of WWII.

Yeah, I know all about the Arrow. It was obsolete before it was even built.

 

[Bleipriester]

The RAF never lost control of the air over Britain. At worst they had planned to pull back about a hundred miles which would have forced the Luftwaffe to send its bombers in without escorts. Most of the RAF fighter fields were grass and a few bomb craters wouldn’t put them out of action for more than hours. What the raids were doing was killing ground crews and destroying fueling facilities. The RAF continually GAINED power during the BoB. Yes it had trouble replacing pilots, but the Luftwaffe was taking far higher casualties and was having even mor problems replacing pilots despite having a serious numerical superiority of pilots AND far more combat veterans than the RAF. None of the Spitfire pilots were veterans because Fighter Command restricted Spits from flying into France. Goering changed targets for two reasons, he didn’t see any reduction in the RAF’s combat capabilities and Hitler threw a fit because the RAF bomber Berlin and he wanted revenge.

Until recently I thought this was true. But it wasn´t. The airfields were gone and it was very logic that the Germans now were after the British industrial capabilities. This was not successful even from the German view. The Brits only admitted a 10 % decrease of their industrial output.
That means the Brits won the battle but only because the Germans prepared for their Russian campaign.

You have it backwards, the USAAF bomber offensive forced the Luftwaffe to call back most of its fighter force back to defend Germany. That allowed the Soviets to gain tactical parity in the air over the eastern front. The USAAF absolutely gutted the Luftwaffe’s fighter force over Germany.

Untrue. The war in the east wasn´t so much about aerial battles, but mostly ground attacks. This resulted in vast numbers of missions each day but with very few aerial victories on both sides. The bombers were mostly targeted by flak, not so much by aircraft. The German air force in the west was mostly sent on occasional missions. That means there were days with little to zero missions and days with hundreds and even thousands of missions. For example at the Remagen bridge.
By 02.12.45, the German air force command received new guidelines for their missions in the west: Due to lacking fuel and re-deployments to the east, the air battles in the west ceased completely, only bombing missions were allowed anymore.

 

[Bleipriester]

Yeah, I know all about the Arrow. It was obsolete before it was even built.

Its was actually an experimental design. The pilots loved it, though.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Until recently I thought this was true. But it wasn´t. The airfields were gone and it was very logic that the Germans now were after the British industrial capabilities. This was not successful even from the German view. The Brits only admitted a 10 % decrease of their industrial output.
That means the Brits won the battle but only because the Germans prepared for their Russian campaign.



Untrue. The war in the east wasn´t so much about aerial battles, but mostly ground attacks. This resulted in vast numbers of missions each day but with very few aerial victories on both sides. The bombers were mostly targeted by flak, not so much by aircraft. The German air force in the west was mostly sent on occasional missions. That means there were days with little to zero missions and days with hundreds and even thousands of missions. For example at the Remagen bridge.
By 02.12.45, the German air force command received new guidelines for their missions in the west: Due to lacking fuel and re-deployments to the east, the air battles in the west ceased completely, only bombing missions were allowed anymore.

You are talking 1945. The back of the Luftwaffe was broken by Lightnings and Thunderbolts in late 1943 and Mustangs in early 1944. By D Day the Luftwaffe fighter force was nearly non-existent. All remaining fighters and almost all fuel was reserved for the aerial defense of Germany from WAllied bombers.

 

[Bleipriester]

You are talking 1945. The back of the Luftwaffe was broken by Lightnings and Thunderbolts in late 1943 and Mustangs in early 1944. By D Day the Luftwaffe fighter force was nearly non-existent. All remaining fighters and almost all fuel was reserved for the aerial defense of Germany from WAllied bombers.

This is vast nonsense and conspiracy theory.
Read here about Hitlers executive order No 51. It is a 1943 directive that orders preparations for the allied landing in France:

Führer Directive No. 51 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

On November 3, 1943, Adolf Hitler called for a fundamental reorientation of German strategy to strengthen the west in preparation for an Anglo-American landing.

www.nationalww2museum.org

The directive in full:

Führerweisung Nr. 51, 3.11.1943 - Bunkermuseum Hanstholm

bunkermuseumhanstholm.dk

There was a vast treason ongoing. Not only did Rommels army not intervene for days when the landing took place but also the air force which remained idle under the pretext of redeploying to airfields in inner France.

As for the battle in the skies we can read here:
"During World War II, Allied fighter strategy in Europe did not come up with a winning formula for a long time in the battle for air supremacy.

"In the beginning, the fighter was a short-legged creature whose role of protecting the bombers was eclipsed by its role of guarding friendly territory and installations. The difference, which is crucial, was the product of technology—range and the power of aircraft engines—and intellect. Until late 1943, surprisingly late in the war, the use of the fighter as an offensive weapon was stunted by the defensive mind-set of the “pursuit” acolytes of the interwar decades."

Victory Delayed: The Battle for Air Supremacy in World War II

During World War II, Allied fighter strategy in Europe did not come up with a winning formula for a long time in the battle for air supremacy.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

 

[westwall]

Its was actually an experimental design. The pilots loved it, though.

Yeah? So? Like I said, just think if they had not wasted money on a loser and actually built more useful combat aircraft.

Fortunately for the world they were stupid in that regard.

 

[Bleipriester]

Yeah? So? Like I said, just think if they had not wasted money on a loser and actually built more useful combat aircraft.

Fortunately for the world they were stupid in that regard.

You think that was stupid, ok, fine. But it was not. The Germans were well aware of the fact that they could not compete with the industrial capacity of the Allies. Therefore they relied on superior design.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You think that was stupid, ok, fine. But it was not. The Germans were well aware of the fact that they could not compete with the industrial capacity of the Allies. Therefore they relied on superior design.

You mean like the V-2 which cost more than the damage it did? Or the V-1 that was so poorly guided that it was lucky to hit a city? Or the Jagdtiger which consumed vast quantities of fuel and scarce, skilled manpower to do nothing that the Jagdpanzer IV couldn’t do? Or the Me-262 whose engines lasted less than twenty running hours? Or the Admiral Hipper cruisers who cost more than the handful of ships they sunk? Or the He-177 that was more dangerous to its crews than the allies? Or the Me-163 that killed more of its pilots by blowing up from lots hyperbolic fuel than the number of bombers it shot down? How about the Natter that was so dangerous it was practically a suicide weapon? Oh and then we have the Maus, a barely mobile pillbox that no bridge in Europe could safely carry? Tell us some examples of that superior German design.