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
45-Shooter       1/25/2013 3:57:03 PM

Did the B-29 do the job? Much the same way the B-17 did, but not the way it was INTENDED.
I measure "success" by intent as opposed to result.
If the intent matched the result, then the original concept was a success.
B.

AH-Ha! Now I know the core of your problem! You believe that "intent" is superior to "acomplishment"!
It is almost as if you are a founding member of the "Flat Earth Scociety"? Progress and change do not seem to impress you. But here we judge people by what they DO more than by what they SAY.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Like JFKY   1/25/2013 4:25:11 PM
You do not see gthe merit of arguing the argument on the facts. You want to shift to an attack-the-man argument.
 
Meritless, as well as a person who has trouble with the TRUTH.
 
Keep to the argument at hand about the planes and their ACTUAL effectiveness.
 
Or better yet, let those who are knowledgeable discuss THAT while you are ignored Shooter.
 
Now about the B-29, JFKY...
 
 
 
I would argue that the MINELAYING missions were more effective than the City-killer raids. More industrial dislocation. Note HOW the bombers had to be used?  A thick air bomber like the DOMINATOR would have been a better mine-layer and low altitude night intruder.
 
 More LANCASTER and less Flying Fort.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/25/2013 5:46:02 PM
Shooter is a liar, he claimed that the B29 at Dayton This is a lie! I claimed that the B-29 at Hill AFB is/was the B-29 that was modified to drop the Tallboy bomb!
 
which is untrue, this aircraft was never used for any testing for Tallboy, it arrived post war and was used for nuke testing (not dropping but air sampling), if Hill AFB thought it was tallboy testing then I am sure they would mention it in thier description and they don't  so another lie
 
There are two hard points under the wing of said plane between the inner engine nacell and the fuselage. I have pictures. was the one they used to carry 2x tallboys on ops during WW2 This is also a lie!
 
have you any evidence that it carried tallboy? no i didnt think so, have even bothered to check the racks? as thier is good chance that  they weree for scienctific equipment
 
also the hag was built by Martin in Omaha Nabraska, all the tallboy/grandslam b29s were built at  Wichita, Kansas so again this does not agree with you
 
 I never claimed any such thing! I claimed  when it was pointed out that that plane dint leave the factory until a week before they dropped the first A Bomb he changed his tune, This is also a lie!
 
you can wriggle but you cannot avoid what you have posted
 
 by the way Shooter has been banned from many more than just the Delphi site, yet its never his fault its allways people being jealous of his brillianceThis is true!
 
when all the evidence points one way only a fool or madman will ignore it
 
thire is a whole webpage dedicated to his rubbish I will have to look it up but its something like stardestroyers.net/stuart davis Stardestroyers.net is a petty and mean site that still argues,
 
and you crying to the web sites advertisers because you were banned is mature?
 
 inspite of overwhealming evidence that the Evil empire and it's ships were better than those of Star Trek.
 
its fiction you twit , niether one exists
 
If any one here would like a more reasoned argument than the one on Stardestroyer.net, I will post an alternate address with much more coppelling evidence to make my point!
 
the point was you managed to seriously annoy everyone, and have on every site you appear on from Tony Williams to   smirkingchimp and if you cant see a pattern then your analysis and observational skills are saddly lacking
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Shooter is Stuart Davis?   1/25/2013 6:10:50 PM
No wonder...
 
OBNW, my apologies for not understanding. I didn't know just what a person it was that you debated.
 
I just know him as Shooter from Tony's guns and ammo board.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    This thread is dead again...   1/25/2013 7:21:14 PM
We are left with one poster who, seemingly with a straight face, can complain about a website that disputes whether the Empire or the UFP had better ships...and another who tells me that what counts as a measure of success is not what HAPPENED but what was DESIGNED/INTENDED to happen....
 
When you have, in my opinion, two delusional characters like that as your partners in discussion, it's time to move on. I leave this lot to you OBNW or any other hapless sap that wanders in here.
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    JFKY   1/25/2013 7:34:33 PM
I've read enough of your posts to know that you are not one to judge aircraft, either, JFKY.
 
Don't try to take things, PERSONALLY, when someone comes along to explode the myths, you believed. 
 
B.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/25/2013 7:45:55 PM

Shooter is a liar, he claimed that the B29 at Dayton This is a lie! I claimed that the B-29 at Hill AFB is/was the B-29 that was modified to drop the Tallboy bomb!
    which is untrue, this aircraft was never used for any testing for Tallboy, it arrived post war and was used for nuke testing (not dropping but air sampling), if Hill AFB thought it was tallboy testing then I am sure they would mention it in thier description and they don't  so another lieI never said it was used for testing! That is something you did. I said it had bomb racks that could cary the Tallboy bombs.There are two hard points under the wing of said plane between the inner engine nacell and the fuselage. I have pictures.

 

have you any evidence that it carried tallboy? Yes, it is what was said on the plackard in front of the plane. 
also the hag was built by Martin in Omaha Nabraska, all the tallboy/grandslam b29s were built at  Wichita, Kansas so again this does not agree with you All I can say is what the plack said.
you can wriggle but you cannot avoid what you have posted I note that you repost things other people have said I posted, both above and in other places.
 
 inspite of overwhealming evidence that the Evil empire and it's ships were better than those of Star Trek.
 
its fiction you twit , niether one exists
That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument, does it. 
If any one here would like a more reasoned argument than the one on Stardestroyer.net, I will post an alternate address with much more coppelling evidence to make my point!
 
the point was you managed to seriously annoy everyone, Only those people who are not willing to listen to other ideas. and have on every site you appear on from Tony Williams to smirkingchimp Lets see, I am a hard core conservitive and the Smirking chimp is a fascist liberal progressive mouth piece. and if you cant see a pattern then your analysis and observational skills are saddly lacking

I can see the pattern. It is like here in this post in this thread. I point out that size is a factor and few if anyone here has addressed that idea. They are all off on some other tangent that has nothing to do with the thread, or it's prime idea. Out of the dozens of replies, exactly how many addressed that idea? Exactly what does this attack on me have to do with the discussion of size as a factor in the ability of one plane to sneak up on a second plane?
Through out this entire thread, I have never used a name to attack any other person. In this one post, you have done so several times. I do not know at this second how many because I errased those parts that were least realivant.
If you would like to see the other side of the ST Vs SW debate, go to this web site;
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWhi2...
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/25/2013 8:42:00 PM

From Wiki;
 
As in a photographic lens..., visual acuity is affected by the size of the pupil. Optical aberrations of the eye that decrease visual acuity are at a maximum when the pupil is largest (about 8 mm), which occurs in low-light conditions. When the pupil is small (1–2 mm), image sharpness may be limited by diffraction... of light by the pupil (see diffraction limit...). Between these extremes is the pupil diameter that is generally best for visual acuity in normal, healthy eyes; this tends to be around 3 or 4 mm.
If the optics of the eye were otherwise perfect, theoretically, acuity would be limited by pupil diffraction, which would be a diffraction-limited acuity of 0.4 minutes of arc (minarc) or 20/8 acuity. The smallest cone cells in the fovea have sizes corresponding to 0.4 minarc of the visual field, which also places a lower limit on acuity. The optimal acuity of 0.4 minarc or 20/8 can be demonstrated using a laser interferometer... that bypasses any defects in the eye's optics and projects a pattern of dark and light bands directly on the retina.
Note that this is the best possible result and that the AVERAGE is 2-1/2 times this figure, or 20/20. Also note that the vast majority of pilots are no better than 20/20.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/26/2013 10:05:24 AM

Well not to get too into semantics and I realise this wasn't addressed to me but I think it's reasonable to evaluate 'success' across a broad range of metrics - it's quite possible to produce a design that fails to fulfil its intended function/s that nevertheless performs a given task. One's background might dictate where the thresholds are in that respect - if there were better solutions available then it's not heresy imv to reason that a given procurement or engineering decision was compromised. I actually agree with you (to a degree) that the net effect of the B-29 platform was positive when compared to simply 'not having any other option' but I would presume B's (Herald123 by the way : ) argument is that poor engineering choices were made when judged by contemporary technology. The following post contains some relevant material in that regard.
What I do think is (to apply the same logic to area bombing) it failed to fulfil its initial objective, failed to do equivalent damage to the war effort when compared to contemporary 'precision bombing' campaigns using the same platforms, and had an unquantifiable additional effect on AAA deployment when compared to the other bombing campaigns taking place in the same period. Therefore I think it's safe to call it a failure even before you factor in the cost to the war effort - that's a much neater way of summing up what I was trying to say previously : ) 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/26/2013 10:06:01 AM
(The previous was in response to JFKY btw, software removed the section I'd quoted)
 

Before he left, General Hansell had introduced some reforms which were to have lasting effects. Engine failures were still a problem for the B-29 as late as mid-January of 1945, and the abort rate was running at 23 percent per mission. In order to reduce the abort rate, Hansell ordered a weight reduction program for the B-29 in which one of the fuel tanks was taken out and some of the 0.50-inch machine gun ammunition was removed, shaving over 6000 pounds from the weight of each plane. Maintenance was centralized under Hansell's headquarters rather than having it being split up between the various Bombardment Groups. As a result of these changes, B-29 endurance began to lengthen, engine life was extended from 200 to 750 hours, and the abort rate began to decline. By July of 1945, it was down to less then seven percent per operation.

In January of 1945, the 313th Bombardment Wing (6th, 9th, 504th, and 505th Bombardment Groups) under the command of Brig Gen John H. Davies took over the newly-built North Field on Tinian. They took part in a high-altitude daylight raid on Kobe on February 4.

This was the last of the raids on Japan for a while, General LeMay's B-29s being diverted to the campaign to capture Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima was considered vital to the B-29 campaign, since it could be used to base fighters capable of escorting the B-29s to Japan, as well as an emergency field midway between the Marianas and their targets.

Concerned about the relative failure of the B-29 offensive to deal any crippling blows to Japan, General LeMay issued a new directive on February 19. General LeMay had analyzed the structure of the Japanese economy, which depended heavily on cottage industries housed in cities close to major industrial areas. By destroying these feeder industries, the flow of vital components to the central plants could be slowed, disorganizing production of weapons vital to Japan. He decided to do this by using incendiary bombs rather than purely high-explosive bombs, which would, it was hoped, cause general conflagrations in large cities like Tokyo or Nagoya, spreading to some of the priority targets.

In addition, LeMay had concluded that the effects of the jet stream, cloud cover, and high operating altitudes were to blame for the failure of the B-29 raids to do any significant damage to the Japanese war industry. The initial raids against Japan had taken place at high altitudes in order to stay above anti-aircraft fire and the effective altitude of defending fighters. LeMay suggested that high-altitude, daylight attacks be phased out and replaced by low-altitude, high-intensity incendiary raids at nighttime. The aircraft would attack individually, which meant that no assembly over the base at the start of the mission or along the way would be needed. Consequently, aircraft could go directly from the base to the target and return, maximizing the bomb load and saving substantially on fuel. He ordered that all the B-29s be stripped of their General Electric defensive gun systems, leaving only the tail gun. The weight of extra crew members, armament, and ammunition would bo into bombs, each B-29 being loaded down with six to eight tons of M69 incendiary bombs. These bombs would be dropped from altitudes of only 5 to 6 thousand feet. This strategy would enable the B-29s to escape the effects of the jet stream and would get the bombers below most of the cloud cover. In addition, the B-29s would no longer have to struggle up to 30,000 feet and this would save on fuel and on wear and tear to the engines. It was believed that Japanese night fighter forces were relatively weak, but flak losses were expected to be substantial.  
 
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