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       2/22/2013 2:38:37 AM
so all the maps were photo maps? not cartalogical?  and your evidence for that is?
 
Photo maps are fine for raid planing but pretty damn difficult to navigate by
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 2:51:57 AM
 
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 sortie!     
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. 
as 50% is 1/2 and 66% is 2/3 maybe you can say who is closer?
 
Therefore, for the USAAF to have dropped more bombs tonnage and done so in less time, the American bombers must have flown more missions.
 
no disagreement but context is everything, have a detail look at when these missions were flow and against what targets!
 
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..
 
oh dear is it past little stewarts bed time, looks like he's throwing a tantrum.
 
Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly? B. Blah blah blah...
 
carry on like that an you will go to bed with no supper (and will revoke your net access for 2 days)

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

YES! Exactly! How many 1,000 plane raids did they do in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was still putting up fighter deffences?
how many 1000 planes raids did the USAAF do in 42?
 
 Late in 1945, just before the Germans surrendered, they flew some lanc missions which were not contended.
 
how do you know what they were you clearly claimed that they didnt perform any!
 
 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!

so now its < 6000 but you said they didnt do any make up your mind, the RAF was set up to bomb at night and was bombing as accurately at night as the USAAF was during the day, yes they did army support missions during they day (Lancasters were day bombing on the 6th of june 1944 and thoughtout the following months) in fact as Day bombers they were far more accurate than the USAAF
 
the troops on the ground during DDay had a saying, whenthe RAF bombed the germans ducked, wen the germans bombed the allies ducked and when the USAAF bombed EVERYONE ducks
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!
 
Nothing will change it as it was true, the point was originally that the USAAF suffered heavier casulaties when they attacked the SAME target as the RAF, the reason why the USAAF suffer less overall losses was that they attacked the difficult targets far less than the RAF
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 3:04:47 AM
Here is a HINT, the Germans shot DOWN 4000 RAF night flying bombers (44% of the intruders over time aggregate.) That means something.    Yes, it does! But most/at least 1/3 were shot down by flack is that Roberta Flack again god she was dangerous to allied bombers wasnt she,
or do you mean FLAK or more accurately Fliegerabwehrkanone
 
not night fighters. If one was to add up all the planes CLAIMED to have been shot down by Night fighters it comes out to about 5/8ths of ALL RAF BC losses.
 
and your source for this is?
 
 I do not know how to gage the Claim/kill ration of German Night Fighter Pilots.
 
there is a hell of a lot you cant gage but its nice to see you admit it for once
 
 It might have cost the same, or maybe less. was worth a try. Even if you could have only whittled the losses by 25% that is 12,000 men and lot of machines. Couldn't do worse than what happened. By your logic, we should have replaced them all with P-47s and P-38s since the -47 could cary the same 2-3,000 pounds (2500 max but at the expense of range, without the drop tanks the P47 quite short legged) and the -38 could cary 5,400 pounds of bombs when comp'd to the Mossy?
true the P38 could carry 2x2000lbs and 2x500lbs so technically as much as the Mossie only thing being that to do this not only meant much higher fuel consumption and lower speed (them being hung off the wings) but as they took up the droptank spots you even lost that fuel, so whilst the Mossie could and did toke 4000lbs to Berlin the range of a 4000lbs P38 was barely cross channel
 
While I freely admit this is a specius argument, I also think it is just about as realivant as the argument above and for the same reasons, except that the later two are very much more dangerous and much more likely to be able to protect them selves.

All I can say is that the "cork Screw' was the preferred RAF Bomber counter-measure...it was NOT simply a Flak counter...Cork screwing...a rapidly descending turn, pulling you off the "radar screen" of the Night Fighter "sensor" the Eye Ball Mk1....
Firing on the night fighter, UNLESS he was actually closing and firing was NOT considered a wise idea....the gunners were baskically 'sentries" reporting on the presence and location of night fighters. The corkscrew is a "positive G maneuver and can to a greater or lessor degree can be performed by any plane that can fly! It like the "Barrel Roll" is one of those things that sounds great, but in reallity was no big thing
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 3:13:20 AM
 
 
All I can say is that the "cork Screw' was the preferred RAF Bomber counter-measure...it was NOT simply a Flak counter...Cork screwing...a rapidly descending turn, pulling you off the "radar screen" of the Night Fighter "sensor" the Eye Ball Mk1....
Firing on the night fighter, UNLESS he was actually closing and firing was NOT considered a wise idea....the gunners were baskically 'sentries" reporting on the presence and location of night fighters.
 
The corkscrew is a "positive G manoeuvre and can to a greater or lessor degree can be performed by any plane that can fly! It like the "Barrel Roll" is one of those things that sounds great, but in reallity was no big thing!
 
try actually lookin up what a corkscrew manoeuvre was before making such a silly comment
 
as the B17 had a notoriously weak backbone (even the G model Shooter) and could overstress it even using trim tabs in a dive, I doubt anyone ever tried such a manoeuvre in a b17 or i they did probleby didnt survive the experiance
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/22/2013 3:17:26 AM
I dont doubt they were but as far as I know the maps themselves were not printed in IR ink (and were not photos but actual printed cartalogical maps our local museum has orginials)
 
the navigator position was provided with blackout curtains and a shielded light
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    further details on corkscrewing   2/22/2013 3:20:46 AM
The RAF heavy bomber&O5533;s standard evasive maneuver enabled it to continue on
course while presenting an attacking fighter with an extremely difficult target.
This maneuver is performed any time the attack is from the rear to middle of the
craft. The diagram at Figure 1. shows the maneuver following a port fighter
attack.
http://www.429sqn.ca/acmem01.jpg" width="212" height="155" alt="" />

1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and
banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is
on the port

reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending
through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph.
After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still
turning to port.
 
3. He reverse the turn, halfway through the climb which has caused his speed
to fall sharply, possibly forcing the attacking night fighter to overshoot.
4. Regaining his original altitude, with speed down to 185 mph and still in
the starboard turn, the pilot pushes the aircraft down into another dive.
5. Picking up speed in the dive, he descends through 500 ft before reversing
the direction of the turn.
 
yeah as simple as a barrel roll my arse
the Lanc has been recorded as pulling 9G in such a manoeuvre not bad for a 4 engined heavy
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Here's how.   2/22/2013 7:55:12 AM


so all the maps were photo maps? not cartalogical?  and your evidence for that is?

 

Photo maps are fine for raid planing but pretty damn difficult to navigate by

 
 
(See the maps used. The ink?)  Purple.
 
B.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 2:18:44 PM

Therefore, for the USAAF to have dropped more bombs tonnage and done so in less time, the American bombers must have flown more missions. no disagreement!
 
Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly?
carry on like that an you will go to bed with no supper (and will revoke your net access for 2 days)

Still failed to answer the question.
 

YES! Exactly! How many 1,000 plane raids did they do in 1944 when the Luftwaffe was still putting up fighter deffences?
how many 1000 planes raids did the USAAF do in 42?
 None. But I return to two simple facts, the RAF-BC took more casualties while it flew less missions and in a less dangerous environment!
 
 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 is sachasm, in case you did not notice.

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!
 
Nothing will change it as it was true, the point was originally that the USAAF suffered heavier casulaties when they attacked the SAME target as the RAF, the reason why the USAAF suffer less overall losses was that they attacked the difficult targets far less than the RAF
This is the part that needs to be broken down in to two parts. Yes the USAAF flew in more dangerous conditions and part B, is the point that RAF-BC attacked at night and thus suffered fewer casualties.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 2:35:38 PM

The corkscrew is a "positive Gmaneuverand can to a greater or lesserdegree can be performed by any plane that can fly! It like the "Barrel Roll" is one of those things that sounds great, but in reality was no big thing!
try actually lookin up what a corkscrew manoeuvre was before making such a silly comment
  I have several times. At no time, at least according to your links, is a positive G maneuver. Again, the bomber should loose about 500 feet, at least according to the second of your links. Not all that much and have gained an airspeed of 250 MPH. Again according to your chart in the link.

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_corkscrew.htm">http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_corkscrew.htm

    as the B17 had a notoriously weak backbone (even the G model Shooter) A link to this BS? and could overstress it even using trim tabs in a dive, A link to this BS too? I doubt anyone ever tried such a
manoeuvre A guy named "Buzzy" Olsen barrel rolled a B-47!                       
in a b17 or i they did probleby didnt survive the experiance
This last is not worth one word in reply!
See this link to proove that a B-17 was a bunch tougher than most if not all other bombers!
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=b-17+damage+photos&qpvt=b-17+damage+photos&FORM=IGRE">http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=b-17+damage+photos&qpvt=b-17+damage+photos&FORM=IGRE
Note the B-17 in the third or fourth row down with a -17 that survived a Mid air collision! Never heard of a Lanc performing that maneuver! RTB after a Mid-Air! Right!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/22/2013 2:44:57 PM

The RAF heavy bomber&O5533;s standard evasive maneuver enabled it to continue on
course while presenting an attacking fighter with an extremely difficult target.
This maneuver is performed any time the attack is from the rear to middle of the
craft. The diagram at Figure 1. shows the maneuver following a port fighter
attack.
1. The pilot (originally cruising at 200-225 mph) opens his throttle and
banks at 45 degrees to make a diving turn to port (because the enemy aircraft is
on the port

reverse the maneuver if enemy is on starboard.); descending
through 1,000 ft in six seconds, the bomber reaches a speed of nearly 300 mph.
After the 1,000 ft descent, the pilot pulls the aircraft into a climb, still
turning to port.
The other link states 500' desent and 250 MPH speed at the bottom. So the only rational conclusions that can be drawn from the differances between the two charts are that they increased the specs later in the war after they had more experiance, or they decreased the specs after that same experiance because of structual failures? In either case those specs were easy to meet in any B-17.
yeah as simple as a barrel roll my arse
I never said it was as simple, just that they were both "Positive G Maneuvers"! Planes like that, transports and bombers are all greatly differential stressed with considerably more positive G capasity than negitive G Capasity.
 
the Lanc has been recorded as pulling 9G in such a manoeuvre not bad for a 4 engined heavy
Since RAF planes were not equipped with G Meters back then, how do we know this?
 
 

Note that Spitfires did not have G meters during the BoB. I do not know whether they got them later.

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics