učitel

Hi, Kadrinazi. (Thanks for a short translation for widiowy7) I know about „52 captured standards“, but I´m sure, this is certainly a big nonsens! This information wrote Wisner, but he took it from curate Dembolecki. But Wisner wrote „supposedly 52 standards“! And Dembolecki glorified Lisowczycy very much! It is a well-known thing. Magnuszewski at his work (1978) wrote about 20 captured standards and doubted about this number 52! Remember, the battle at the Bílá hora was quite a small battle! After last historical research, at this battle didn´t die more than 900 soldiers together! Believe me, I´ve got a lot of literature about the Bílá hora battle. And Czech historicians otherwise write about Lisowczycy´s participation at the Bílá hora battle, but they had a supporting role only. Another information about capture of the personnal standard of „Heidelberczyk“comes from Dembolecki too, but Wiesner wrote „supposedly“ captured the personnal standard … I doubt about it, because king Friedrich was not personally at the battlefield at all. He was just hosting English ambassador at Prague castle. But it doesn´t mean that his standard couldn´t be at the battlefield! I don´t want to say by these words, that Lisowczycy did not kill or did not capture any Czech soldier!!!

Pod Białą Gorą wcale nie byli siłą decydującą, zresztą było ich tam raptem 800 - przydali się za to bardzo do pogoni za uciekającymi Czechami (stąd liczne chorągwie). Hi, Kadrinazi. In battle at Weissberg (Biala Góra) Lisowczycy didn´t fight against Czechs, but against Transylvanian riders. Thus – against Hungarian! The Thirty Years´ War in Europe – until 1625 - was not a war of nations, but a war of religious views! (Unlike the Rzeczpospolita´s war actions, The Thirty Years´ War in Europe meant a conflict of two religious groups – between the Catholics, and the Protestants.) In battle at Weissberg – on the Catholic side took part in not only soldiers from Austria or Bavaria, but also from Lombardia, Burgundia, Naples, Brabant, and Flanders. Later mathematician and philosopher - René Descartes - fought in units of the Catholic side, too. Like on the Protestant side took part soldiers from Czechia, Moravia, Silesia, Transylvania, Holland and England. Maybe is known that Rusinowski´s Lisowczycy were subordinated under Dampierre´s command, but when Henri Duval de Dampierre was ordered to Hungarian front in summer 1620, Lisowczycy got under Buquoy´s command. But, when Catholic troops drew to Prague basin, Charles Bonaventura Buquoy was hurt on his sex from a bullit near Rakovník. He was substituted by Maxmilian von Lichtenstein in command. However, no main commander wanted Lisowczycy under his command! In the end they entered under Bavarian supreme commander – under Johann Tserklaes Tilly´s command. Under his command Lisowczycy attacked Hungarian riders, that were sent by Bethlen Gábor. Transylvanian riders´ commander was Ferenc Rhédey; but the riders were badly trained and little brave, though there were total number of 4,000. Lisowczycy hunted them up to the Vltava river. Many of those riders fell and got drowned at this river.

Hi, everybody. Air Marshall Harris wrote at his book that the best British WWII heavy bomber was Lancaster. I can understand his opinion. Surely we can see a chronologic use (development) of British heavy bombers: Whitley/Hampden/Wellington - Stirling - Halifax - Manchester - Lancaster. But, I more appreciate ultimate Avro-bombers, as Shackleton and Lincoln. First was predetermined for European theatre, another for Pacific. German test pilot Lerche wrote as he tested He 177 and B-17. He very appreciated He 177 as a very modern plane, but its engines were imperfect and rather sensitive for fire. Americans also more appreciated Japanese four-engine Nakajima G8N Renzan (Rita) than their own B-17! Also Italian Piaggio P.108 was rather interesting plane, but I´ve got little information of theirs tests. Still to FW 200: This type is classified not as a heavy bomber as Lancaster, but as a patrol long-range bomber like "Coastal Command" Liberator or Sunderland. Their tasks were not classical bombing raids, but point-hit-bombing on ships and submarines. When we would talk about German heavy bombers, He 177s really saw some actions over British cities in 1944 (while not in 1945). And classical old He 111 was overload at a closing period of WWII - so that we can consider it for a heavy bomber too!

Hi, Andreas. There is main problem at the topic of this discussion forum, and each opinion means a very subjective side of view! I can say: "I don´t like this type very much!", however other 90 percent of opinions say: "This type is very ugly - we don´t like it!"

"Dornier Do-217 in night-fighter version was really beautiful" Hi, Andreas. Well, but what means "Do 217 in night-fighter version"? Do 217 J-1 (from 1942) looked rather different than Do 217 N-2 (from 1943)! Do 217 N-2 had an aerodynamically modified (quite ugly) cannon-nose! Further, if you know - Do 217 J was rebuilt from Do 217 E bomber (only the modified nose)! And there is a very small difference between "ugly" bomber version 217 E and "really beautiful" nightfighter version 217 J!! I don´t like as bomber, and nightfighter version of Dornier 17, 215 and 217! Also maneuverability and control possibilities most of Dornier bombers and heavy fighters weren´t so ideal! Junkers 88-versions were much better, also in combat possibilities.

"Mi podoba się Zeke a najmniej mi się podoba Do 335" Hi, dawids130! You´re right, the ZERO-line belongs to the most beautiful fighter-line among Japanese single-seat and single-engined fighters. I think, every Dornier´s type during WWII was quite ugly! To Do 335 Pfeil - I can also agree, but two-seat A-6 nightfighter version was even uglier than the single-seat one!

I divided WWII planes to particular subgroups: THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THE UGLIEST SINGLE-ENGINED FIGHTERS: 1. Hawker Tempest Mk.II 1. MB.151 (1st prototype) 2. Fiat G.56 Centauro 2. Macchi C. 200 3. Ki-61-II-KAI Hien 3. Polikarpov I-16 TWIN- ENGINED FIGHTERS: 1. D.H. 98 Mosquito 1. Do 17 Z-10 Kauz II 2. Ki-45 KAI Toryu 2. P-61 B Black Widow 3. Bf 110 C 3. Heinkel 219 Uhu TWIN- ENGINED BOMBERS: 1. B-26 G Marauder 1. Junkers Ju 86 2. Heinkel He 111 B 2. Dornier 217 E 3. Bristol Beaufort 3. Jermolajev Jer-2 THREE-ENGINE BOMBERS: CANT Z.506 Airone Savoia S. 82 Marsupiale FOUR- ENGINE BOMBERS: 1. B-29 Superfortress 1. Heinkel He 274 2. Me 264 2. Short Stirling 3. Avro Lincoln 3. B-32 Dominator RECONNAISSANCE PLANES: 1. Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah III 1. Blohm-Voss Bv.141 2. Arado Ar. 240 2. W. Lysander (tandem) 3. Spitfire Mk. VII 3. FW 189 Eule ATTACK: 1. Jokosuka D4Y2 Suisei 1. Breda Ba-65 2. Henschel Hs 129 2. Ju 87 A Stuka 3. Iljušin Il-2 M 1 3. Caproni AP-1 JET PLANES 1. Gloster Meteor Mk.III 1. Heinkel He 178 2. P-80 Shooting Star 2. Caproni Campini N.1 3. Me 262 A Schwalbe 3. Gloster E.28/39 Squirt GENERALLY THE UGLIEST: GENERALLY THE MOST BEAUTIFUL: 1. Blohm-Voss Bv.141 1. P-38 F Lightning 2. Me 323 Gigant 2. Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah III 3. Kjúšú Q1W1 Tókai „Lorna“ 3. B-29 Superfortress After my opinion: 1. Germans had the ugliest planes in the 2-nd WW, especially bombers. 2. Italians had the ugliest fighters in 1-st period of war, but the most beautiful ones in closed period of war (the „5“-line). 3. Japanese had the most beautiful twin-engined planes (also heavy fighters). 4. The most beautiful twin-fuselage plane of WWII was P-38 F Lightning 5. The most beautiful fighter-line was Spitfire, especially Mk. XIV E

After my opinion, the best WWII jet bomber is Arado 234. Among jet fighters I appreciate He 162 more than Me 262.

Hi, FSO. In spite of your opinion, I think, our discussion turns to end. Everybody knows that German jet planes were by pioneers of new jet era and Germans searched their right using in actions. Everybody knows their problems today; this is it - that Germans didn´t afford developing their jet planes at peace-time! When we would want to tell about German projects, hard to say: we won´t be able to answer the question, what is the best jet plane of WWII. Without any connection to post-war jet (American, Indian, French, Soviet, Swedish etc.) planes, our discussion is only „blabbing“(which „speedy“ says too). I think, the Wunderwaffen and secrets projects of the Luftwaffe is other theme. Still to German projects: Have you read a book written by German authors Walter Schick and Ingolf Meyer „The secret projects of The Luftwaffe“? They attempt to make a system and cathegories of Luftwaffe´s projects. Yes, if you want to discuss any of describing project, or what of those projects or planes is the best, we never have to end. But there will be „blabbing“ only! And another appendix to German jet planes (a view of the second side): British test pilot Brown wrote at a book of his, that Alliens hadn´t to afraid of German jet program generally. British Intelligece Services had many good reports about possibilities of mass-production of German jet planes. If woud become, as Galland supposed, and jet planes would have a priority in German war industry, actually the Americans and the British would manage similar priority for their jet planes (Meteors and others). But there´s another thing.

Hi, speedy. Of couse, I can agree with you. But it seems the topic of our discussion turns to end. Problem is that, a few jet planes managed to see action in WWII. I have mentioned particular types at my answer early (yes, I´ve forgotten Ar 234 and its point-target raids; I remembered the using of jet fighters only). Also no enemy jet planes have met one another at dogfight during WWII. I thing, the Wunderwaffen or the Luftwaffe jet projects belong to other theme of FORUM-discussion. What´s a pity, post-war Czechoslovak Air Force hasn´t had reliable jet power plant for Me 262 airframes yet, it could have been a rare thing!

Jeśli już stawiać na samolot jednosilnikowy, zwrotniejszy od Me 262, to ja proponuje amerykańskiego P-80. Hi, speedy. (Your nickname´s „speedy“, but you can´t write English) To P-80: This type (F-80) saw action at initial period of Korean War. Then „Shooting Stars“ units were rearmed for F-86 „Sabre“. But, in fact, during F-86 development, American designers were influenced by Geman single-engined jet fighter Messerschmitt P.1101, after they had taken it away from Germany in 1945. This airframe was finished by Germans from 80 %. (Like Russians had taken away from Germany designer planes and reduced model for Focke-Wulf Ta 183 „Huckebein“ and remade it for MiG-15.) So – what didn´t Americans develop F-80 to better machine - to modify it, why did they withdraw it from action and change by Sabres? (- Surely, MiG-15s were better than P-80s). But - why haven´t they modified P-80 from 1944 to 1950? For WWII comparison: Would first P-80 have been better than Messerschmitt P.1101? (As well as this German type, P-80 hasn´t any fighting action during WWII, only some crossing flights over Italian front.) Another good single-engined jet fighter was British Vampire. It would be worth to compare these planes at a real fight or at dogfights. This unorthodox construction really influenced British designes for 1950´s and first half of 1960´s, at least in Royal Navy (de Havilland Vampire-Venom-Vixen). P-80 didn´t any influence on world airframe development and designes, P.1101 and Vampire did!

Hi, If I want to write about mass using of any jet WWII aircraft, I would have to write about two planes only: 1) Me 262 (air defence, night-fighting role, and bombing raids) 2) G. Meteor (Mk. I - air defence, especially against V-1 missiles; Mk. III – as Mk. I and some ground attacks in battle of Ardene) (Surely you agree that Komet, as a plane with jet-rocket propulsion is other theme than planes with jet-turbine propulsion.) Mass used type doesn´t mean the best type! (For example Russian piston types La-5 and Polikarpov I-185) But If I answer, He 162 „Spatz“ saw action at the beginning of May, 1945, when some Heinkels attacked on Allied raids and they shot down one or two Typhoons near coast of Baltic Sea. When I compare Me 262 with He 162: So well – He 162 had: - much better maneuverability - better climbing - ejection seat - (maximal speed only a bit less than Schwalbe) - more advanced power plant (BMW 003 was more proficient than Jumo 004) - simpler control of flight at all flight mode - simpler ground maitenance.

Hi, friends of WWII history. I am a new FORUM-writer. I´m Czech but I write English, because the rules of Polish historical portal permit writing in Polish, or English only. I understand Polish text quite well. But if I write Polish, I should lots of mistakes in my text. Further, Czech PC-keyboard misses special signs for Polish letters and words. To understand one another, I will use rather simple English. There was passing a discussion, whether Me 262 was simple for control in a flight, or not. It is a real thing, besides U.S.A.F., R.A.F. , L´Armée de l´Air, and Soviet Air Force, also Czechoslovak Air Force has tested Me 262. The Programme contained airframes made earlier for RLM at Prague aircraft factories during WWII. There were at various level of production. It has been from 1947 to 1949 and former „Schwalbe“ was called „S-92“ (S=stíhací=fighting). Avia-factory chief-pilot Kraus and then former (for many types experienced) RAF pilot Jiří Maňák were finding out, whether Me 262 would be worth for re-production at Prague Avia-factory. There were built ten S-92 and two CS-92 (cvičný stíhací=training fighter), in fact Me 262 B without any special equipment, built by Avia. Both pilots appreciated Me 262 – if both engines run well – as rather simple for control in a flight. But already not so simple they appreciated the taking-off and the landing. Czechoslovak Air Force Ministry also invited to visit Yugoslav Air Force delegation to show them CS-92 „Turbina“ in a flight in 1947. Then, Yugoslav pilot, maj. Zelenika, without any special jet-pilot training, was able to control Me 262 B. By the way, the „S-92 Programme“ was canceled by communist rule in late 1949. There was ordered to buy Soviet Jak-23 fighters (1949-50) and soon MiG-15s (1951). Also former Luftwaffe pilots, especially Johannes Steinhof, Adolf Galland and others appreciate in their books Me 262 as simple for control in a flight. (A question of Galland´s first flight was passing at this FORUM early.) To last survived famous Me 262 pilots belong Walter Krupinski and Gunter Rall. They give similar coclusions at various TV-documents. I remember, I read in Steinhof´s book “Im letzte Stunde“ (or Galland´s „Der erste und der letzte“?) as Gunter Lutzow was able to take-off and to fight with Me-262, after he had been introduced with the cockpit equipment only. But, in fact, Lutzow was a very experienced pilot (in spite of he fell with Me 262). But, as simpler fighter in a flight and maneuverability, I consider the Volksjaeger He 162 „Spatz“. Capt. Eric Brown, British test pilot, who had tested both Allied, and Axis WWII planes, appreciated light He 162 as well as Me 262 very well at his outstanding legendar book „The Luftwaffe aircraft“. Another good light jet fighter was British Vampire. It would be worth to compare both planes – He 162 and Vampire – at a real fight or at dogfights.

Hi, friends of WWII history. I am a new FORUM-writer. I´m Czech but I write English, because the rules of Polish historical portal permit writing in Polish, or English only. I understand Polish text quite well. But if I write Polish, I should lots of mistakes in my text. Further, Czech PC-keyboard misses special signs for Polish letters and words. To understand one another, I will use rather simple English. Once I have read a book written by capt. Eric Brown, who had tested both Allied, and Axis WWII fighters. At the conclusing part of that book, he made a list of about ten fighters that he considers as the best, and that he could test. I don´t remember this hierarchy exactly, but I know that he considers Spitfire Mk. XIV for the first place and FW 190 D for the second place. Further, I think, was Mustang … Thunderbolt, as I remember, he appreciates on last places of his list. But, many survived pilots tell that Thunderbolt belonged to the most safety fighters, often „non-shot downing“ plane, probably thanks to its strong, large and armoured engine. (Captain Brown also wrote that maximal speed of Heinkel 219 Uhu was 580 km/h only, more he didn´t achieve, though he did what he could. He used no MW-50 equipment, but after his opinion, „Germans giving“ 665 km/h was one of „Propagation“ purpose.) There were no Russian fighters on his list, but he wasn´t able to test them (unlike Lerche). If I shoud appreciate Italian fighters, the Americans have tested Reggiane Re. 2005 after the war. Test pilots said that Re.2005 belonged to one of the best, while not even the best Axis fighter, that they could test. I can agree. It is a well-known thing that Germans concentrated all these flyingable machines for air defence of Ploesti oil fields in 1944 and later for air defence of Berlin! To Japanese fighters, American test pilots best-appreciated Army-types „4“ and „5“ - Ki-84 Hayate (but they tested the ultimate version), and Ki-100 Goshikisen (Tony II). American pilots shot down few these fighters. To Russian fighters Lerche well appreciated Jak-3. Hard to say what fighter was better, if this plane, or La-7. Both fighters were not ideal. Czech modellers and enthusiasts high-appreciate also Polikarpov I-185 and many of them consider it for the best Russian interceptor. (There was passing similar discussion on that topic at some Czech WWII aircraft FORUM some time.) I can agree, but there was a little possibility to show its quality at dogfights. I can say, to best Russian fighters belongs American P-39 Airacobra. Both Americans, and Englishmen had no success in this type. Only Russians. Also P-38, by Germans considered as quite easy for shooting-down, but for Japanese pilots it was quite problem. Hard to say: it is a real thing, best successes in Morane-Saulnier MS.406, as well as in Brewster Bufallo, were achieved by Finnish pilots (more than the French, and much more than the Americans). But, it is therefore they fought in it, what they have had. Also, they often have fought against less-training pilots and sometimes against out-of-date planes.

Another appendix: 1) I remember, at Wisner´s 2004 edition there is the note: „The second, added and overworked edition“. It means that both edition from 1976, and from 1995, should be the same! Probably in 1995 the book was issued by other Polish editor, or as a reprint. 2) I noticed I had read in Wisner´s closing text, that he appreciate Magnuszewski´s book (in fact the biography of hetman Stroynowski) as „very interesting work“. It indicates another question: Why doesn´t prof. Wisner include those „Magnuszewski´s interesting things“ into his overworked, newer book in 2004? I don´t know, but I ´ve got a feeling, as if prof. Wisner would not agree with Magnuszewski´s conclusions!

Hi, KADRINAZI (and others). I know, there are both Wisner´s editions (from 1976, and 1995) at „The Slavistic Library“ in Prague. (Before I go to Prague to borrow titles) - If I go and borrow these titles at this library, is it worth, or not for me? Will it have any effect to borrow 1976-, and 1995 editions and to compare them with 2004 one? I see, there was passing a similar discussion on this topic at FORUM early. But, I learnt nothing! So I´d like to repeat this question once more: Can anybody explain me what´s the different between 1976-, 1995-, and 2004 publications? Has anybody each book at his bookcase? (More photos and pictures at 2004 edition isn´t important for me!) I interested in text only. I suppose, last publications should be better than older ones!

Hi, friends of Polish history. I am a new FORUM-writer. I am Czech, but I write English because the rules of Polish historical portal permit writing text in Polish or English only. To understand one another I use a bit simple English. I understand Polish text quite well. But If I wrote Polish, I would have lots of mistakes in my text. Further, Czech PC-keyboard misses special signs necessary for Polish letters and words. I am interested in Lisowczycy for many years, especially in their missions to Habsburg´s countries. I read main Polish postwar historical books about Lisowczycy: Magnuszewski´s "Z dziejów elearów polskich" (1978), and Wisner´s "Lisowczycy" (issued in 2004). I´m afraid, I haven´t read yet other Polish books describing Lisowczycy´s actions in Russia, Inflants and against Osmans. Also I don´t know these historic events exactly. That´s why I can´t add my opinion to those topics. But, If I should compare both of books, generally I can say, I appreciate Magnuszewski´s book more than Wisner´s one. It is truth that Wisner´s work tries to contain the whole anabase of Lisowski´s formation. I compared both books with Czech historical literature and with historic registers and sources of many Moravian towns. Magnuszewski was the first historician, who found mistakes at works of older Polish IXX-century historicians like Szelagowski and Dzieduszycki. In 1978 he was writing about it in his book. In spite of having no knowledge from Moravian town archives and sources, Magnuszewski very exactly describes historic events in Moravia during Lisowczycy´s missions in 1623-24. Further, Mr. Magnuszewski was the only Polish historician, who was comparing Polish historical resources at this topic with Czech historicians - especially with Prof. Polišenský. (Surely, at post-cold war period Wisner could employ also military archives and sources in Vienna.) Therefore I cannot understand, why Wisner in his newer historical work ignored earlier Magnuszewski´s corrections (the same non-chronologic facts and mistakes like Szelagowski and others). So Prof. Wisner, as well as Polish IXX-century historicians, brought nothing new about Lisowczycy´s missions to Moravian territory in 1623-24.