učitel

Still to Bf 109: Być może jest rozwiązanie czemu nie ma typu AS - Murawski podaje, że literka "a", lub "A" oznaczała w terminologii Messerschmitta wersje eksportowe [ausslandich]. ………Być może to jest wyjaśnienie, dlaczego część typów ma oznaczenie tylko n.p. G-10 a część G-10/AS. No doubt, what letters „AS“ mean: „A“ means a basic version of DB 605 for a new 109 G type, „S“ for more powerful supercharger from DB 603 (Sonder – as FS writes). Problem is in Italian Bf 109 G-10/AS, because for G-10 and K versions were planned using only DB 605 D engine (G-10 came out about 5 month later than G-14). DB 605 D is recognized accordig to little „bulges“ (enlarged oil bath and a bigger camshaft) that were seen behind the spinner beneath. But Italians use G-10/AS. In photos Bf 109 G-10/AS nose of Aviazzione Repubblicana there is not seen any „bulges“ behind the spinner beneath. I suppose that when new DB 605 D-engines weren´t available yet, to fuselages for G-10 version were fitted older DB 605/AS engines. Still another facts: Giorgio Pini wrote me some time, that Italian engine Alfa Romeo R.A. 1000 Monsone, produced as a licence of German DB 601 A, and determined maily for Macchi C. 202 fighters and Re. 2001, was sometimes a additional mark „AS“. But, it ment that the engine had used a tropic filter to a suction of a supercharger, which was marked as „AS“ = ANTI SABBIA = anti sand. But it´s something else. A friend of mine is searching crashing planes, that were shot down during WWII. Once he found rests of DB 605 engine with a barrel of MG 151. He supposed it was from Bf 109 G-6, or G-14. (Not all G-10 had MK 108 cannon, as K-4 had.) With the engine serial number, there was also the letter „R“. He told me that it ment that it had been produced by Franch factory Renault.

Miał o wiele większe osiągi niż lancaster. Of course, no doubt, B-29 was the most progressive and probably most successful bomber of WWII. But, I wouldn´t compare B-29 with Lancaster. Lancaster was a bomber that saw its first action in 1942, B-29 in 1944. I would compare it better with Avro Shackleton/Lincoln. Earlier I have written a bit about both British bombers. Generally, B-29 was more progressive than both British bombers: First – in its design (most of postwar foreign air forces were not inspired by Lancaster-original design, but by B-29). Second - the British themselves left the idea of heavy piston bombers after WWII. Third – U.S.A.F. used B-29 as a main bomber till the end of Korean war (its follower – B-50 was not much better than B-29). Fourth – Soviet Air Force used Tu-4 (basically B-29) till arrival of Tupolev´s strategic propeller bombers with sweptback wings.

I think, the idea of a rocket interceptor was initially rather good, but it was shown, Me 163 had been a very dangerous plane for mass using. There were also other troubles, which caused that a rocket propulsion had been left by all world´s air forces after WWII. One of them was a very short-time of fuel reserve. But the airframe construction by prof. Alexander Lippisch was excellent and flight qualities were excellent too (as a glider). The rocket engine Walter HWK 109-509 was very dangerous, which often lead to an explosion. Also the fuel and the oxidizer were strongly corrosive. That´s why pilots had to wear a special rubber anti-corrosive overall. Another lack was, that fast Me 163 did not have a injected seat. Once I have read at Mano Ziegler´s book „Messerschmitt 163“ that more than 20 new „rocket“ volunteers had come to Komet´s airfield Brandis. One Me 163 had been just landing but suddenly exploded. After that impressive „show“ almost all pilots returned to their former units, only two pilots stayed at Brandis. I myself very approciate a progressive weapon A-A missile that was launched from the back of the plane and its start was determined by a photo resistance: when a shade of an enemy bomber had covered the resistor, the missile was launched. Supposedly, by this way there was shot down one B-17. I also read that total successes of Me 163 were about 12 kills of B-17. It was very few, while some tens of Me 163-pilots lost their life… More than Me 163, I appreciate Me 263/Ju 248 „Superkomet“, as a follover of Me 163. Except of a modification of the fuselage and the wings, the main change was at a power plant. The rocket engine Walter HWK 109-509 C had two chambers: the main chamber for the take-off and the climbing, and the crossing chamber for wait for hunting. But, there were some problems with a centre of gravity and finally it has not succeeded to realize any power flight till the end of WWII. After the war Mikoyan´s bureau constructed similar I-270 „Ж“ (Ж = жидкостный ракетный двигатель) as Me 163, but its flying tests lasted a very short time. And Japanese Mitsubishi J8M Shusui prototype exploded during its first engine start in 1945.

Bf 109 G-6 : silnik DB 605 A: 1475/1250 Bf 109 G-10 : silnik DB 605 DCM 1800 /1050 [wysokość 8000m] Bf 109 K-4 ; silnik DB 605 DCM 1800 [moc startowa] Hi, FSO. The information of any discussion forum is based not on quantity described text, but on the substance and the interesting of discuss topic. It is unnecessary to write me Polish facts that I have written last time! I think, many Polish air enthusiasts of this FORUM undestand my English. If you don´t understand my English, O.K., but don´t name my nickname next time. If you want to give similar information in Polish language, of course, but without the salutation „učitel“, please. Among your list of Bf 109 version, there is one important version missing – Bf 109 G-14. This was intermediate version, intended till finishing new DB 605 D–engines. It was a very extended and popular version. It has similar engine as G-6 (DB 605 A), but with an additional power equipment MW 30 or MW 50, which made better most performance of the plane (DB 605 AM). G-14 came to units in June, 1944. There was also a bit modified fuselage („Galland hook“), sometimes a new wooden tail, sometimes modified mid-part of wings – depending on a shape of the undercarriage (tyre) and of length of undercarriage legs. Among Bf 109 G there was one „puzzle“. It was mysterious Bf 109 G-10/AS version. It is known that at Prague aircraft factory Avia were producting DB-engines during WWII. After WWII there were left lots of original technical documentation for manufacturing parts. But, on official list of 109 G-version, the G-10/AS misses there. My former penfriend, Italian well-known air enthusiast and author, Giorgio Pini, sent me the copy of original „Umrust Motoren“ many years ago. (Italian aircraft factories produced new types from 1942 – Macchi MC. 205, Fiat G.55, and Reggiane Re 2005. These „number 5“ line was intended for a new, more powerful engine too. But Italian aircraft factories had no suitable engines, therefore there was decided to produce German DB 605 under the licence by Alfa Romeo factory, with the mark RC-58 Tiffone. So, Italian air factories got similar technical manual as at Avia factory.) But, I found there this G-10/AS version!! Generally, the basic G-10 is not so different from K-4. All G-10 versions should have had the new DB 605 D-engine. This engine was heavier and more powerful, of course. Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-10 came to units in October, 1944. But, it is the fact, Italian R.S.I. Air Force, Aviazzione Repubblicana, used in 1944/45 many G-10/AS types. It is supposed that the G-10/AS (with DB 605 AM) was intermediate version too: when new DB 605 D-engines weren´t available yet, to fuselages for G-10 version were fitted older DB 605 AM engines. The difference of outer shape on the fuselage capote was made by enlarged oil bath. In later G-10 and K-4 are visibly seen little „bulges“, little coverings that were seen behind the spinner beneath. At G-10/AS there are seen no those bulges, naturally.

Łączna produkcja "109" to ok. 31649 egz., po wojnie zaś jeszcze 573 egz. jako Avia S/CS 99/199 oraz 239 w Hiszpani jako HA-1109 do 1112 Hi, everybody. If I could clear this information about production Czechoslovak postwar 109s: The production has built on former German production line at the Avia Letňany-Factory. Czechoslovak national mark had been ordered as C-10, but during the production it was changed to S-99 (= the army mark, but the police mark has been kept as C-10 still for some time). „S“ ment „stíhací“ = fighting. Avia S-99: airframes of Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-14, G-10 and K-4, mostly G-10. Avia CS -99 (CS ment „cvičný stíhací“ = training fighter): airframes of Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-12. But, German war prisoners managed an explosion in a mililitary stock of DB 605 engines. Then, there was decided to substitute those (fighter) engines by (bomber) Junkers Jumo 211 F-engines, ordered originally for Ju 88 A. These engines were stored in large numbers in military stocks. So, the original Bf 109-fuselage was modificated for another engine. The power of the „new“ engine was rather low, and other performances were bad too. The „new“ fighter was renamed as Avia S-199, and the two-seater as Avia CS-199. The common nickname was „Mezek“ (= the mule) in Czechoslovak Air Force. This type was, together with La-7, the main army fighter till the arrival of MiG-15 jet interceptor. Then, Czechoslovak Jews in communist´s government and in the Central Committee of the Communist Party wanted support Israeli effort in first Arabian-Israeli conflict in 1948. Several tens of S-199 were sent across Italy and through B-17s to Israel. In this conflict S-199s were fighting against Egyptian Spitfires and Mustangs P-51 D. It is says that Izraeli S-199 pilots during dogfights against Arabian Spitfires use German as a warning intercom speech, so as: „Achtung, achtung, zwei Spitfires links zu neun Stunden …“ - of couse, as a joke!

Then, FSO, I ´ve got such a feeling, that both of us speak to other things. Generally, I can agree with you. But – I haven´t mentioned FW 190, high altitude-possibilities of fighter engines, etc. (I compared only particular weights of various DB-engines and their influence for the maneuverability for specific Bf 109 versions.) I see, there are described those differences in various literature, concerning optimal altitude-possibilities of engines as in British, so in Russian fighters. But some Czech fighter pilot veterans, that had been fighting in Western Front in Spitfire V and IX, and then they moved to the Soviet Union and were fighting in La-5 FN, told something else: Most of dogfights were at lower altitude in East Front than in West, but it was connected with other flight tasks, that had been typical in Russia: the escort of bomber-attacker Pe-2 or Il-2M3, the support of ground units, cooperation with ground troops, etc. Dogfights were taken place in low or medium altitute too, but it concerns also to described conditions of East Front. The equipment of La-5 FN those veteran pilots described as more out-of-date than Spitfire Mk.IX was, but the performance (power) differences between their engines in flight (Shvecov ASh-82 FN and Rolls-Royce Merlin...) were appreciated by those veterans as not so different. And to your opinion - that FW 190x?? were designed for East Front condition? When did the first FW 190 prototype test? In 1938 or 1939. It´s not important. But certainly not closely before the outbreak of Soviet-German´s hostility. And to FW 190 D as „the special fighter for East Front-conditions“? When did FW 190 A see first in action? This type got JG 26´s (Schlageter) and JG 2´s (Richthofen) Gruppes in autumn of 1941! In East Front this type appears only in spring of 1942 (JG 3 Udet and others). FW 190 D saw first action in October 1944 in France (JG 26, Achmeer airfield). In Russia this type appears in winter 1944/45, first in northern East Prussia area! Pierre Clostermann wrote in his book „The great circus“, that all of German new planes used to introduce at first to Western Front!! It´s a clear thing, why it was: Anglo-American air technique was on the higher post than the adequate Russian one.

"... Me 262 B - 1a/U1 nightfighter (NJG 11 or Komando Walter), ..." I do apologize, Kommando Welter, of course! (I typed quick and then I didn´t check my text last night; my mistake!) Then, Oberleutnant Kurt Welter was best-known German jet nightfighter pilot. He had from 2 to 4 ?confirmed victories in Me 262 B, but I have sometimes read that he succeeded much more! Supposedly he shot down about 30!! British airplanes, not Lancasters – but Mosquitos! These kills were certainly non-confirmed, because the top-scoring WWII-jet pilot was Heinrich „Pritzl“ Baer with 16 kills in Me 262. I´m afraid, I have read too, that Kurt Welter was finding among homelesses at Munich railway-station in 1950´s. And the date of his death is not known, too. Has anybody more detailed information about this brave pilot?

Hi, everybody. FSO, thanks for particular Bf 109-version list. Dlaczego uważasz że sowieckie maszyny były cokolwiek dobre? A Bf- 109 był używany do walki energetycznej czyli góra-dół. widiowy7, it seems you haven´t understood well my contribution. I didn´t write at all, that Soviet planes had been so good generally, but that Yak-fighters were by progressive fighter line. Their design-construction was progressive, which supported the progressive development. The difference between Bf 109 F (construction!!) and Bf 109 K was not so different. "... był używany do walki energetycznej czyli góra-dół" - yes it´s right. A co z tego?

Torstennson's army who cooperate with Transylvanian forces in 1645 - Sigismund Bethlen's army was light cavalry force of very limited value... Sigmund Bethlen? don´t you think rather Jerzy Rákóczy´s army??

być może musiał nauczyć się samolotu. Przecież jadąc nowym samochodem - także musisz go "wyczuć" , poznać jak wchodzą biegi, jak silnik wchodzi na obroty jak łapie sprzęgło.... Samolot to dokładnie taka sama maszyna, zaś Ju 87 był dość specyficznym samolotem, który miał swoje zadania i musiał je spełniać. Hi, FSO. Ju 87 was a war plane, not a lorry (as the LIAZ is at your own logo)! But seriously: First – I haven´t wanted to write at all by my sentences, that Ju 87 would have been a bad plane. You haven´t written it, but I´ve got such feeling, after I had read your message. Second – I have re-written only capt. Brown´s describtion exactly according to his book „Wings of Luftwaffe“. In this book he describes first fligts with various German planes. Not at each these planes he had so inconsistent experience as in Ju 87. Third – Capt. Brown wasn´t any stupid man. He tested not only fighters, also various bombers, as well as dive bombers (American, British, German, Japanese…) When he wrote such a article about his feelings in Ju 87 in his book, he wanted to give differences from flight characteristics of other planes! Fourth – If you don´t believe me, buy and read Brown´s book. It is very interesting and outstanding. You will certainly learn a lot of new information!

Hi, everybody. It is an interesting thing too, that pilots of Me 262 often flew dressed in dark brown leather overalls. Generalleutnant Galand has written at his book „Der erste und der letzte“ (The first and the last): „… We have flown dressed in leather…“ This sentence concerns general´s command of JV 44 in winter and spring 1945, where he flew together with Steinhof, Krupinski, Lutzow, Barkhorn and others. I don´t know whether also airmen at other jet units were wearing similar leather overalls, or not. I mind Kommando Nowotny, later formel Steinhof´s (still later Ehrenberger´s) JG 9 (its one Gruppe was made by rest of Komando Nowotny´s aircraft), airmen of Me 262 A-2a bombers (KG 51 or Kommando Schenk), Me 262 B - 1a/U1 nightfighter (NJG 11 or Komando Walter), … Does anybody have more information about German jet pilots´s overalls??

Hi, everybody. I add another reviews of Ju 87, this time about its flight characteristics. R.A.F. captain (Fl/Lt) and test pilot Eric Brown has written book „The Luftwaffe aircraft“, where he described also his test flight with Ju 87 after WWII. He flew – I think – with Ju 87 D version. After he had taken off, his feelings were terrible – he wrote, that it had been very hard for him to keep aircraft in the right direction („the air was whistling between flaps and wings …“). But, after he had hung the aircraft into a swoop, all the „collisions“ suddenly stopped. Ju 87 became quiet, it behaved exactly according to control-column movement („like the airplane would be enthusiastic for a dive-flight!“).

Because there was closed the theme "Messerschmitt Bf 109" yesterday, I´ll add still another reviews: I´d like to add my opinion about Bf 109 as a fighter line. When we look at Bf 109 as an aircraft design, there were two concepcions only at its chronologic development. The first - from Bf 109 B to Bf 109 E (prob. 1936-40). Each of these versions were different only in various type of engines, armament or some details. The second – from Bf 109 F to Bf 109 K (prob. 1941-45). Otherwise, each these versions were different in particular modification of the armament, which determined the fuselage (F - G-4, G-5 – G-14, G-10 – K), wings (which depended on various length of undercarriage, it has been determined of various type of equipment, armament, etc.) So the difference between the prototype Bf 109 F (from late 1940), and the prototype Bf 109 K (from late 1944) was too small!! But there was other well-known WWII fighter line, where the development of the first and basic construction was rather more progressive, individual versions were differed not only in using engine or armament, but also in the design! This feature is większy potencjal rozwojowy, and such a design is SPITFIRE. From 1936 to 1945 (and even after WWII) were enormous numbers of versions (Mk.I – Mk.IXX). We can also add similar naval versions as Seafire, Spiteful or postwar Seafang. I thing, The Spitfire Mk. I was then the most progressive fighter of WWII. In Soviet WWS, it was Yakovlev´s fighter line, from I-26 to Yak-3, or to Yak-9 U/9 P. Of course, especially first Yak-1s or Yak-7s were rather primitive planes, but their rapid production maybe saved Russians! And good Yak-3 (his flying features) was very appreciated by German test pilot Hptm. Lerche. Hard to say, if in case of the possibility of development such a fighter as Heinkel He 100D or He 112, Germans would be able to achieve similar progressive fighter line as British in Spitfire. Another to Bf 109: Since 1942 Germans mostly have used versions with DB 605-engine. It is an interesting thing, that some fighter aces, for example Gunter Rall, prefered Bf 109 G-14, to more powerful G-10 version! The G-10 and K-4 versions were otherwise armed more strongly (due to 30 mm´s MK-108) but they had heavier engine DB 605D. And this heavier engine made worse maneuverability than in versions with DB 605A (Bf 109 G-1 – 109 G-6) or AS (later versions of G-6s, G-10/AS, and G-14).

Hi, Kadrinazi. Yes, I agree with you. You´re one of the few, who appreciates Bethlen´s act in front of Vienna like I do. Bethlen always acted in those situation in the same way, he several time surrounded Vienna and in the end it turned even so. You characterized your army accurately! But, some effect had Lisowczycy´s raid on then Transylvania (East Slovakia today) on Bethlen´s thinking. Bethlen has been afraid of Lisowczycy very well since! In the 3rd Bethlen´s mission (August-November 1623) to Habsburg´s contries, Bethlen surrounded one Moravian fortified town – Hodonín. (His problemes were like you have described in Vienna in 1619.) Finally, there was declared the armistice on 29th November, and „The 2nd Nicolsburg Peace“ on 8th May, 1624. But then Bethlen enforced to Peace Treaty „important for him“ sentences, so that Polish king was apprised with Peace Treaty-conclusions. Bethlen was afraid of Lisowczycy, not to raid in the back from the Biescady Mountains, as it was in battle in Humenné. This fact shouldn´t ignore. (Otherwise Stroynowski´s and Kalinowski´s pulks of Lisowczycy were called, but they reached too late – in the middle of December, so they fought against rebels – against Moravian Woloszyns.) These events describes Magnuszewski in his book about Stroynowski (1978).

Hi, everybody. GP-mars, I very appreciate your precise opinion. I agree with you. Always, when I see a picture or a drawing of PZL P.50, I imagine Bloch M.B. 151 (as if Polish designers based on it). Further, Pulawski´s ultimate export version of his „top-wing planes“ - PZL P.24: Some time I have read at Pokryshkin´s memoir „The War in the Clouds“, that the most maneuverable plane, that he met in a fight at all, was Rumanian PZL P.24!! Interesting! I don´t know if it is known in Poland, that there was also a plane with Pulawski´s wing in Czechoslovakia. In 1930´s, the Aero-factory was developing such a fighter marked Aero A-102. It was very fast, more than B-534, but it hadn´t any wing-flaps, which made too high landing speed. In the end, Czechoslovak Air Ministry prefered advanced Avia B.35 fighter. Further, in summer of 1944, when American B-24s were crossing Bulgaria for bombing of oil rafinery in Rumanian Ploesti, several Bulgarian Avia Av-135 intercepted them. Jordan Ferdinandov shot down one B-24 (with a fighter without any armored pilot seat and armored fuel tanks!). After Americans had landed, the pilots reported that they were attacked by Messerschmitt Bf. 309s !!! Shocking! It is a well-known thing, that Finnish pilots reached good successes on Morane Saulnier MS.406s (surely they were more successful than French on this type). When Finnish Air Force obtained the lightfighters Caudron CR.714s, they stored them as useless in combat. But, when Polish airmen in France made some combat flights in these planes against Germans in 1940, they appreciated the Caudron performances as quite low, but the maneuverability seemed to be better than with MS.406 C!! So, I´d like to know what´s opinion on another promised aircraft: for example Polikarpov I-185, Heinkel He.100 D, He.112 B, British Martin Baker-prototypes, Hawker Tornado, French Arsenal-fighters, heavy fighters Focke-Wulf FW 187, He. 219 Uhu (postponed in the middle of the war).

Hi, Kadrinazi. A particular problem (I have indicated it earlier) is, that units and formations were as of organizational (regular) type, so of tactical type. The units of tactical type had not usually any standard. For example: at cavalry – the regiment (pulk) was divided on companions. Each of companion had its batalion (also kornet, korouhev, choragiew). But the tactical unit of the cavalry was the squadron (švadrona), made up by several companions. Sometimes, the regiment was divided on squadrons directly – then such a squadron could be as of organizational -, so of tactical type of unit. (The facts have been taken from the encyclopedia „The Military History of Czechoslovakia – Volume II – 1526-1918; Naše vojsko, Praha 1986.) Kadrinazi, will we talk about "numbers of captured standards" all the time? Rozsławił ich rajd na Siedmiogrod, to fakt, ale to nie przez nich Bethlen nakazał odwrot spod Wiednia. Could you analyze closer this your opinion, please?

Hi, Orosava, this is the discussion forum, so I´d like to know some personnal opinions. I expected that I would learn something more! But thanks for the www-reference. By the way (after I had read this article), in Czech historical air literature there is written, that P. 50 prototype did a crash landing (on 3rd September?), but the prototype was shot down by Polish anti-aircraft artillery! Is it truth?

If there were more than 110 Protestant's standards to be capture Hi, Kadrinazi. The information "110 Protestant's standards" is your opinion only and I don´t agree with you.

Hi, Kadrinazi. 1) I don´t write that Lisowczycy collected from the ground also Catholic´s units standards (really this is a nonsense), but that they had to collect from the ground also Catholic´s units standards (thought to gain „52 standards")! We didn´t understand each other! 2) When I counted, I naturally don´t mean numbers of batalions, I named them for soldiers´ quantity only! I counted numbers of participating regiments plus numbers of colonel´s own units (of which you always mention).

Hi, Kadrinazi. Well, back to „captured standards at Bílá hora battle“: you actually answered you yourself! You wrote, that you didn´t eliminate the information about 52 captured standards. So, count with me: Protestant formations had at Bílá hora 19 800 – 21 000 men (according to various sources). The infantry batalion had about 300 men, the infantry regiment had usually 10 batalions; it means about 3,000 men together. The horse regiment had usually 500 – 1,000 riders (800 riders). Count each standards (according to your theory), and your result will be 30 standards at maximum! So like Magnuszewski thought about it, that he supposed some 20 captured standard! If Lisowczycy pick the ground-left standards at the battlefield, they had to collect from the ground also Catholic´s units standard… How could Lisowczycy managed that „rytmisters Wojcech Sulimirski and Stanislaw Stroynowski laid down 52 captured standards to feet of the leader“? It was at Dembolecki´s fantasy who glorified a lot of Lisowczycy´s activity. (Dembolecki even doesn´t write who was „the leader“ – we know that it was Duke of Bavaria Maxmilian I.) ((I personally don´t believe any priest!!))

Hi, everybody. So I add another accidents. Soviet test pilot, a long-range pilot and the acrobat, Valery Czkalov, died during the return of a test flight of new fighter Polikarpov I-180 – I. (It was on 15th December, 1938 – otherwise not during WWII, but near before.) An official crash-report told about „supercooling engine“, but the reason could be even a pilotage failing. But it´s a truth that the M-88 engine was rather unsafe. After that accident a lot of technicians were arrested, because Czkalov was a favorite of Stalin. Anyway, soon another test pilot died, this time at Polikarpov I-180-II! When N. N. Polikarpov has died in summer 1944, it has been told that it was during an air accident too. But it was a nonsense! He died from a cancer of his stomach. Also Czech top-scoring „Battle of Britain“ ace – sgt. Josef František – 17 kills during 28 days – died on 8th October, 1940. He flew with Polish 303th Squadron. On his fatal day he did a non-combat flight in some Hurricane, its engine was after a repair and František should have tested it. During his landing he crashed near his airfield. Many witnesses think that he was very tired, or that he even fell asleep. In France he shot down 11 Germany aircraft (one witness exists), but it was never accepted oficially. Another to Glen Miller´s death – There is a mystery that was not reliably explained yet.

squadron or regiment didn't have their separate standards! Hi, Kadrinazi. I absolutely cannot agree with you, that regiment didn´t have its own standard. I dont´t know how it was in Polish army exactly, but in western-type army the regiment = pulk had its own standard! The colonel (Obrist) had his own regiment, that was his property! The same it was at the cavalry! The squadron was bigger order than the cornet and it was usually under command of „obristleutnant“ (lieutenant-colonel).

Hi, Kadrinazi. I can agree with you. Lisowczycy could really pick the land-left standards on the battlefield. There is such a possibility there! Then the problem is, what kind of hierarchy (order) of those standards was it! Generally each „kornet“ (cornet), „korouhev“ = Czech word for choragiew (about 100 riders), had its own standard. Further was a standard for a horse squadron (švadrona), a regiment (pulk), and others. But you know these things certainly. Well, I think - two of us will not solve this problem. Again so much detailed information are missing about the Bílá hora battle! And to your another sentence I´ll write next time.

Hi, everybody. I have sometime read that American U.S. Navy-designers had such a complex that their last version of Navy-fighters (F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair) were otherwise more powerful than A6M5 Zero, but Zero was more maneuverable than these ones. Therefore the Grumman factory constructed F8F Bearcat. Bearcat should have been more maneuverable than Zero, according to Grumman technicians. But, after Bearcat had come to units, the war in Pacific finished. Well, after my opinion - F4U Corsair was better fighter than Hellcat. 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 Japanese Navy-types, it is considered as Kawanishi N1K2 Shiden-kai (George), so Mitsubishi J2M Raiden (Jack). I more appreciate „George“, though „Jack“ was very excellent at climbing as an interceptor, but „George“ was probably more maneuverable. Generally, „George“ was a very effective fighter at dogfights with Hellcats and Corsairs. Unlike Germans, Japanese pilots was afraid of P-38 Lighting. I can say, both army fighters, as P-51 D Mustang, so P-38 J/N, were very effective against Japanese fighters. Surely, P-51 H (as well as P-47 N Thunderbolt) were even better, but both fighters came too late, so they had action against second-classed Japanese pilots and in terms of clear Allies air superiority.

Hi, Blues Boy. I respect your opinion. But - Do you know, why Germans were developing Focke-Wulf Ta 152 H in 1944? This fighter (Hohenjaeger) was a high-performance airplane. German intelligence service got reports about using of B-29 Superfortress over Japan in 1944. Germans were afraid of using B-29 over Germany and therefore Ta 152 H had so excellent performances (maximal speed 752 km/h, top altitude 14 800 m)!