Quote:

Not sure about this Brensec. It might be the Aussie definition. I always understood that Tally-ho! is the hunting cry still used by the foxhunting fraternity when the prey is spotted. In rough terms it means "There he is - let's go get him". Most of the regular RAF BoB pilots were officers, from the "upper classes" & brought up in the hunting tradition.

Quote:

I'll go with Hagar on the TallyHo.My father and other family members were RAAF(Dad trained for aircrew Europe)and TallyHo was purely Brit.
Dads mother was German if you're wondering on the connection.

Quote:

some russian planes were superior to the german ones,but just at the end of the war (maybe from the end of '44 on) .
and those I-16s were quite manouverable and they were f***** slow...

Quote:

no. the allies could certainly take out some V-2 or V-1 ramps,but the main part of the production was placed in secret undergroundfacitilies, as well as the aircraft production. the allies never achieved a complete stop of the aircraft production,maybe for a few days.

Quote:


yeah. if hitler hadn't blocked the development of the 262 until '43, the allies would have had some more problems over the german sky. 
but the true reason for the loss of air war was the incompetence and incapacity of göring. but maybe it's better that we lost the war. but now,we've got to suffer under bad american music (britney spears)....arrrgh!

Quote:


yeah. but most of their weapon developments after the war were based on german designs.

ATI, mate,

At the risk of creating an ongoing 'to and fro' exchange of ideas that can never really be put to rest, because most things can be judged a matter of opinion, I will just comment on a couple of your assertions.

True, the I-16 was a relatively manouevrable plane for what it was (age, design, size, weight etc), but my book puts it at a lower manouevring capability than most of the late 30's, early 40's fighters). But then again this is just the opinion of the one book author. Still I think we agree they were a fairly easy prey for the 109's and their experienced pilots - as we have both said - IN THE BEGINNING, which is when this whole 'air kill' discussion is based upon.  

The success of the Allied bombing campaign has always been a point of contention. Depending on what source you are reading or listening to, the bombing can be discribed as anything from a marvellous success to a dismal failure.
I personally think there were incidences of each, and everything in between. There was certain success in the oilfields in the Caucuses. There was also a very damaging shortage of 'ball-bearings' towards the end, I believe, due to a concentrated effort on these types of facilities. There were certainly more failures than the 'Movies' would have us believe. I'm sure the success rate of missions, in terms of actually destroying or doing serious damage to a target, would be around no more than 10% (and I may even be being hopeful, with that figure).
I think the fact of the matter is that, as the Reich was 'shrinking' and with the raw materials and labour forces shrinking along with it, any kind of loss of production or stock, regardless of how large or small, was a blow to the new projects and the production of the mainstay machines of war such as the 109, 190, tanks, 88mm guns etc. Everything was so overstretched that there really wasn't enough, before the Allied invasion  in June '44 to supply the units, let alone supply two fully engaged fronts (three, if you count Italy) with the level of replacements required.
There were always "under-supplied' units and 'better-supplied" units, due to their prestige and the influence of the person after whom they were named (Goerings unit and Himlers SS Panzer units always got the best supplies, quicker and easier). This clearly demonstrates that there really wasn't enough for all to begin with.
So, if nothing else, the bombing could be described as the "straw that broke the camels back", I suppose.

As for the Us developments after the war being a continuation of German projects. Yes, definitely, I agree. The Russians also captured and worked on this sort of thing too.
But my comments aren't about, after the war. I have already agreed that the Germans were certainly ahead in the technology department, as far as aviation is concerned. I simply say that, thanks to, or due to meddling by parties, and due to shortages, which I've just explained my view on how the bombing campaign at least contributed.

Finally, the Allies did manage to come up with a few developments which did go a long way towards ultimate victory. I don't think anyone would object to the P51-D being included in this catagory.
The P51-D, with a range of just over 2,000 miles, allowed the bombers to reach their targets relatively safely. They also took the opportunity when escorting the bombers to destroy a good part of the remaining fighter strength of the Luftwaffe, and along with that was active in rocketing and staffing anything on the ground that moved. That plane was a marvellous advantage enjoyed by the Allies for which the Germans had no equal, nor any effective counter.
The ground attack capabilities of the British Typhoon and Tempest (along with the P47), made it necessary for the Germans to move at night only, or risk anihilation.

I will agree that there are plenty of examples of how German advancements and technology were well ahead of that of the Allies (the Me262, the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger, the V weapons and that marvelous 88 ). But once again, I simply said that the Allies were able to pursue the development and production of their 'new things' unhindered by shortages of raw materials (there may have been some, of course) and facilities and labour, as well as any serious German bombing raids, whereas the Germans were hindered in all these areas.
The German propensity towards ultra-quality (which resulted in difficulty in production) versus the Allied credo of "stick with the tried and tested, even though it may be inferior to what the enemy has (ie the Sherman) and just make heaps of them, may have contributed a little to the difference in the success in the production areas of each side, too.

To be perfectly honest, I'm very surprised the Reich held out for as long as it did. If just a couple of their new developments (say the me262) had reached high volume production and if they had had the experienced pilots, the USAAF and RAF and Russians would have been in big pooh!  

Sorry for the huge post, but I needed to explain that I am not down on Germans or Germany, and I acknowlege all the ability and achievement involved duing the War. But I maintain the points I made, in the context that they were made in, are still valid.  

Quote:

okay,i agree that the P-51 was an awesome plane,but it only had so much success ,because the germans already had a big loss of experienced pilots and fighters. i think the mustangs would have had many more problems,if they encountered a fully equipped luftwaffe.
Quote:

the germans still had some aces and even a 262 squadron consisting of aces only! (their leader was adolf galland)
and yes,they kicked some allied asses. but not enough...