učitel

Hi, boys. Thanks for choice question which is close to my country. I’ve got much to say to this topic. First, one very important military fact: Czechoslovakia had been building a ribbons of fortifications and fortresses along its northern border – with Germany – it means with Upper and Lower Silesia (what you have mentioned), from 1933 to 1938. Soviet headquarter knew it, they supposed using of those fortresses by German forces for the defence of Protectorate. They also took into account the experience with getting strength during WWI. It was being considered very difficult.

Maybe I wrote not so typical example to explain that WWII hadn't started in Spain. You didn't notice my sentences as I lately had written about Stalin's resignation of Spain: After Stalin found out that creative leaders of Spanish republican political front are mostly Social Democrats and Trotskyists, he quickly put his hands away from Spain!!! (And he only sent some war machines to test them in a real combat.) But during the cold war it was not like in Spain. Soviets supported "their" war side in Korea, in Vietnam as well as in many African and other world's minor conflicts till the end. They attempted to change a political system in those countries even if they knew that they were supporting "the progressive forces", but not just of left-Bolshevik wing. This is a difference from the pre-war situation: One of many reasons was that pre-war Soviet Union had been in a politic isolation. Also Stalin appreciated non-Bolshevik socialist left forces as so bad as "the imperialists"; he used the term "the class enemy". That's why he put his hands away from Spain. Hitler helped Franco really well. It's truth. But he failed to forced Franco to join his forces for WWII. Mussolini wanted Italy to have so large Mediterranean territory, as the Roman empire'd had (and much larger). When Spain Civil War broke out, he supposed that WWII would start about in 1937. The whole Italian war industry was set to this period. Later Mussolini didn't want to go to war: He personally wished the alliance with Britain, but it was politically impossible. Then, on 10th June, 1940 his forces attacked the French Provence, but only as a commitment for Hitler.

FSO: zarówno wojska rządowe jak i frankistowskie w Hiszpanii miały wsparcie. A co z tego? What influence did „supported forces of world power“ have in Korean War? Was the WWIII perhaps from this conflict? And what influence did „supported forces of world power“ have in Vietnam War? Was the WWIII perhaps from this conflict? By the way, what influence did „supported forces of world power“ have in Afghanistan? Was the WWIII perhaps from this conflict? I don’t deny the participation of European powers in Spain Civil War, but the outbreak of WWII had other roots. Mind, that the topic is "Gdzie i kiedy zaczela sie II wojna swiatowa?" Take more historical facts (some of them I wrote earlier) and skip your political account!

Andreas: … w ten konflikt zaangażowały się trzy mocarstwa europejskie oraz kolejne trzy w umiarkowanym stopniu. FSO: … Hiszpania, dokładniej wojna domowa, była, jak zauważył Andreas konfliktem w który zaangażowały się inne państwa. What do you mean by the word „zaangażowały się“? If you speak a little English and understand my sentences, you have read what I explained in my last article beneath, how Germany and Italy „zaangażowały się“ in this conflict. What’s a direct relationship between war in Spain and German attack Poland in September 1939 or the attack France in May 1940? There is no direct polical- and military relation. I repeat once again, it is not interesting for me any polical phrases, but historical facts! And concerning Soviet Union „zaangażowanie“ - it was really minor! After Stalin found out that creative leaders of Spanish republican political front are mostly Social Democrats and Trotskyists, he quickly put his hands away from Spain!!! (And he only sent some war machines to test them in a real combat.) FSO: Twoją ojczyznę, trzeci kraj chciał na tym wszystkim upiec swoją pieczeń. Pół roku po zakończeniu wojny - kości zostały rzucone. „Upiec swoją pieczeń, kości zostały rzucone“ – What idyllic words! I must learn them! But only phrases again – you must be a former political worker! But seriously: you’re wrong about Czechoslovakian collapse. The collapse of Czechoslovakia has no relationship with Civil War in Spain. The reason was „the Sudeten question“, and "it didn't bake in Spain"! I described those events in detail in my FORUM-speech on 25th November, 2010. Read it. Bye.

FSO: …jak czytałem swój tekst pisany lat temu ileś wstecz, to stawiałem tam, że konflikt światowy to Hiszpania, to na jej terenie rozpoczęły się utarczki wielkich, rozgrywanie wielkiej polityki na terenie państwa trzeciego... Those words are only "phrases", but little fact. Spanish Civil War wasn‘t any "world conflict", but a local war conflict only. This war also didn’t directly lead to the outbreak of WWII! When this war ended in March 1939, the situation in Spain was resolved. Gen. Franco became the official state’s head and he didn’t engage in Axis fascist forces at all. He didn't take part in next world war side by side with Hitler and Mussolini. Spain stayed a consistent neutral country during all the time of WWII. Concerning foreign soldiers that fought in units in both sides of the conflict, these were volunteers only. They officially didn’t fight under the flag of their own country, but they were fighting in Spanish Nationalist-, or Republican units. The fact that German-, Italian- and Soviet Air Forces were sending their up-to-date combat technique to Spain – of course only to certain war side – is the secondary fact. Although they wanted to help for victory of one war side (like Germany and Italy), first they wanted to test their war machines in the real combat.

"riv": Co do Bachem Ba 349 „Natter”( żmija)- to ta konstrukcja raczej nie miała większych szans, Zdecydowanie lepsza konstrukcją był Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe... I wouldn't compare "Natter" with Me 262. "Schwalbe" was also being used for attacking against heavy bombers first of all, but it was a classical jet aircraft, designated for full-trained jet pilot. "Natter" was a bit another thing. Germans had classified it as "Kleinstraketenjaeger". This project belongs to such jet little planes ("Kleinstjaeger"), as Projekt P 1068 "Julia" (later P 1077), its other engine variant "Romeo", Arado E 381, Messerschmitt P 1103/1104, Junkers EF 127 "Wally"/"Lilly" and the others. This group of planes was designed according to a bit desperate theory connecting with mass using of briefly trained pilots. Like "Darkman" has written earlier, this category of planes is closer to the action "Salamander" for using He 162 "Spatz" - as "Volksjaeger" (as well as in case of "Natter" supported by Himmler), the mass-using of Me 163 "Komet" - as quite easily piloted rocket glider and some other.

If I can recommend you for more information of Komet, read the book "Messerschmitt 163 Komet" by Mano Ziegler. He was an operational rocket fighter with JG 400 at Brandis. Ziegler describes in his book a lot of interesting stories during his duty with that unit, including events about Hanna Reitsch, Wolfgang Spaete, Heini Dittmar, Opitz and others.

gregski: Sądzę, że gdyby przesunąć środki użyte do produkcji Me 163 na produkcję i rozwój Me 262 Niemcy mieliby z tego lepszy pożytek. Hard to say. From today’s point of view you’re right. The whole effort of Komets had been from 10 to 15 destroyed U.S. heavy bombers. It was really a small number. From this point of view we can’t say that Komet was (or rather – Komet can’t enter to an aircraft history) as a successful fighter. But, Germans couldn’t suppose in 1943-44, what trend will the aviation development have after the war!! Therefore Germans not only tested many progressive technical news and up-to-date systems of weapons, but they sent those news into war actions. Concerning Me 163, it’s truth that its indurance in one flight was not long. (Advanced fighter would have been Me 263/Ju 248 with two combustion chambers, but its flying tests were never being finished.) By the way, Allied supporting fighters didn’t have many problems with attacking Komets. They didn’t intercept them. They were only waiting, when Komets lose all its fuel. Then they started attacking them. In this phase of their flight, Komets were handicapped enough and they were only gliding onto their airfield. It wasn’t a difficult work to hit them, although Komets were excellent gliders indeed, they often closed their flight by an explosion. (Otherwise, there were some experienced rocket-pilots, who managed to do a successful attack even after their loss of fuel.) And to your afternoon's answer - I have never said in my text that Komet would have had long radius for its actions!!! The fact, that Komets had small radius for their actions, is a well-known thing, it's not necessary to emphasize it over and over.

When you take interest, how Germans have organized their air defence, concerning classical piston fighters, there were several lines of the Reich defence (Reichsverteidigung). About heavy night fighters, for example, the 1st line have begun near the Atlantic coast - at Holland airfields. What concerns jet-propulsion fighters, their quantity was not so big, so there were dispersed for air defence of some important industrial centres. For example - He 162 Spatz (JG 1) at Leck – which was intended for air defence of HAMBURG harbour, Me 262 B (Kdo Welter – 10/NJG 11) at Rechlin - for air defence of BERLIN, then at Burg - for air defence of MAGDEBURG, Me 262 A (Weissenberger's JG 7 and Galland's JV 44) at Lechfeld near AUGSBURG - for air defence of Messerschmitt’s factories and also for air defence of MUNICH, and later at Žatec near PRAGUE, Me 163 Komet at Brandis - for air defence of LEIPZIG. So, we can say, those fighters were deploy according to the OBJECT-structure of defence. It‘s a well-known thing that Germans'd had (as well as the British earlier) their air-warning system, including their command sites, operational rooms, radar systems, etc.

gregski: Nie ma chyba państwa, które byłoby stać, aby przy każdym ważniejszym obiekcie rozmieścić kilka dywizjonów myśliwskich. During WWII certainly not! But see at postwar air defence development! If you know air defence systemes of many modern countries - anti-aircrafts rocket systems together with interceptors-fighters - similar Germans' idea was progressive enough in fact! Those postwar air defence sytems defending main industrial centres were based either on the LINER structure, or on the ROUND structure. I don't think it should be around (or near) all the military and industrial centres (it has never managed!!), but around the main centres! And the problem of a little range of any used interceptor - this is the secondary problem...

In my opinion, WWII broke out indeed, after Hitler had occupied Linz – still before the whole Austria had been annexed. When Hitler had occupied Linz, he expected the reactions of politicians from democratic countries. But they did nothing, said nothing, only they helplessly cringed their arms. So, well – Hitler annexed all the Austria immediately. Then Hitler understood that Daladier and Chamberlain were afraid of him: as he said with a despect: “They are litle worms only.” Another similar problem called “Sudeten”. In 1919, during Saint-Germain Agreement, British and other west-democracy politicians knew very well that there were almost three millions of Germans in Sudeten. Then they accepted Beneš’s historical justification that Germans came as the colonists to Sudeten – the border zone inside the Czech Kingdom - only in first half of 13th century. Then western politicians didn’t admit than German territory in Europe could be larger than Imperial Germany was before WWI. (Former Imperial Germany lost all its world’s colonies.) But, in second half of 1930s, they were afraid of Hitler and wanted to direct him to the East – for destroying the Bolshevik political system. The Munich Agreement became the great Hitler’s victory, because he succeeded to change the Versailles’s political system. And Czechoslovakia “The little country about which nobody knows” – as Chamberlain sardonically said after his return from Munich – was “the last” concession to Hitler. Pre-war Czechoslowakia was a member of the military agreement, the Little Agreement, a pact with Yugoslavia and Rumania. But this military block wasn’t created against the restoration of the Great Germany, this block was created against the restoration of the Great Hungary!! France and Great Britain should have created against the restoration of the Great Germany. But they have disappointed. During the Munich Agreement there was not only country in Europe that would stand on Czechoslovakian side, there was no friend. And even some countries, as Poland and Hungary, advantaged of very bad situation for Czechoslovakia and behaved like Germans – they grabbed another parts of Czechoslovakian territory. And the annexation of Sudetenlands by Germans was then the legal military act, signed in the international agreement. But if Czechoslovak Army had defended, it would have marked as an aggressor. President Beneš didn’t want to be claimed by all the countries that World War II had broken out of causes Czechs, which hadn’t recognized the right to national self-determination for three millions of Germans in Sudetenlands. But dr. Beneš knew very well that concerning Sudeten Germans there is no „rights to national self-determination”, because Germans have been having their national state, at least since 1871. Sudeten Germans were a normal – but numerous – national minority and Beneš has realized its right consistently since 1918. He believed firmly that WWII would break out soon, but under better conditions for democratic forces in the world! Finaly, Hitler never understood a political system of western democracies. They haven’t been any “little worms”. Hitler didn’t understood that a western politician can come, and as well as can leave. He didn’t understood what means the Parliament. He has come from Prussian and imperial prescriptive political systeme. And Neville Chamberlain has left while Churchill has come.

Certainly, you’re right. This was a historical fact. But Germans intended to make an effective air defence system, such as became common in modern air forces after the war. This intention was based on the idea to have enough rocket planes-interceptors on duty on airfields, placed near enemy bombing targets – near industrial and military centres. That idea was rather good, but not realized in Germany during 1944 or 1st half of 1945! It would require: 1) To have large number of Me 163 (or rather Me 263/Ju 248) available. 2) To build up large number of „catching“ airfields with concrete runways, placed near all the important cities that would become the target of enemy bombing raids, it means near all the industrial and military centres. (It includes not only the German territory but also a territory controlled by German!) Such an air base was Brandis near Leipzig, the airfield, where Komets were taking off in winter 1944/45, but in very small number, as you have written. They should have intercepted Allied raids directed at synthetic fuel plants in Leipzig. Generally Germans might have supposed that the Allies would do intensive bombing attacks on most of these air bases.

As most probably explanation of Glen Miller‘s death came in 1984. The R. A. F. veteran, a former Lancaster navigator Fred Shaw, noticed what had happened on 15th December, 1944: he returned with his bomber from an unsuccessful bombing raid from German town Siegen. The crew had to drop their bomb load to well-defined area of the sea, before they landed. Then Lancaster’s left-board gunner noticed as one bomb, of type „cookie“ (it means the same as „a bisquit“), exploded over the sea level, and some little plain crashed into the sea by a spiral. After the crew’s landing, nobody required to search for a fate of that unhappy plane. Fred Shaw has recalled this memory, after he had seen the Glen Miller’s biography-film long after the war. The additional investigation of British authorities reported that it is a very probable thing that Miller’s Noorduyn Norseman could approach into then bomb-dropping area because of bad weather. The official crew’s report hasn’t maintained. The military authorities maybe have found out earlier that the Glen Miller’s death had been caused by R. A. F. airmen.

Towarzyszu, FW-200 ''Condor'' był samolotem pasażerskim, nie bombowcem ciężkim.Przerobiono go na bombowiec, kiedy się okazało, że inne samoloty miały za krótki zasięg. Hi. Yes, naturally. But there was a practice in young Luftwaffe after 1935. Also Dornier 17 was originally the fast mail transport and passenger plane. But its narrow fuselage was rather non-comfortable for people´s transportation.

Zależy w jakim względzie; z tego co pobieżnie dowiedziałem się o tych dwóch myśliwcach....... I agree, naturally. Well, does your information comes from British sources (Lt. Faber´s FW 190 A-3 - tested by test pilot Wilson, or A-4 - tested by Eric Brown; Sicilian Bf 109 G-2, or Manston´s G-6 - tested by Eric Brown too).

I haven´t written, which plane was better, I´m writing experiences of war pilots only. 1) Most of German pilots prefered Bf 109 to FW 190 (except Kittel, Nowotny, Hahn, Priller and others) 2) Adolf Galland has written in his book "Der erste und der letzte" (The first and the last), that if it depends on him, he would manage to produce FW 190 and Me 262 only. (then no Bf 109!) Bye.

Učitel - zajímavé, proč Sovětský piloti sestřelili více oceňují Bf.109 z Fw 190? Po Fw 190 byl mnohem lepší a rychlejší bojovník. V poslední "TW Historia" (lipiec - sierpień 2010) je velmi zajímavý článek o Bf 109 během bitvy o Británii (JG 53). Doporučuji ciekawy, have you ever read the rule of this FORUM.HISTORIA?? It is not permitted to write in other languages, except POLISH, and ENGLISH. Sorry, I don´t understand your very bad "Czech" at all! Please, write Polish, or English. Further, I myself haven´t written at all, which plane was better! Only "Soviet aces have written...... And, that ...FW 190 was easier to pilotage, than Bf 109. If you don´t understand my English - sorry!! (Better not to answer me) (And I don´t know any "TW historia".)

Only another appendix - once I have read an opinion at some Soviet memoir literature (I don´t understand already, whose book it was at all), that Soviet fighter pilots more appreciated Bf 109-kill, than FW 190-kill. Probably they ment to be Bf 109 G more maneuverable than FW 190 A. But, and it´s truth, the ability of the pilotage was easier in FW 190 than in Bf 109.

FSO, yes, it is really so, as Shadow has written: It called "the cutting-off the pennant" in the jet-pilot nomenclature. When the Me 262-pilot moved by a gas-throttle so, as he was used in piston fighters - it means energically, the flame-pennant often went off. It was caused not by a low-level of turbine blades matherial (which also did), but by still imperfect of fuel delivery control. This is also a reason that the conception of Jumo 004-engine was left by lots of postwar air forces; air factories developed then more up-to-date. Johannes Steinhof (178 kills) describes it exactly in his book "Im letzte Stunde" (= At last hour), as he has flown with gen. Galland´s JV 44. Steinhof this "gas throttle opinion" describes there and says: "You musn´t move by the gas-throttle much, otherwise the flame will cut off. The best is to let gas-throttle in optimal position and not to touch on it at all." This is also the reason, why Allied pilots watched Schwalbes to fly straight ahead with a high speed and not to maneuver. This is also probably a cause of Galland´s shooting-down: He flew through among some task group of B-26 Marauders firing on them, while there were several Thunderbolts´ cover above. It is supposed that Galland knew about them, but he didn´t try any maneuvre and went on in a direct flight. One Thunderbolt´s pilot turned his plane back and shot down Galland in a diving flight.

When I should make a hierarchy of a quality of WWII air forces, I have to take into account all elements participating in their level: - an aircraft technical quality - a pilot´s ability and pilot training - an ability of staffs and headquarters - a ground technical services - a logistics Then, seems to be this (a very subjective) hierarchy: 1. Luftwaffe 2. R. A. F. 3. U. S. A. A. F. 4. Japanese Air Force 4.1. Teikoku Kaigun (Imperial Navy Air Force) 4.2. Teikoku Rikugun (Imperial Army Air Force) 5. Vojenno-Vozdušnyje sily 6. Regia Aeronautica If I appreciated only a pilot´s ability, 1st place would belong to Finnish Air Force. If I appreciated only an aircraft technical quality, for the beginning of the war - 1st place would belong to R. A. F. and Luftwaffe, for the end of the war – U. S. A. A. F., R. A. F., and Luftwaffe again To this list I didn´t contain: - L´Armée de l´Air (they have fought only about 1,5 month; a level of this AF was generally low) - Wojskowe Lotnictwo Polskie (they have fought less than 1 month; a level of this AF was also generally low) - Rumanian, Slovak, Croatian, Hungarian and other German satelite AFs, as well as British Commonwealth´s AFs - Regia Aeronautica has fought till September 1943, the level of later Aeronautica Reppublicana (of R. S. I.) was increased much many more (it was like in Luftwaffe)

,,W Polsce przed 1939 nie produkowano w ogóle żadnych działek lotniczych. " Yes, there were those problems in countries that had not developed all components of their own arms industry and stayed for a long time in a traditional way in 1930´s. GP_mars described this situation in Polish arms industry very accurately. Similar difficulties were on the agenda at pre-Munich time in Czechoslovakia, too. When I watched your discussion about PZL P-62 prototype, it seems - it was not be obliged to decide yet about final structural form of this fighter (using cannon needn´t fire though propeller circle). If I take into account the political situation for Poland (prime minister Beck had changed its political direction - for Britain - in June 1939 /too late/), there was possible to import important arms components from such countries as France, The United Kingdom, Switzerland or Czechoslovakia. In France there was reliable water cooled supercharger engine Hispano-Suiza HS 12Y crs, predetermined for 20 mm cannon Hispano 402. For example, this engine - HS 12Y drs, a common, non-cannon version, was fitted in Avia B-534. It would be available for later P-62 also later version of this engine – HS 16Ycrs – which Morane MS. 406 and Dewoitine D.520 had. Another possibility was to import Swiss 20 mm-cannon Oerlikon FFS-20 (like Bf 109 E had). I think it might have been lots of troubles during those news introducing into production. Deterrent example from Czechoslovakia from 2nd half of 1930´s: Avia B-534 had the HS 12Y drs, produced under French licence from 1935 by Škoda-, ČKD-, and Avia-factories. The Avia-factory started developing the cannon version of B-534, marked as Avia Bk-534, from 1936 (Bk; k = kanonová = with a cannon). Avia logically supposed using French cannons Hispano 402, for which that factory planned to buy corresponding version of Hispano-Suiza engine. Actually Avia began act for introduction the licence of Hispano-cannons at Czech factories. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence decided completely different way: in 1935 soldiers decided that the only 20 mm cannon to be imported would be Swiss Oerlikon FFS! Headquarters needed them for increasing of anti-aircraft defence of the Army - Ministry of Defence probably had to count with a limited budget. It was necessary for Avia factory to make big efforts for redesign of Avia´s inner equipment and adapt French engin for Swiss cannon!!! In the end – the result was, that Bk-534 fighters were coming to units, but without any cannons! Such a Bk-534 had 3 machine guns (7,92 mm vz.30 – like German MG 17). Instead of engined-cannon there was one central firing 7,92 mm machine gun, and alongside of a fuselage there were two synchronized machine guns of the same type. (A common B-534 was 4 machine guns vz. 30.) Because of those reasons, it managed to complete and send to units only 55 Bk-534 till 15th March, 1939 – the German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Pretty sad….

wiem, że kpt. Brown był pilotem oblatywaczem. Anglicy nie mogli uwierzyć, że nasi piloci są dobrzy, popełniali masę szkolnych błędów. Z prostego powodu: pewne czynności wykonywało się zupełnie inaczej [na odwrót] niż w samolotach kontynentalnych. Dodawanie gazu zamiast manetką od siebie - to do siebie. Your explanation is a very persuasive: British pilots had made lots of elementar faults (Polish were better). Test pilot Brown (as British) then made elementar faults, too. One of them was - he was often mistaking during adding and downloading of gas. I know it at last.............!!

(Thanks for describing how the WWII dogfights had looked. I have never heard about it. I will tell your describing to all air enthusiasts, who I know. It´s super. Once more - thanks!) But, Do 335 was not "każdy inny myśliwiec", it was a high-speed intercepting fighter, not a common fighter, not a bomber! Do you know, how Allied fighter pilots used to fight against attacking Komets? They had been temporizing above, and as soon as Komet lost its fuel, they only started attacking. Really do you know what tactics would Allied pilots think out and then would use against German pilots flew Do 335? If you know it, write (as last time). To Murawski´s work of Bf 109: Once more: More powerful DB 605/AS engine started using from Bf 109 G-5 version. If Murawski doesn´t write about it, it´s his failure. He should.

W momencie ataku na nieprzyjacielskie bombowce eskortowane przez "klasyczne" myśliwce był zagrożony z obu stron i ze strony bombowców i ze strony myśliwców Still to Do 335: FSO, how do you imagine „zagrożenie ze strony bombowców“ (you probably have ment heavy bombers) for Do 335 with its top-speed more than 700 km per hours?? And its speed would be a problem even for "classical" Allied fighters. The numerical Allied superiority would be a real danger for Do 335! (Earlier you have written about Do 335 as about the „bomber“...) Further, I have learnt nothing interesting from you. Murawski nie pisze o tym wyraźnie, że wcześniejsze wersje "109-ek" wyposażano już w silniki ze zmodyfikowanymi sprężarkami [z silnika DB 603]. Still to Bf 109: Murawski probably doesn´t based on original German technical dokumentation. In Czech publication „Messerschmitt Bf 109 G a K“ written by Tomáš Polák in the 1990´s: „More powerful DB 605/AS engine started using from Bf 109 G-5 version, but in a small number. (Similar G-6/AS, G-8/AS, G-14/AS.) Only G-14/AS were produced in larger number“. Małe pytanie, to jaki zakład miał skrót AS - i czy jakaś włoska fabryka [n.p. silników] miała skrót A.S. i czy produkowała ona w swej historii silniki na niemieckiej licencji. It is not possible to commute „engine serial number“ with „engine type (or subtype) number“! Of course, I have written about „R“- letter, which has been seen among engine serial numbers! (Some air enthusiasts meant that this letter „R“ could be come from „Renault“, but it is not verified!)

To Do 335: That plane could be a good heavy fighter, but not for a maneuver dogfight. Pierre Clostermann wrote in his book „The great circus“, as he had met mysterious tandem twin engined fighter, that he first considered for some version of FW 190 D. (Only after his landing he lernt that it had been Do 335.) After German pilot had watched a pair of Tempests, he ran away with a high speed. A day after another pair of Tempests led by Jacques Remlingen met Pfeil again, the situation was repeating, but they intercepted it and they managed to shoot down it. So – I think – Do 335 would be a good plane for attack against heavy bombers (as an interceptor armed by cannons), and as a night fighter (maybe as P-61), but not for a classical dogfight.