(Adjective Here) Chicken;3435474Ummm....Airpower did win WW2. Without fighers, you lose your bombers, and without those, you get over-run by the things that u didn't blow up.
Actually, thats not true, airpower alone didnt win WW2. Infact i posted a little while ago a few links busting the whole airpower myth. Strategic bombing wasnt as effective as many people thought. It was very expensive, both in terms of planes being shot down, and in terms of pilots. As far as Tactical bombing goes ground attack pilots would claim absurd amount of kills. While in reality the actually amount of casualtis they inflicted didnt even come close to their claims. And but a small percentage of tanks where destroyed by planes. If AA was present it was even more difficult for tactical bombers to fulfill their duties. That doesnt mean that tactical bombing was useless, it wasnt, but it certainly wasnt the war winner many people make it out to be.
Guilio Douhet was a punk bitch, that is all.
I just finished the autobiography of Ilmari Juutilainen "Punalentäjien kiusana", which would roughly translate to "The nuisance of the red pilots". One of the best fighter pilots of all times. He served in the Finnish Airforce during World War 2. With 94 confirmed kills, he was the most successfull pilot in the Finnish Airforce (the editor notes, that the number was probably even higher, as he often ended up chasing the enemy plane a long way alone, with no one to confirm the kill). What's amazing about him, was that he was not once hit by an enemy plane, nor was he ever shot down.
In the book he writes about dogfighting like he was playing IL-2 or something - as if it was a regular nine to five job. Not as a play of death, like it often ended up with his opponents, which he playfully calls "neighbors" or "companion" in many occurances.
He had a natural sense of correct lead and knew the capabilities of his planes (Fokker D XXI, BW-239, ME-109 G2/G6) very well. This, accompanied by though training and good tactics (afaik adopted from the Germans, as opposed to obsolete Russian tactics) made him a great pilot.
The Crimson Major;3432661that show overplays air-to-air combat like it won WW2 or something. I mean for God's sake I didn't even know we had that much of an air war over Guadalcanal! Bombing was significant, fighter combat, not so much.
Yeah, how silly to talk about air-to-air combat in a show called dogfights.
jumjum;3432584That was my point, but I assume you're commenting about madcat0. But often the stuff the HC does without sufficient input from the actual participants is misleading, exaggerated or oversimplified.
You are correct sir, I agree with your point and was asking madcat0 to explain the reasoning behind his comment. I do, however, understand that the HC has been known to be wrong. It's still interesting stuff, even if it is incorrect sometimes.
IcarianVX;3439918...It's still interesting stuff, even if it is incorrect sometimes.
Heh, that's the dang truth. And even though I sort of complain about their stuff, if it's on The History Channel, there's a pretty good chance I've watched it, and will watch it again. And I'm hooked on Dogfights. (But I still can't watch Shootout!, which IMO tries to make a platoon-sized firefight sound like the tactical equivalent of the Battle of Austerlitz.)
Truth to tell, the Discovery Network shows are a source of both joy and tribulation to us skeptics. They are obviously capable of putting together high-quality productions with accurate information, and on the very same night airing credulous shows on vampires, ghosts, werewolves, and crop circles. The History channel ran a couple of episodes of "Psychic History", where a self-proclaimed psychic would go to some historical location to divine what "really happened". A bunch of us from the James Randi (skeptic oriented) bulletin board wrote letters of protest, and were essentially told that entertainment trumps accuracy....