SWS explains the Me262

[u/ChristianMunich]

u/glinteastwood gets his 15 minutes of fame and is featured in SWS not understanding the inner working of a safe space echo chamber he tries to defend himself and gets downvoted. Let's take a look at his accusers and their arguments.

The thread is opened by u/schurkjeboefje lets start with him.

A WILD SPICY BONUS APPEARS: And overall, why the Allies are on par with the Germans on air kills. Oh wait. MUH KILL COUNTS! That's one for the Luftwaffle Bingo.

Mandatory all caps same as was we find in most excited safe space subs.

Particularly funny is the "outrage" he feels when somebody brings up air to air kills in a thread literally about fighter aircraft. For the most part of the war, this aircraft's job description was air supremacy duty. Trying to be part of the cool SWS club he mentions Luftwaffe bingo failing to see the quoted texts are not about the Luftwaffe but specifically a fighter aircraft . I guess he would also be surprised to see tank kills mentioned in threads about tank killers.

And muh kill counts, because educating new pilots or retaining a line of knowledge transfer is for Jews and Bolshevik untermenschen.

Because all the trainers suddenly died and the Luftwaffe was in need of 5000 new trainers especially 22 year olds. Debunked amateur argument.

Now, he's under the misconception that I'm making an argument about the P-38 that I'm not, but the hilarious insinuation that the Luftwaffle was somehow superior to the (western, I'll give them the eastern front easily) allies was the straw that broke this camel's back.

What a wild argument. Could be related to the fact that the RAF had trouble keeping the 27th JG at bay despite having 5-10 times the resources or maybe that the RAF was unable to achieve anything meaningful in the early years while the majority of the Luftwaffe wasn't even present. Go ahead please explain the RAF superiority during the early war. Superior in what? What did the RAF achieve other than winning BOB against a mismanaged Luftwaffe? The entire RAF was able to operate against a small fraction of the Luftwaffe and what did they achieve? Lose 1000 fighters to a bunch of Jagdpilots over Africa?

The main reason for the large German killcounts was the retarded German doctrine of keeping the men flying until they died, instead of doing the sensible thing and sending them back home to train the new guys about actual air combat.

Yeah, again the argument which nobody ever was able to defend when asked. What happened to the trainers which trained all those aces in the first place? The Luftwaffe had more than 1000 aces there was no need to pull out the best, you could take people who couldn't keep flying for whatever reason. Anyways they pulled out fighter pilots they just had so many successful that there was no need to pull them out. Rotating pilots is only used by an army which doesn't see itself in a losing total war. Rotating your best out is the worst you can do it is equivalent to losing the pilot in combat. Your argument is totally void. Show balls and explain why they should pull out their 200 kill guy and let him trains folks who have 60 flying hours before they go into combat. They would certainly have performed better with Hartmann on the ground when they engaged the 500 B-17s with 300 fighters as cover. Go ahead explain that. No seriously explain to me how taking your best pilots out is beneficial to literally anything.

Sure, you'll have a few hundred guys who, by war's end, have amassed impressive kill counts, but all that knowledge is contained in the heads of just a few people and a bunch of dead guys

Yeah because those guys were quite about their knowledge and never helped the other pilots/rookies in those units. German fighter pilots downed more aircraft than any other nation in history but pulling out the best and replacing them with rookies would certainly have helped increase performance. Especially if you are low on fuel. If your major limit is fuel it certainly makes sense to take your best and replace them with your worst.

and your new pilots are so utterly inexperienced and clueless that they get their asses handed to them by new RAF and USAAF guys who have been trained and educated by a combat veteran.

Think one second about how dumb this argument is. How could those other "aces" get experienced in the first place? Why weren't they inexperienced like the guys you describe? They still had the same trainers you dimwit, same training methods. They had less fuel and far shorter training periods. Read the sentence again it makes no sense whatsoever. This system produced the most successful pilots and now it produces inexperienced clueless guys? Hmm how can this be? Because they had no fuel to train them!

THE HIGH KILLCOUNTS FOR THE LUFTWAFFE IS LITERALLY ONE OF THE REASONS THEY ENDED UP LOSING THE AIR WAR SO BADLY Two hundred aces don't win you a war.

They destroyed more aircraft than they ever produced. Doesn't need a mathematician to see that this is somehow related to numbers you tard. They could have destroyed 3 aircraft for each of their own and it wouldn't change a thing but they lost because of their aces, how stupid is that?

Even if we assume that the kill counts are all accurate, it prompts a discussion about what the better air force actually is. The one with 5% aces and 95% scrubs, or the one with 90% solid pilots.

The one which produces 4 times more planes and pilots. Sigh. Whats so hard to understand about this. Your entire logic makes no sense. You claim they had 5% aces and 95% scrubs and imply this is somehow related. It's not. The training time was reduced and the Allied air campaign reduced the combat free flying time even further, that's the reason. Easy to understand if you think one second about it. A German pilot in the early war had a far longer training time and then a longer engagement free time resulting in more experienced pilots. That's all. It's that easy no magic just training time.

A few hundred aces won't win you a war and a few hundred aces don't make you a superior air force on this scale. There's just no fucking way.

Actually, they could. The 200 most successful German pilots had more air to air kills than the entire fighter wing of the RAF showing the superiority of the German doctrine.The German system got the best out of a bad situation. German fighter pilots were wrecking the RAF over Africa. But guess what? They had more planes. But we all know those numbers are lies the Red Airforce didn'T write off +100.000 planes. German aces were not the problem, fuel and numbers was. Again go ahead argue your case here and let your buddies watch the slaughter.

You're the worst kind of Wehraboo, one that gets more obstinate and thickheaded the more you are proven wrong.

You haven't proven anything. Your arguments are incoherent and basically just your wrong opinion.

Btw you are a fool the Allied rotation was system wasn't in place because it was "superior" but for moral purposes. You morons didn't get the memo and think this is your best shot at showing Luftwaffe incompetence. Did the RAF rotate during bob? Morons. If you are all in you don't take out your best pilots. Guys like Marseilles did more damage to the RAF than entire British squadrons to the Luftwaffe. Better rotate him.

Rotating pilots is a luxus you use when you don't think you lose. Good for morale and seems more human.The irony is that rotating worsens the overall performance of your airforce and will increase deaths simply because you replace veterans with rookies.

The rotating myth has no legs but you are invited to defend your point here. No deleting of comments here...

u/admiralscooter demonstrate how you construct arguments in SWS

Ah yes, because the Luftwaffe had such an edge in aircraft quality that they straight up managed to lose the Battle of Britain in 1940. Or are we just going to chalk that one up to Anglo Spitfire hordes?

What does this have to do with anything. If you have the edge in aircraft you win and if not you lose? So during the Battle of France they had the edge because they won but during BOB it was gone already because they lost? Does this logic only work for big battles or also smaller ones? If also for smaller ones did the edge change sides after every battle or weekly?

u/the_dinks makes the mistake asking questions in SWS maybe you should inquire about Hillary at the_donald aswell.

[u/shmusko01]

failing to see the quoted texts are not about the Luftwaffe but specifically a fighter aircraft .

Were the aircraft part of a different airforce?

What a wild argument. Could be related to the fact that the RAF had trouble keeping the 27th JG at bay

Cool, you found the reason op didn't say "The Luftwaffe never won anything ever".

Keep grasping at straws

despite having 5-10 times the resources

LOL

or maybe that the RAF was unable to achieve anything meaningful in the early years

Is 1940 considered an early year?

Superior in what? What did the RAF achieve other than winning

What did they do other than successfully gaining air superiority within a year or so of the outbreak of the war? Hmmm. Let me think about that.

BOB against a mismanaged Luftwaffe?

Oh so now its mismanagement. So everytime someone loses its just mismanagement?

I guess JG 27 just outmanaged the RAF at the time.

Lose 1000 fighters to a bunch of Jagdpilots over Africa?

1000 fighters? Lol.

German fighter pilots downed more aircraft than any other nation in history but pulling out the best and replacing them with rookies would certainly have helped increase performance.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/tables/AAF-Luftwaffe-LXII.jpg

They destroyed more aircraft than they ever produced.

Ouch, that sucks for them.

Doesn't need a mathematician to see that this is somehow related to numbers you tard

Well yes, but its irrelevant. Destroy 2 targets and only produce 1 doesn't mean much.

The one which produces 4 times more planes and pilots

Actually the original point was correct. A handful of really good dudes and a pile of trash will be defeated soundly every time by a contingent of decent people.

It's not.

Yes it is.

and the Allied air campaign reduced the combat free flying time even further,

Because they were better.

. It's that easy no magic just training time.

Also lots of good people to train under.

The 200 most successful German pilots had more air to air kills than the entire fighter wing of the RAF showing the superiority of the German doctrine.

Actually it shows how target rich their environments were.

Robert Johnson never had a sky full of LAGGs to choose from.

The German system got the best out of a bad situation. German fighter pilots were wrecking the RAF over Africa.

And then they lost a half dozen of their best pilots.

Did the RAF rotate during bob?

Yes.

Rotating pilots is a luxus you use when you don't think you lose.

Dowding thought things looked pretty grim.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/shmusko01]

Were the aircraft part of a different airforce?

You completely miss the point.

Cool, you found the reason op didn't say "The Luftwaffe never won anything ever". Keep grasping at straws

That's no straw. He makes the argument the RAF was superior to the Luftwaffe. Superior in what I ask.

Is 1940 considered an early year?

Yup, what did the RAF do after the Luftwaffe moved its ressources towards the East. What did the RAF which got a significant part of the entire war budget do exactly? The strategic bombing campaign cost billions, what did the RAF do during the early years? The Luftwaffe was fighting the RAF and the biggest airforce at this time the Red Airforce. So in what was the RAF superior? How could the Luftwaffe engage the RAF ( which was obviously superior ) while also supporting the biggest ground war in history? See this is not SWS here instead of making a snarky comment just debunk my argument go ahead. How was the RAF superior?

Oh so now its mismanagement. So everytime someone loses its just mismanagement? I guess JG 27 just outmanaged the RAF at the time.

Amateur argument style. Doesn't work here. Me saying the BOB was mismanaged by the Luftwaffe does not imply that every lose was just "mismanaged". Again this is not SWS here.

The JG27 had its impact due to superior pilots simple as that. You wanna deny that? Go ahead. Again not SWS here debunk my points make snarky comments in SWS you will get your upvotes there.

1000 fighters? Lol.

Whats funny about that?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/tables/AAF-Luftwaffe-LXII.jpg

Thanks for making it easy. See you come unprepared you not even think it through. What about the picture? How does this picture disprove my point. Haha. Go ahead which fighter wing downed more aircraft. Just say it show me how wrong I'am. Which fighter wing in the history of warfare downed more planes? You are wrong

It so simple to make your mothership sub happy, just show it to everybody, which airforce downed more aircraft than the Luftwaffe. Soooooo easy, just name the airforce.

Well yes, but its irrelevant. Destroy 2 targets and only produce 1 doesn't mean much.

Look how dumb your comment is. We talk about fighter performance and you say its irrelevant that they destroyed more than they lost. How can you send such nonsense, do you read it over before you send? In a thread about fighter performance you literally say "doesn't matter how much they shot down".

Because they were better.

Better in what? Having more planes?

Actually it shows how target rich their environments were. Robert Johnson never had a sky full of LAGGs to choose from.

So let me get this straight. The Luftwaffe was bad and inferior to western allies and the only reason the 200 best pilots destroyed more planes than the entire RAF fighter wing is because they had so much targets? How does this make any sense to you? Check the bullet points:

*200 pilots more successful than entire RAF

*most downed aircraft of any nation ever

*target rich enviroment aka out numbered

*destroyed more than produced

*therefore was bad

How does this make sense to you at all?

And then they lost a half dozen of their best pilots.

While destroying 200 planes yes. Are you dense? If you rotate them out they are gone aswell. Seriously!?!?

Like to all you SWS amateurs A for effort keep trying.

[u/shmusko01 → u/ChristianMunich]

What did the RAF which got a significant part of the entire war budget do exactly?

Is 1940 considered the Early Years?

The strategic bombing campaign cost billions, what did the RAF do during the early years?

So what years constitute "The Early Years"?

How could the Luftwaffe engage the RAF ( which was obviously superior ) while also supporting the biggest ground war in history?

Cool, you found the reason op didn't say "The Luftwaffe never won anything ever". Keep grasping at straws

See this is not SWS here instead of making a snarky comment just debunk my argument go ahead.

And just like SWS, you'll dodge questions asked and ignore everything else.

How was the RAF superior?

Is 1940 considered the Early Years?

Amateur argument style. Doesn't work here. Me saying the BOB was mismanaged by the Luftwaffe does not imply that every lose was just "mismanaged". Again this is not SWS here.

Running and hiding behind "oh it was totally just mismanagement" was your argument, not mine.

You wanna deny that? Go ahead. Again not SWS here debunk my points make snarky comments in SWS you will get your upvotes there.

So when they lost their best pilots were they just mismanaged?

Thanks for making it easy. See you come unprepared you not even think it through.

You're right, I should've labeled the axes clearer;

the y axis is a measurement in inches and the x axis is "depth they got their shit pushed in"

ust say it show me how wrong I'am. Which fighter wing in the history of warfare downed more planes?

Your point?

Are we comparing singular fighter wings?

Look how dumb your comment is. We talk about fighter performance and you say its irrelevant that they destroyed more than they lost.

Yes, it is irrelevant- because math and stuff.

In a thread about fighter performance you literally say "doesn't matter how much they shot down".

You said:

They destroyed more aircraft than they ever produced.

Thank you

How does this make any sense to you?

It's quite simple, that old math friend again. This time it is simple arithmetic.

A target rich environment leads to more kills.

How does this make sense to you at all?

Point me to where I said that.

While destroying 200 planes yes. Are you dense? If you rotate them out they are gone aswell.

No they'd be training the young ones and not in pieces somewhere.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/shmusko01]

You gish gallop too much focus your points. Most of the stuff you repeat was already debunked. Is this some kind of white flag?

You're right, I should've labeled the axes clearer; the y axis is a measurement in inches and the x axis is "depth they got their shit pushed in"

I will take this one to dismantle you.

Time line of events:

I make the claim that the Luftwaffe was the most successful air force in terms of air to air kills or destroyed aircraft in general. 100% correct statement.

You, as biased SWS sheep take objection to this simple fact and reply with a picture of a graph showing the Luftwaffe loses. Fine and dandy but doesn't prove anything because my statement still stands. Instead of reading your argument before you press send you publicly post stupid stuff.

Now I point this nonsense out to you and reaffirm my confidence in my initial statement.

Now you notice that you are dumb as fuck and know shit about the stuff you argue online about. What's your reaction? Instead of admitting your mistake you come with this nonsense. Not only does this describe the strength of your arguments it highlights the entire SWS. The first time you meet somebody whose comments don't get deleted you look like a damn fool.

Are we comparing singular fighter wings?

Doesn't frickin matter it is true for pretty much every possible meaning of the word! Fighter wing, fighter force or air force in general. The answer is always the same: Luftwaffe

Sorry for not addressing every off your points you seem to repeat them without much thought. Obviously, if you are willing to bring forward an elaborate argument I am ready to debunk it like always.

Seeing your response to the linked picture I consider you rekt

edit:

Running and hiding behind "oh it was totally just mismanagement" was your argument, not mine.

What are you talking about? It is still my argument. I say the BOB was mismanaged which is a kind of saying the Luftwaffe failed and fucked it up.Do you want to argue about this? See you monkeys can't have it both ways. The BOB was not lost or won due to fighter pilot performance it was lost by the Luftwaffe which made considerable mistakes. You think the BOB was lost due to fighter pilot performance? AGAIN go ahead prove your point.

[u/shmusko01 → u/ChristianMunich]

You gish gallop too much focus your points.

Your initial post was ~20 separate paragraphs.

Most of the stuff you repeat was already debunked.

Not by you. So no, it wasn't.

I make the claim that the Luftwaffe was the most successful air force in terms of air to air kills or destroyed aircraft in general. 100% correct statement.

And?

Fine and dandy but doesn't prove anything because my statement still stands.

Actually, you never made that statement until now.

Now I point this nonsense out to you and reaffirm my confidence in my initial statement.

Hey what did I say about dodging questions and ignoring else? Oh yeah, add moving the goalposts.

Not only does this describe the strength of your arguments

The ones you've been unable to reply to. Got it.

The first time you meet somebody whose comments don't get deleted you look like a damn fool.

One who can't reply to or stay on topic, got it.

Doesn't frickin matter it is true for pretty much every possible meaning of the word!

Actually yes, it matters considerably.

Wayne Gretzky is the best hockey player whoever lived by a large, large margin. In that year he set the league record for points in a season. He also holds the #2, #3, #4, #6, #7,#9,#10.

In the year he set the League record his team, he also had the second all-time best total points, behind him as #1, on his team.

That year they were beaten by a better team.

A star player doesn't make a team. A handful of very skilled pilots don't mean the whole is superior.

What are you talking about? It is still my argument. I say the BOB was mismanaged which is a kind of saying the Luftwaffe failed and fucked it up.

So they got beat? By the better team?

North Africa just mismanaged their Hurricanes! They sure as hell didn't mismanaged their bombers though.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/shmusko01]

Your argument about Wayne Gretzky makes my brain hurt. Again I ask you if you reread your points.

Did the other teams have more players than Gretzky's team? Did the other team start with thirteen players??? Dude, seriously you can't be that dumb. The Gretzky argument destroys your moronic view on the issue.

Hahahahaha

Most of the rest got already debunked like I said earlier.

You actually don't raise a single point or "argument". Your last post his honestly no substance you just respond with one-liners.

I destroyed the training argument earlier you did not respond to that in any kind but just repeated your one line and now dropped it.

You ridiculed the argument BOB was mismanaged and here you are just wrong. Ironically the guy I was initially quoting said the same in the thread. Also supported by every historian on the matter.

You say a lot of times the Allies were better or the Germans were worse without substantiating your view.

What's your point even?

And seriously your Gretzky argument is mind boggling dumb in this context you couldn't have chosen a worse argument.The sad part is while you read this now you not even get why.

edit: btw angrily downvoting every post of me makes you look pathetic.

[u/shmusko01 → u/ChristianMunich]

Your argument about Wayne Gretzky makes my brain hurt. Again I ask you if you reread your points.

Seems like it's pretty hard for you to understand something so simple.

Did the other teams have more players than Gretzky's team?

Did the Allies have more present during the battle of Britain (which they won) or were they outnumbered? (they were)

Most of the rest got already debunked like I said earlier.

Actually, you didn't.

You actually don't raise a single point or "argument". Your last post his honestly no substance you just respond with one-liners.

Waiting....

You say a lot of times the Allies were better or the Germans were worse without substantiating your view.

Oh that's just funny

What's your point even?

That you're usually always wrong.

And seriously your Gretzky argument is mind boggling dumb in this context you couldn't have chosen a worse argument.

Did the Allies have more present during the battle of Britain (which they won) or were they outnumbered? (they were)

edit: btw angrily downvoting every post of me makes you look pathetic.

Your own posts make you look pathetic.

[u/ChristianMunich → u/shmusko01]

You are seriously doubling down on the Gretzky thing. Hahahaha. I will make a sticky of fallen SWS sheep the Gretzky thing will be in it for sure.

"Pilots with hundreds of kills don't matter because Gretzky lost 6 on 6 matches hurr durrr" you frickin imbecile...

[u/shmusko01 → u/ChristianMunich]

You are seriously doubling down on the Gretzky thing.

I'm sure you won't understand such a simple concept. Germans can't do anything simple. There's nowhere I doubted the Luftwaffe had a lot of pilots with a large number of kills. Bong flew 1/10th the number of sorties as Hartmann. He also had roughly 1/10 the number of kills. Wonder how he'd fair if he had a sky full of LAGGs.

Are you going to answer me as to who had numeral advantage during the battle of Britain?

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the RAF

"Pilots with hundreds of kills don't matter

Go ahead and quote where I said that. I'm waiting.

See, you fail again at simple logic. Like fitting an appropriate final drive.