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: First critical element of WW-II fighter plane effectivness?
45-Shooter    1/18/2013 9:22:46 PM
Given that the "typical" WW-II Single engine fighter could be spotted at 1-2 miles, depending on aspect, about half the time, I propose that the smaller the plane, the more effective it will be! Sort of a semi-stealth solution to the "Spotting" problem?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
Belisarius1234       2/9/2013 8:51:12 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/U-Boat_Pen_Grand_Slammed.jpg" height="856" width="600" />
 
 
Too late, but shows what could have been.
 
B.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/10/2013 11:40:13 AM

Tallboy and grand slam were designed with an extra thick armoured nose to penetrate the target before exploding.
In modern parlance, the were bunker busters.
But niether of them were strong enough to reliably perforate steel renforced concrete. The film previously posted of American Tall Boy tests out in the southwest mountains showed that. Thew first bomb hit a rock and broke in half just forward of the fuse plate and did not explode. It ricochetted for half a mile.
Bunker busting is a highly specialised task, one that those early bombs could not do reliably.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/10/2013 11:42:23 AM


I don't know how to embed a picture so would you do the honour please for Shooters benefit. The imagee is the result of a Grand Slam hitting the reinforced concrete roof of submarine pens.
ww.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205211764 

Could you also please post pics of the bombs that failed to perforate the sub pen's roof?

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    No.   2/10/2013 12:20:34 PM
Do your own work, Stuart.
======================================
Heorot:
 
Did you notice the accuracy of coverage for the RAF after 1944? They learned how to bomb-walk. I didn't know that for sure, until I found those photos.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       2/11/2013 5:49:01 PM
I wasn't looking for it, but now you say......
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    shooter   2/11/2013 6:01:38 PM
4000 pounder blockbuster bombs did no more than crater the sub pen roof. Only Tallboys and Grand Slams had any chance of penetrating.
 
You can see the reason why it was so hard to damage these pens when you know that St Nazaire, for example, was built with a 4 metre thick reinforced concrete roof which was later strengthened with external cross beams to resist the Tall Boy and Grand Slam bombs
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/12/2013 6:16:18 PM

Except for the Flak issue failure, this is pretty good!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/13/2013 11:58:39 AM

 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/13/2013 12:02:55 PM

B.
Bomb "walk" is the exact opposite of "target creep" where each succeeding plane drops it's bombs just short of the last plane because the smoke over the target hides it from observation. Not that it was the sole purview of the RAF, because we invented it, target creep that is. Just an interesting tid bit to know.
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/13/2013 12:07:48 PM



 
 



Imagehttp://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/9/media-9575/large.jpg?action=d" />
Vertical  photographic-reconnaissance aerial showing smoke rising from the ruins of the  synthetic oil plant at Kamen, Germany, following a daylight attack by aircraft  of Bomber Command on 11 September 1944.

Missing text about bomb scatter and lack of damage to many structures above. This pic from the series in your first post on page 16 of this thread?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics