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       2/21/2013 3:55:33 PM


Given the absolute fact that the USAAF flew more sories, 762,462, dropped more bombs, 1,396,816 tons,

Yes it does, but it also includes light and medium bombers.

so wait aminute you include light and medium figures????? adn the compair them agaisnt Lancaster figures I comp'd it Vs ALL RAF BC planes and missions and the TOTAL bomb load delivered! as if thats comparable? But wait, it is comparable! of the ~12,000 B-17s made, they shipped less than 8,000 to the ETO. Of the ~15,000 B-24s built, they shipped about half to the ETO as bombers, the rest went to ASW Search and the Far East. or are you compairing it agaisnt BC figures Yes, Lancs, Sterlings, etc... in which case the fact that the USSAF was much much bigger might be a factor might it not? Yes, that is true, but the USAAF Bomber Command had about twice the size of the RAF BC! Counting all American Attack and Bomber AC! god you decoming more and more dishonest
Nothing dishonest about it. You just fail to make the right conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. IE, they average USAAF bombload per plane was about 2/3rds of those of the RAF. Therefore, for the USAAF to have dropped more bombs tonnage and done so in less time, the American bombers must have flown more missions. Which is well shown by the figures posted. Why did you miss this? That means the American planes were more reliable than those of the RAF! Well shown by many other sources.
Yes, I did. Either you comp American Heavies Vs RAF heavies, or all Vs all, because using the Mosquito WO comping it to American twin engined bombers seems limp to me. So is it the fact that the B-17 flew more missions,(>291K!) in less time( One year less!) dropping more bombs(>640Kt!) than the Lanc and the rest of RAF Heavies, or is it the fact that the entire USAAF dropped about 40% more tons of bombs than the entire RAF during the entire War?

none of the above efects the figures? you take facts out of context, without sontext the facts are worthless 

No, it is you that made assumptions that were not well supported. 

Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly?

Because I know they did not fly any Daylight  heavy missions after they switched to the Night Campaign. 

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 4:08:11 PM

1. Gun turrets were and and are not plane control surfaces. Control limits, mechanical travel and operation speeds are different.
2. WW II tech versus today's tech.
3. All electric F-16? Stuart. Yes! They made exactly ONE F-16 with Fly by Electric powered controles to test the idea! I was working for them when they did that! See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Two hydraulic systems, aboard one for the speed brakes and fuel proportionater  and the other for landing gear and brake chute deployment, NWS, JFS  and inflight refuel deploy and operation. Where is proportional speed  and moment arc control involved in that, Stuart?    
 
Conclusion, you spout utter ignorance as usual. Yeah! RIGHT!
 
B. wrote: that nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Skin thicknes was less than ONE Milimeter thick! So how is it thick and heavy? If this is proof of your aerodynamic engineering knowledge??? PS. The Persplex/plastic is ALWAYS heavier than the equivilant area of aluminum sheeting/stiffeners! ALWAYS!
I prefer 100% electrical control and feed. Hydraulics may seem lighter but in reality not. Electrical allows fine control and slam stop with variable slew elevate track. Plus there is FIRE hazard with hydraulics.

Then why are all modern aircraft made with hydraulic systems instead of electric drive for the movable control surfaces?  Electric circuts do not have a fire hazard? These are two more examples of your faulty knowledge base!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 4:26:00 PM

The B-17 is easily the most damage resistant,
True! 

In either casualties per ton or planes lost per ton, the Lanc comes off poorly copm'd to the B-17!
badly? the lanc dropped over twice the bomb tonnage of the B17 per aircraft lost in combat, and if you do not take into account the targets they were tasked with then this whole point becomes a waste of electrons
Again, this statement is simply not true! The Lanc dropped 608,000 tons of bombs for 3,733 lost in combat. That works out to <163 tons of bombs per AC lost. In addition the number of crew to survive being shot down was less than half that of the B-17. ~50,000 killed total! More than half of that ~50,000 figure comes from Lancs. THAT works out to only <25 tons of bombs per casualty! Do you really want me to list the realivant figures for ANY American bomber in the ETO?


since the Lanc can do the same job with half the planes or missions using the same number of planes, But only if you do not count losses. thus putting the Lancaster at risk for (roughly) half the time. But it was much less than half as durrable. Both were better than the Liberator, as far as survivability is concerned, This is simply not true at all! The B-24 had more than twice the survivability of the Lanc. It had a crew bail out figure ten times as high as the Lanc. The USAAF lost 45,505 KIA. So they flew many more missions and had about 10% less casualties than the RAF BC!!!!!!!


 
No, the B-24 was slightly better than the lanc in losses per sortie and slightly worse in losses per ton.

Not in the real world it didnt

Right! As fragile as it was, it was still about twice as good as the Lanc!
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/21/2013 4:26:40 PM
 
Nothing dishonest about it. You just fail to make the right conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. IE, they average USAAF bombload per plane was about 2/3rds of those of the RAF.#
since when, we have shown that it was closer to1/2 in fact records show that per COMBAT mission the Lanc averaged 10452lbs, the B17 averaged 5210lbs
 
 Therefore, for the USAAF to have dropped more bombs tonnage and done so in less time, the American bombers must have flown more missions. Which is well shown by the figures posted. Why did you miss this? That means the American planes were more reliable than those of the RAF! Well shown by many other sources.
god its pointless you have a narrow view of what you think is the truth and cannot see that thier may be other explanations also maybe you should look at PEAK numbers and see the difference, i
Yes, I did. Either you comp American Heavies Vs RAF heavies, or all Vs all, because using the Mosquito WO comping it to American twin engined bombers seems limp to me. So is it the fact that the B-17 flew more missions,(>291K!) in less time( One year less!) dropping more bombs(>640Kt!) than the Lanc and the rest of RAF Heavies, or is it the fact that the entire USAAF dropped about 40% more tons of bombs than the entire RAF during the entire War?

apples and pears and then you wonder why no one supports you? can you actually find a single source that agrees with yours warped view?

none of the above efects the figures? you take facts out of context, without sontext the facts are worthless

No, it is you that made assumptions that were not well supported.
sorry spilt my drink laughing at that one, you should be a comic with ones like that

Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly?

Because I know they did not fly any Daylight heavy missions after they switched to the Night Campaign.
 
realy? so those pictures of Lancaster bombing in daylight are what fiction? (as they had switch to night bombing befoer the Lanc entered service) Imagehttp://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/9/media-9612/large.jpg?action=d" />
 
this would seem to put the lie to your words
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/21/2013 4:47:51 PM
printed , film? see a contradiction here? we did have colour printing you know, and since when are MAPS photographed? talk a bit of sense
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 5:00:41 PM

someone like Stuart misunderstands Newton's laws of motion and then uses a video-game to argue against physics and common sense?
B.
 
Like actually using a tape measure on the bomb bay in question?
But in reality, you comp/site a few hundred early B-17s with the small and very fragile tail that had the problems you mentioned, but ignore the >12,000 E,F and G Mods with the greatly enlarged and strengthened tails and you think I am dishonest? Right!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 5:22:08 PM

Nothing dishonest about it. You just fail to make the right conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. IE, they average USAAF bombload per plane was about 2/3rds of those of the RAF.#
since when, we have shown that it was closer to1/2 in fact records show that per COMBAT mission the Lanc averaged 10452lbs, the B17 averaged 5210lbs
So the Lanc dropped 608,000 tons in 156,000 sorties, (In nice round NUMBERS!) for <3.9 tons of bombs per sort ie!      
Same published B-17 facts. 640,036 tons of bombs in 291,508 sorties for 2.1956 tons of bombs per sortie! Sources previously posted!
That makes the ratio 2.1956/3.9 = .563, or 56.3% of the bombs per mission. 
 
Therefore, for the USAAF to have dropped more bombs tonnage and done so in less time, the American bombers must have flown more missions.

none of the above efects the figures? you take facts out of context, without sontext ? the facts are worthless

No, it is you that made assumptions that were not well supported. B. Blah blah blah...
 
Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly? B. Blah blah blah...

Because I know they did not fly any Daylight heavy missions after they switched to the Night Campaign.
realy? so those pictures of Lancaster bombing in daylight are what fiction? (as they had switch to night bombing befoer the Lanc entered service)  Imagehttp://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/9/media-9612/large.jpg?action=d" />

YES! Exactly! How many 1,000 plane raids did they do in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was still putting up fighter deffences? Late in 1945, just before the Germans surrendered, they flew some lanc missions which were not contended. But exactly how many sorties did the fly in the day light that were defended by the Luftwaffe, Vs how many at night? RIGHT! 150,000 sorties at night and <6000 in broad day light!


this would seem to put the lie to your words  Not at all! You can take anything out of context, but it does not change the fact that the vast majority of RAF BC sorties were flown at night!
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 5:25:59 PM


printed , film? see a contradiction here? we did have colour printing you know, and since when are MAPS photographed? talk a bit of sense

What, you were ignorant of how the Military printed their plain maps back then? I am amaized! Photo maps of targets were ONLY Printed by photographic pro cces ses! It was just much to time consuming to convert photos to printing plates for a few/hundred maps when a photo lab could print them from negatives in a few hours! See the various links to RAF/USAAF films back then!     


 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    liar.   2/21/2013 9:15:55 PM
You never measured a thing, Stuart.
 
Bomb bay and bombs, I supplied hard data and showed sources in the B-17 thread. You claimed you used a tape measure and could get bombs to fit?
 
Liar.
 
B.

B.

 

Like actually using a tape measure on the bomb bay in question?
But in reality, you comp/site a few hundred early B-17s with the small and very fragile tail that had the problems you mentioned, but ignore the >12,000 E,F and G Mods with the greatly enlarged and strengthened tails and you think I am dishonest? Right!
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    OBNW,   2/21/2013 9:19:42 PM
The bomb-nav maps were marked with IR ink PENS, OBNW. The bombardiers scribbled notes all over the things.
 
Like the arrow pointing to the IP aim point?
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics