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
oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 2:49:34 PM

   Well, yes it does, that is why it's called "Self evident"!  
self evident does not mean that it is evident just to you and no one else, you use it to justify not providing proof of a statement, the fact that you can get no one to agree with your point makes it self evident that its not self evident
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    That is what "Self evident means!   7/15/2013 2:50:48 PM

You make claims about the pictures I have posted and try to change the subject when you have no argument,

another unsupported accusation,
Well, not it is not unsupported! I have posted two pictures quite recently in this thread and you, nor anyone else has answered the facts as proven by those two pictures!
 
or answer to pictures that clearly show lack of bomb coverage.

I have never commonted on this other than to ask for clairification, clarification in which you get all the details wrong, I you cannot support your own claim why should we answer it?

You post a pitcure wiith no details (That I had to research to find anything about) and use it to support you post, yet it turns out that the pitcure wasnt what you claim
Post "Proofs" that it was not! You just made the "Unsupported" claim, now prove it!

I have ALLWAYS relied on verifiable sources for my rebuttals of your idiotic claims Well, no, this is not exactly true either. In the past you have dismissed some of my ideas out of hand with out ever posting a single shred of evidence that they were not what I said.

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

find pitcures that have sufficent information and we may look at them and answer
Those pictures from the RAF's own post war BDA survey WERE posted here in one of the other threads, the B-17 streak bomber thread, IIRC, and not one person answered my contention that they had spotty coverage, even though that report stated that fact and used those pictures to prove it! Find the original post to get the specifics, then answer that question! Or, go read the RAF's post war BDA Strategic analysis! If I was better at tracking these things down on the internet, I would do so myself. But it has proven to be much to difficult for my Google-foo skills.
   

 



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 2:57:34 PM
  Well, yes it does! This IS the exact type of argument that does not rely on "Proofs" but on the prior knowledge base,
 the problem is that despite you been provided with proof of your view being invalid you try and use this to avoid the fact that you are wrong
 
well and numerously stated by many here, of simple facts, IE most planes are shot down from ambush, we here on this board only dispute how many, or what %age, between 80-95%, AND the "reasonable conclusion" that any "Normal person of average intellect and knowledge" would make! ( Sorry for the legalese!)
 
if we accept your figure (although I think its high) it does not counter the fact that you cannot RELY on being in that situation, if you plan only from one point of view you end up being disadvantaged in all other aspects
 

Note that the argument does not address the rest of those "Minority" cases, only those in the "Vast majority"!
Therefore it is reasonable to expect at least some of those here on this board to make those conclusions and answer that question in the affirmative!
you have to design for all aspects or you end up with such a restrictive design that it cannot cope with the real world
The other means of stating that Posit would be; The plane which takes the least time to sneak up on it's target and thus leaves the target the least time to see the attack coming their by, the least time to avoid said attack, will be the more effective of two dissimilar types.
 
not if you cant get that type into your attack position in the first place, if the opposition have the high ground and you are being forces to engage on their terms a one trick pony like you are proposing is just a target, it is only useful if you can control the engagement
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 3:00:16 PM
you claimed to have served in a camp in Vietnam yet you completely failed in identifying any of the camp when confronted with someone who had actually been there
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 3:11:52 PM
 
Well, not it is not unsupported! I have posted two pictures quite recently in this thread and you, nor anyone else has answered the facts as proven by those two pictures!
You posted two pictures yet when pushed misidentified what those picture showed, you claimed one was of a RAF night raid by Lancaster's when it was actually a daylight raid by b25s (I was wrong when I said Boston's that was a different raid on the same target)
 
or answer to pictures that clearly show lack of bomb coverage.
the picture at that resolution shows nothing at all you need a much higher resolution )like the original photo)

I have never commonted on this other than to ask for clairification, clarification in which you get all the details wrong, I you cannot support your own claim why should we answer it?

You post a pitcure wiith no details (That I had to research to find anything about) and use it to support you post, yet it turns out that the pitcure wasnt what you claim
Post "Proofs" that it was not! You just made the "Unsupported" claim, now prove it!
 
No, I refuse to do your work, they are your photos its up to you to support your claim
 

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...

find pitcures that have sufficent information and we may look at them and answer
Those pictures from the RAF's own post war BDA survey WERE posted here in one of the other threads, the B-17 streak bomber thread, IIRC, and not one person answered my contention that they had spotty coverage, even though that report stated that fact and used those pictures to prove it! Find the original post to get the specifics, then answer that question! Or, go read the RAF's post war BDA Strategic analysis! If I was better at tracking these things down on the internet, I would do so myself. But it has proven to be much to difficult for my Google-foo skills.
 
you post a claim then say you haven't the skill to do the most basic of research, yet you claim what you say is fact when it is opinion and opinion with no factual base just what you think up, sorry but you have no credibility left on this or any other site you have frequented, until you find supporting evidence for your claim or at least someone who thinks the same then I will dismiss your post with out a second thought, I just refused to keep providing evidence for you to ignore so now I wait for your evidence that what you claim is true
   
ps those pics are from the US bomb survey not the RAF one, you have been picked up on quoting the RAF BDA but have been proven that you have never seen the documents and making wild guesses
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/15/2013 3:22:45 PM

self evident does not mean that it is evident just to you and no one else, you use it to justify not providing proof of a statement, the fact that you can get no one to agree with your point makes it self evident that its not self evident
NO! Self evident means that any reasonable person of normal intellectual capacity would make that conclusion!  The argument on this line of this thread is whether or not the statement; "Of two dissimilar planes, the one that takes the least time to close on an unsuspecting target will be more effective than one that takes much longer." is true!
It is a question which answer is "Self evident" not requiring outside proofs. Yet for such a simple answer, no one here has stepped up to the plate and stated any kind of an answer. You have collectively dodged the question repeatedly and used a dozen different excuses to do so, ALL with out making the slightest effort to answer the Question, or even address the idea! I have tried to discuss the basic idea through several different questions, but in each case, everyone here has done everything in their power to avoid answering that simple question. It is a basic core question as to determining the value of any single fighter plane from any period, yet no-one here will even discuss it, let alone answer it.
The last PP states it all. Over the course of this argument we have gone back and forth over which was the best fighter plane of WW-II, WITH OUT ever discussing why those attributes would be superior to others. This goes to that question because it goes a long way to explaining the main reason why some planes are better than others. Why "Angle Fighters" are less effective than "Power Fighters" in the guns era. By the way, even though it took me a week, I have found my copy of Shaw's "Fighter Combat"! Previously I made a statement in reply to a claim that that book disputed everything that I claim is important in BFM/ACM! In that statement I stated that if the book disputes what I said, it must be old, or wrong! Well, I was not wrong in that assessment. The book does NOT dispute anything I've said here on this thread or anything else I've stated anywhere else on this board!
That part of this argument was apparently made by someone taking part of the text and or diagrams out of context to "Prove that I was wrong! Having since found the book yesterday and re-reading it last night, I stand by it 100%. Go read it all, not just the part that supports your favorite fighter plane, but also the parts that do not. For instance, how an F-104 can easily out maneuver a Hawker Hunter on pages 149-164, 175-182 and particularly the diagram on page 161. Those same arguments can be made about the Zero/Spitfire and Thunderbolt/P-38. Speed trumps turning "ALMOST" every time.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/15/2013 3:28:54 PM

familiar. Any assertion as to my supposed lack of knowledge is faulty, just like your claim above.


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 3:39:13 PM
familiar. Any assertion as to my supposed lack of knowledge is faulty, just like your claim above.  

go back and actual read what he says and not just assume it agrees with what you think,
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 3:48:03 PM
self evident does not mean that it is evident just to you and no one else, you use it to justify not providing proof of a statement, the fact that you can get no one to agree with your point makes it self evident that its not self evident  
NO! Self evident means that any reasonable person of normal intellectual capacity would make that conclusion!  
 
but no one is, no one you can find agrees with you, so either you are using yourself as that reasonable person (which clearly you are not) or you are mistaken

 The argument on this line of this thread is whether or not the statement; "Of two dissimilar planes, the one that takes the least time to close on an unsuspecting target will be more effective than one that takes much longer." is true!
It is a question which answer is "Self evident" not requiring outside proofs.
you have steered the question away from the original proposition into one that you can support, it is true that a high energy fighter with SUFFCIENT excess of power can overpower a turner, but that advantage has to be significant (as the supersonic example he uses) the problem lies with the fact that original post referred to aircraft of the same generation aircraft that didn't usually have this excess (and if you had read the book you will notice that the lower the combat speed the bigger the excess needs to be
 
Yet for such a simple answer, no one here has stepped up to the plate and stated any kind of an answer. You have collectively dodged the question repeatedly and used a dozen different excuses to do so, ALL with out making the slightest effort to answer the Question, or even address the idea! I have tried to discuss the basic idea through several different questions, but in each case, everyone here has done everything in their power to avoid answering that simple question. It is a basic core question as to determining the value of any single fighter plane from any period, yet no-one here will even discuss it, let alone answer it.
 
no its you trying to justify your opinion and has nothing to do with discussion, you are mentally incapable of discussion, you cannot imagine that you can be wrong so it is purely you trying to force your ideas on others, no one on here needs to answer your questions it is a free world and what we do is our choice, if we choose to pick you up on your errors that's our choice
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/15/2013 3:49:33 PM

 
or answer to pictures that clearly show lack of bomb coverage.
the picture at that resolution shows nothing at all you need a much higher resolution )like the original photo)
This is a very wrong and specious statement! It is easy to see at any resolution that the factory roofs are still intact, something that would not be, IF that building had taken a direct hit! Ergo, any building with the roof intact in a picture with bomb craters scattered all around and other buildings clearly showing the missing roofs and the knocked down walls with craters inside those walls, ( By absence of linear shadows.) means that that building was not hit! See the RAF's own post war "Strategic Bomb Damage Assessment Results" report for methodology and criteria as to the results claimed!

You have still not answered the BDA Pictures, etc...
 
you post a claim then say you haven't the skill to do the most basic of research, yet you claim what you say is fact when it is opinion What is opinion? Who's do you accept? If the building is clearly destroyed in the picture with the roof missing, some walls knocked down as shown by the lack of relevant shadows and bomb craters inside the building perimeter, it is "Self evident" that that building and at least some of it's contents were at least "Damaged"! But if a second building has an intact roof, no nearby bomb craters and no displaced walls as shown by the shadows, it is also "Self Evident" that that building has no "Significant" damage! So I state my "Opinion" that buildings with "apparent" damage are in fact "Damaged" and those with no visible damage are not! and opinion with no factual base The factual base is in the photos themselves! You just have to have some common sense and look at the picture! 
   
ps those pics are from the US bomb survey not the RAF one, you have been picked up on quoting the RAF BDA but have been proven that you have never seen the documents and making wild guesses I trust the guy who first posted the set of TEN images that he claimed were from the RAF's Post War BDA report! I searched for pictures from that report. Those two are what came up. Now since you claim they are from one source and I claim they are from another, why don't you prove they are as YOU state. You have disputed my analysis of those pictures, but hereby been disproven, so make your proof for us all to see and then address my assessment.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics