Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter       3/6/2013 11:16:08 PM

But that is all on you. The DATA speaks the REAL truth for itself.
B.
What part of this did I ma ke up?    
Shooter Quote "More than 150,000 Easy night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 Hard daylight missions for the USAAF B-17s proves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes. Then there are both the hundreds of pictures of returning heavily damaged B-17s Vs NO pictures of returning Lancasters with the same level of damage, not to mention the fact that there are no maintenance records of repairing a single Lancaster with that mutch damage on it as there are hundreds of those type of records for repairs to B-17s that exceed any repair ever made to a Lancaster!
So you fave to be honest and face the facts that the Lancaster was the weak sister of the B-24 and not in the same league as the B-17!"
Added highlighted parts for emphassas! 

 

 

You are absolutely correct! The data does speak for itself, IF you do not try to twist it!
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    But you forget one thing...   3/6/2013 11:24:53 PM
WE KNOW who tries to twist the numbers and cannot do his OWN work, Stuart.
 
That would be the man man who cannot read, cannot do math, and who LIES about what the data says.
 
Like fuel consumption rates, engine efficiencies, drag, aerodynamic loading, MTOs, fuel ratios bombloads.
 
That liar would be you, Stuart.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/6/2013 11:46:12 PM

WE KNOW who tries to twist the numbers and cannot do his OWN work, Stuart. That would be the man man who cannot read, cannot do math, and who LIES about what the data says. Like fuel consumption rates, engine efficiencies, drag, aerodynamic loading, MTOs, fuel ratios bombloads. That liar would be you, Stuart. B.
That sounds a lot like Liar-liar-pants on fire!
So lets go through those points one at a time;
1. Fuel consuption rates from Janes all the world aircraft, or would you prefer the pilot's manual' "Air Miles Per Gallon" someone posted here?
2. Engine efficiencies? Would that not be like the fuel consumption rates you mention above?
3. Drag? That the B-17 is faster with less power should make this clear to any reasonable person?
4. Aerodynamic loading? Like the B-17 is several hundred pounds lighter than the Lancaster in every source known to man, or that they have similar MTOs of 65,000 and 65,500 pounds?
5. Fuel ratios? Is that where the lighter, more aerodynamic plane that carries more fuel as a fraction of it's MTO?
6. Bomb loads? Do you mean maximum published figures of 18,000 and 17,600 pounds? Or are you reffering to the ~30 something "Specials" WO guns and armor?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Don't even pull that BS.   3/6/2013 11:51:55 PM
Stuart.
 
We have 500+ posts of evidence, direct evidence of your LIES.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 11:39:20 AM
and ideas, you thief, then make the correct interpretations (which MINE are diametrically opposite to your looney tune interpretations of the data.) 
and be HONEST as to whose data you stole. I don't want to be associated with your crap, Stuart. B I am forced to use your posted data against you because you refuse to list the source material.
 
no you refuse to use your own data because either
a/ ypou cannot do the esearch
or
b/ you have done the research and it doesnt match your stupid theories
 
 
I have also drawn the correct conclusions, which you clearly have not!
nope wrong again
 
I have made a simple statement that disprooves your entire thesis that the missions were similar and that the RAF faced similar resistance to the USAAF, which they clearly did not.
 
but this is the EXACT basis on whitch yoy base your theroies that somenow those whole war figues are comparable which they clearly are not
 
Using your own data and admissions, IE that night time bombing was safer than day light bombing and since that the the PRIME MO for both the RAF and USAAF, then the only valid conclusion is that the RAF flew the less dangerous missions and the USAAF the more dangerous ones!
 
no the data does not support this, it may support theat the USAAF daylight were more dangerous than the equivelent BC night missions but it does NOT support that the the MISSIONS were more dangerous as if you look at them they clearly were not, had BC bombed the same targets the loss rates woould be significatly lower (as proved late in the war if you look at the data)
 
Since there is ample evidentuary and analitical proofs to same, then the only logical conclusion is that the Lancaster was a fragile plane at least compaired to the American types.
 
no this is your FLAWED assesment and is NOT supportable by the data you have provided, the data YOU provided can coclud no such proof
 
Because there is no other way to explain why they lost more Lancasters on fewer missions other wise!
More than 150,000 night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 missions for the USAAF B-17s prooves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes.
 
nope it doesnt
 
 
Then there are both the hundreds of pictures of returning heavily damaged B-17s Vs NO pictures of returning Lancasters with the same level of damage,
 
yes thier is and you know it
 
 not to mention the fact that there are no maintenance records of repairing a single Lancaster with that mutch damage on it as there are hundreds of those type of records for repairs to B-17s that exceed any repair ever made to a Lancaster!
 
rubbish and lies

So you fave to be honest and face the facts that the Lancaster was the weak sister of the B-24 and not in the same league as the B-17!
in your dreams
 
if this was the case why did the USAAF look at the lancaster as THE option should the B29 fail?

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 2:44:57 PM
yeah right and just how much defensive effort was placed round the ruhr/Berlin other major cities targets of BC not USSAF       
A few dozen Night Fighters Vs several hundred day fighters? Yeah Right!      
 
a few dozen nightfighter against a few RAF nightfighters or a few hundred day fighters against a few thousand P51s
yeah right
and a couple of light flak guns against a the heaviest concentration of heavy flak yeah right
 
Not at all! Because it still fails to address the realitive strengths of the German responce to both types of raids.
that's why your whole war figures are useless
 
No, if the German response? was 20% at night and 80% at day and the RAF still lost so many planes, then the only valid conclusion is that the Lancaster is not as sturdy as the B-17,
this shows how narrow minded you are, you have a theory and cannot see any other alternative despite them being more likely
 WO those dates it is not possible to even attempt to look up the realivant? data.
why not? can you not do a bit of basic research? can you not lookup missions that targeted the same target at approximately the same time? surely if your whole war figure was at all relevant then it would be easy? 
  
Not at all! The data I am using is so widely availible that it is not in question. Besides, the fact that encompases the entire war and ALL the missions makes it the best possible data set! 
 
not when as you point out the largest majority are NOT comparable, so much so that it makes the large dataset useless
if you want to compare B17 v B24 then the data is valid, if you want to compare Lancaster and Halifax then its valid, but if you want to cross the data then it falls flat on its face
 
 so by reasonable deduction, the higher loss rates of RAF Lancs means that they were more fragile! 
no it does not and just repeating it does not make it so.
 
no it might but you have not shown this, But, I have shown this! it would only be the case IF the missions are directly comparable Not at all!
only in your narrow mind are they comparable
 
 and the Lanc losses were higher But it is absolutely certain that they were!
not its  not as the missions were not the same and not performed at the same time and therefore its not possible to extrapolate the theory from the data
 
 Why do you deniegh this fact! but the data does not support this It most certainly does support that finding! in fact the data suggest oterwise No, it does not suggest otherwise! 
yes it does - look at the data
- look at the data, it would actaully say suggest that the B17 was targeted agaisnt easier targets How can you make this suggestion? 
because airfields in the middle of france were not as heavily defended as the Ruhr, actually look at the missions flow
 
and made the majority of its missions at the time when the defenses were weakest Again, how can you make this assumption,
by looking at the facts of when the majority of B17 missions where flow and against what targets
 
But were still at night and thus much less likely to be shot down!
 
facts say not
are you completely incapable of doing such a asic it of research, No, I just do not want to spend my very pressious time doing it!
then don't expect anyone to do it for you, and it would explain your faulty logic you just will not put the effort into understanding the issues, you skim info and then think you understand it and then are incapable of changing your mind
 
How about the fact that B-17s flew more missions in 1944 than the RAF did during the entire war? 
 
2600+ b17 against light odds and against lightly defended targets I would be surprised if they hadn't oh and the huge fighter escorts helped, even earlier missions were only flown with spit escorts
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 2:49:39 PM
Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, the entire data set is always better than any sub-set!
 
ok try this example
 
you have a shed with over 5000000 fruits in it
 
in that shed you have 2 apples 4 oranges and the rest are grapes
 
you are informed that half the fruit is rotten
 
by your argument 1 apple and 2 oranges are rotten, but the data does not support this as the number of grapes makes any assessment of the apples and oranges impossible
 
the ratio of signal to noise is far too high to make assumptions, this is basic data collection but seems to be way beyond your comprehension
 
next time you claim to read a book at least try
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/7/2013 2:57:04 PM
More than 150,000 night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 missions for the USAAF B-17s prooves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes. Then there are both the hundreds of pictures of returning heavily damaged B-17s Vs NO pictures of returning Lancasters with the same level of damage, not to mention the fact that there are no maintenance records of repairing a single Lancaster with that mutch damage on it as there are hundreds of those type of records for repairs to B-17s that exceed any repair ever made to a Lancaster!
So you fave to be honest and face the facts that the Lancaster was the weak sister of the B-24 and not in the same league as the B-17!
 
then why was the B17 limited to 220mph in a dive and the Lancaster 320mph? you haven't answered that one yet how come a such a weak bomber was allowed to dive faster than your super strong one?
 
how come it lasted in various forms up to the 1970s?
 
your problem is you are narrow minded to the extreme

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/8/2013 12:38:54 AM

I have also drawn the correct conclusions, which you clearly have not!
nope wrong again
  Like the average bomb load of the entire war time Lancaster missions was 7,795 pounds per sortie! Until you can explain why this was and why it took about the same mumber of B-17s to fly half again as many missions in about 2/3rds of the time to deliver more bombs on targets, then your arguments are all hollow! There were only ~12,000 B-17s made and only about 8000 of them were sent to Europe, the rest were sent to CBI and the South Pacific. So less than 8000 Lancs Vs >8000 B-17s and the Lancs only flew 2/3rds as many missions? Explain that!
Using your own data and admissions, IE that night time bombing was safer than day light bombing and since that the the PRIME MO for both the RAF and USAAF, then the only valid conclusion is that the RAF flew the less dangerous missions and the USAAF the more dangerous ones!
no the data does not support this, it may support theat the USAAF daylight were more dangerous than the equivelent BC night missions 
And your conveluted reasoning for this statement and the Oximoronic sentance that followed is? 

Since there is ample evidentuary and analitical proofs to same, then the only logical conclusion is that the Lancaster was a fragile plane at least compaired to the American types.
no this is your FLAWED assesment
How else can you explain why they lost more lancasters on fewer missions? And when those were night time missions aqs you have stated/admitted above? Right! 
Because there is no other way to explain why they lost more Lancasters on fewer missions other wise!
More than 150,000 night missions for Lancs and more than 240,000 missions for the USAAF B-17s prooves beyond any doubt that the B-17 was far and away the stronger of the two planes.
nope it doesnt
  Right!
Then there are both the hundreds of pictures of returning heavily damaged B-17s Vs NO pictures of returning Lancasters with the same level of damage,
yes thier is and you know it
  No their is not! I've searched and so have others and to date NO-ONE has posted a single picture of any Lancaster that returned to base with a direct hit from a large caliber AAA shell, or a MAC! Not one picture in all of more than 1,000 total posts on this subject through many threads! Not one!
not to mention the fact that there are no maintenance records of repairing a single Lancaster with that mutch damage on it as there are hundreds of those type of records for repairs to B-17s that exceed any repair ever made to a Lancaster!
rubbish and lies
  Then post them!
So you have to be honest and face the facts that the Lancaster was the weak sister of the B-24 and not in the same league as the B-17!
in your dreams
No-in your dreams they are almost, but not quite equal!
 
if this was the case why did the USAAF look at the lancaster as THE option should the B29 fail?
  But they did not! They had three other planes in R&D and prototype flying! Search B-32, IIRC.



 

One last time, 156,000 Lanc sorties and 608,000 tons of bombs over how long, Vs 291,508 B-17 sorties with 640,000 tons of bombs over less time.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/8/2013 12:45:25 AM


Certainly! Once you have data sets with a populations of 156,000 and 240,000, they will be infinetly better than any twelve sets of points! So yes, the entire data set is always better than any sub-set!
ok try this example
Why? It's a silly comp! The above numbers are all the same thing, dropping bombs on Germany and out of the ~2.5 millions tons of bombs, 1 million by the RAF and 1.5 million by the USAAF, those sorties are all the same thing.

So lets comp 640Ktons, Vs 608Ktons and losses per ton of bombs dropped inside the city limits?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics