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: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
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 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/22/2013 10:14:43 AM
Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions with about the same number of planes in Europe, <8,400 IIRC, Vs <8,000 Lancs, dropped >5% more tons of bombs and lost about half as many crewmen while flying the most dangerous missions in broad daylight? Just in nice round numbers.
 
explained I depth but it would seem you are too stupid to understand
   
It is these very big ideas that seem to get swept under the table and ignored while little tiny details get argued to death, like wether or not a 4,000 pound MC bomb <34" OD would fit in a B-17 bomb bay, regardless of whether it was ever done or not! The first are important and the second is the side show. How about we get back to the main point?
no we will wait for you to admit you are wrong But I am not wrong above! Both the extream losses and size of the bomb and bomb bay are facts never refuted! But, I am not wrong! Those are the facts.
 
facts clearly says you are 
 
 
no they are not in the real world the facts are that it didnt happen and couldnt happen      
This is the part I like, you say it did not happen and therefore could not happen, with out ever addressing the size of the bomb or the bay volume it has to fit into! Right! 
 
same old same old, we provide evidence he provides his opinion
 
The RAF stated that the night missions were so much safer that they could not continue the war, if forced to continue daylight bombing beyond the range of fighter escort. They stated that night missions were very much less dangerous, not I. So argue that with them. 
Incendiaries were counted towards the bomb loads and many other refferances proove this.
 
not according to you you have said this many times and yet have never provided any source so will now disregard until evidence supplied

Yet somehow you cannot find any such references, how convienant      
  Not exactly true? I did refferance the loading diagrams with their listed bomb load wieghts. Those diagrams clearly show that the incendies were included in the wieghts of bombs dropped.
yet those weights had the number as 12000+ how do you reconcile that with your < 8000lbs average the two do not agree so one or the other must be in error
 
Do you remember the post with the line art of the Lanc's Bomb bay scematics? The one that showed all the various loads that could be carried, ALONG WITH THEIR WEIGHTS? That was not the only one, but just        on       e of the most satisfying!    
answered above

What a shame. You spend your time argueing minutia and ignoring the big ideas!
1. The RAF-BC lost >55,000 crewmen dead, KIA!

2. The RAF-BC dropped ~608,000 tons of bombs from Lancasters over a six year period.
3. The USAAF dropped >640,000 tons of bombs from B-17s over a ~2-1/2 year time fraim.
the USAAF dropped 640000 tons from all heavies operating from the UK now I have seen reports that B24 dropped twice that of the B17 so that would put the B17 tonnage from the UK at near 200000lbs agains thE Lancasters 640000lbs wow big win for the Lanc
 
 
4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
According to official figures the RAF dropped 1.5x the tonnage of the USAAF
5. In less than half that time, the USAAF dropped ~1,400,000, or is it 1,600,000 tons of bombs, this late at night, I can not remember which. This is the important part, they did so by flying about twice as many missions in about 40% as many months while lossing much less than half as many men to enemy action!
 
this last statement is so wrong its pointless to correct
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    in reply to shooter   3/22/2013 3:08:28 PM
4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
 
Bomber command heavies dropped slightly less that 1000000 tons that is true of which the Lancaster dropped 608000 tons,  but if we are looking at heavies we must also ONLY look at USAAF heavies  and not all USAAF figures that he quotes
 
5. In less than half that time, the USAAF dropped ~1,400,000, or is it 1,600,000 tons of bombs, this late at night, I can not remember which.
but this figure is for Heavies, mediums and fighters, the figures for Heavies alone is only 640000tons and out of this the B24 carried twice the B17 amount so we now have the B17 hefting about 200000tons to the Lanc 608000tons
 
 This is the important part, they did so by flying about twice as many missions in about 40% as many months while lossing much less than half as many men to enemy action!
 
ok lets look at these figures, taking Heavies alone we have for BC they lost about 45% of bomber crews, 55000 from 125000 total, now compare this with the USAAF and from 80000 bomber crews we have some 36000 loses for a rate of also 45% but on top of that we have loses in the fighter escort, so whilst the RAF did lose more it was more from a bigger pool its not quite as he asserts
 
Overall we can deduce that either shooter cannot analyse figures or he is being totally dishonest in attempting to supports his assertions 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/22/2013 3:23:25 PM
^^ Overall I'm left with the question as to why you continue to waste your time when this has been plainly apparent for the last 20 thousand posts ?
 
: )
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/22/2013 3:51:52 PM
don't you know its because we are too stupid to see his superior thinking
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/22/2013 4:24:21 PM
don't you know its because we are too stupid to see his superior thinking
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/22/2013 6:27:05 PM

Like the B-17 Vs Lancaster debate; No one has ever answered the simple facts that B-17s flew VERY MANY more missions explained I depth but it would seem you are too stupid to understand
  Your "Explanation" is so silly it's beyond words! The idea that a number of plane days that is directly porportional to the bomb tonnage is irealivant, is too stupid for words. In order for the Plane-days to pe porportional to the total bomb tonnage, knowing that the RAF bomber designs all carried significantly more tonnage per sortie means that the American types had to fly more sorties! At least in porportion to the differance in bomb load per plane.
   
no they are not in the real world the facts are that it didnt happen and couldnt happen      
So now you state that the idea of carriing any particular bomb load could not happen, because it did not happen?
   
This is the part I like, you say it did not happen and therefore could not happen, with out ever addressing the size of the bomb or the bay volume it has to fit into! Right! 
same old same old, we provide evidence he provides his opinion
    No facts at all! Repost any facts that shows the 34" OD Bomb does not fit into the 41" wide bomb bay!

Not exactly true? I did refferance the loading diagrams with their listed bomb load wieghts. Those diagrams clearly show that the incendies were included in the wieghts of bombs dropped.
yet those weights had the number as 12000+ how do you reconcile that with your < 8000lbs average the two do not agree so one or the other must be in error
Not at all! The indavidual load is listed as over 12,000 pounds, but not how many ounces, pounds or grams that load is over the stated amount! To get the average as stated, all you have to do is devide the bomb tonnage as stated by the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit by the number of sorties also as stated by the RAF's own records! So which is wrong, the RAF furnished tonnage figures or the RAF's number of Sorties? 
This IS the really big question! Answer it at your perril! 


What a shame. You spend your time argueing minutia and ignoring the big ideas!
1. The RAF-BC lost >55,000 crewmen dead, KIA!



2. The RAF-BC dropped ~608,000 tons of bombs from Lancasters over a six year period.

3. The USAAF dropped >640,000 tons of bombs from B-17s over a ~2-1/2 year time fraim.
the USAAF dropped 640000 tons from all heavies operating from the UK now I have seen reports that B24 dropped twice that of the B17 so that would put the B17 tonnage from the UK at near 200000lbs agains thE Lancasters 640000lbs wow big win for the Lanc
  Wrong on so many counts! B-17s dropped >640,000 tons, more than the B-24 total tonnage numbers! The total tonage dropped by the USAAF exceeded RAF tonnage by ~40-60%! This is not open to dispute! See this link from Wiki;
During World War II, the B-17 equipped 32 overseas combat groups, inventory peaking in August 1944 at 4,574 USAAF aircraft worldwide.[66] B-17s dropped 640,036 short tons (580,631 metric tons) of bombs on European targets (compared to 452,508 short tons (410,508 metric tons) dropped by the Liberator and 463,544 short tons (420,520 metric tons) dropped by all other U.S. aircraft).[clarification needed]1,556,088 tons total! The British heavy bombers, the Avro Lancaster and Handley Page Halifax, dropped 608,612 short tons and 224,207 short tons[67] respectively. OR, 832,819 tons, (Plus another ~200,000 short tons in smaller bombers) or about 50% fewer tons of bombs than the American USAAF!
4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
According to official figures the RAF dropped 1.5x the tonnage of the USAAF
  This is a lie! According to the RAF's own figures, the RAF dropped about 2/3rds as many tons of bombs as the USAAF!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/22/2013 6:53:23 PM

4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
Bomber command heavies dropped slightly less that 1000000 tons that is true of which the Lancaster dropped 608000 tons,  but if we are looking at heavies we must also ONLY look at USAAF heavies  and not all USAAF figures that he quotes
  Absolutely fair! RAF Heavies dropped about 835,000 tons of bombs among all three types! See this Wiki quote; "During World War II, the B-17 equipped 32 overseas combat groups, inventory peaking in August 1944 at 4,574 USAAF aircraft worldwide.[66] B-17s dropped 640,036 short tons (580,631 metric tons) of bombs on European targets (compared to 452,508 short tons (410,508 metric tons) dropped by the Liberator and 463,544 short tons (420,520 metric tons) dropped by all other U.S. aircraft).[clarification needed] The British heavy bombers, the Avro Lancaster and Handley Page Halifax, dropped 608,612 long tons (681,645 short tons) and 224,207 long tons (251,112 short tons) [67] respectively.
 
5. In less than half that time, the USAAF dropped 1,600,000 tons of bombs.

but this figure is for Heavies, mediums and fighters, the figures for Heavies alone is only 640000tons B-17s only! and out of this the B24 carried twice the B17 amount Wrong! See above! 
See above to find out just how wrong you are on this! Note that American medium bombers and Fighters dropped 463,544 tons of bombs compared to just over 200,000 tons of bombs for the Third heavy, the Short's Sterling, and all medium and fighter bombers combined for the RAF! No mater how you slice thisa, the RAF only dropped about 2/3rds as many tons of bombs as the USAAF!
 
This is the important part, they did so by flying about twice as many missions in about 40% as many months while losing much less than half as many men to enemy action!
    ok lets look at these figures, taking Heavies alone we have for BC they lost about 45% of bomber crews, 55000 from 125000 total, now compare this with the USAAF and from 80000 bomber crews we have some 36000 loses No! the USAAF Bomber Command only lost about 26,500 compared to the >55,000 admited to by the RAF!  USAAF statistical summary

The United States Army Air Forces incurred 12% of the Army's 936,000 battle casualties in World War II. 88,119 airmen died in service. 52,173 were battle casualty deaths: 45,520 killed in action, 1,140 died of wounds, 3,603 were missing in action and declared dead, and 1,910 were nonhostile battle deaths. Of the United States military and naval services, only the Army Ground Forces suffered more battle deaths. 35,946 non-battle deaths included 25,844 in aircraft accidents, more than half of which occurred within the continental United States.

Total aircraft losses by the AAF from December 1941 to August 1945 were 65,164, with 43,581 lost overseas and 21,583 within the Continental United States.[78] Combat losses of aircraft totaled 22,948 world wide, with 18,418 lost in theaters fighting Germany and 4,530 lost in combat in the Pacific.[79] The AAF credited its own forces with destroying a total of 40,259 aircraft of opposing nations by all means, 29,916 against Germany and its allies and 10,343 in the Pacific.[80]



Overall we can deduce that either shooter cannot analyse figures or he is being totally dishonest in attempting to supports his assertions 
See above, to know the lie of this sentance!



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/23/2013 6:44:56 AM
no they are not in the real world the facts are that it didnt happen and couldnt happen      
So now you state that the idea of carriing any particular bomb load could not happen, because it did not happen?
  
No I am saying that it couldn't have happened therefore it didn't happen but you think for some bizzar reason that because you (and ONLY you) think the bay is twice the size it actually is it can carry bombs that it never did in number it never did
 
 
This is the part I like, you say it did not happen and therefore could not happen, with out ever addressing the size of the bomb or the bay volume it has to fit into! Right! 
same old same old, we provide evidence he provides his opinion
    No facts at all! Repost any facts that shows the 34" OD Bomb does not fit into the 41" wide bomb bay!
We have clearly shown that you are wrong, we have provided sources that state you are wrong and we have provided testimony from people that flew them that says you are wrong, your response? oh you measure the bay and came up with a figure so far out of reality that it beggar's belief
 

Not exactly true? I did refferance the loading diagrams with their listed bomb load wieghts. Those diagrams clearly show that the incendies were included in the wieghts of bombs dropped.
yet those weights had the number as 12000+ how do you reconcile that with your < 8000lbs average the two do not agree so one or the other must be in error    
Not at all! The indavidual load is listed as over 12,000 pounds, but not how many ounces, pounds or grams that load is over the stated amount!
 over is over it means that it was greater than that amount get the point?
To get the average as stated, all you have to do is devide the bomb tonnage as stated by the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit by the number of sorties also as stated by the RAF's own records! So which is wrong, the RAF furnished tonnage figures or the RAF's number of Sorties?  
no, the question is why you think these figures you refer to are those in the Bomb survey they don't seem to be 
 
This IS the really big question! Answer it at your perril! 

 

up yours, we have answered all your questions in depth and what is your response? to repeat the discredited posts and  ignore everthing, in fact you have failed to respond to any of the points raise by us, so until you do I will say the big question is
"CAN SHOOTER ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND OR IS HE INCAPABLE?"

What a shame. You spend your time argueing minutia and ignoring the big ideas!
1. The RAF-BC lost >55,000 crewmen dead, KIA!

2. The RAF-BC dropped ~608,000 tons of bombs from Lancasters over a six year period.
3. The USAAF dropped >640,000 tons of bombs from B-17s over a ~2-1/2 year time fraim.
Not according to the US Bomb survey,
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/23/2013 6:48:22 AM
 
the USAAF dropped 640000 tons from all heavies operating from the UK now I have seen reports that B24 dropped twice that of the B17 so that would put the B17 tonnage from the UK at near 200000lbs agains thE Lancasters 640000lbs wow big win for the Lanc
  Wrong on so many counts! B-17s dropped >640,000 tons, more than the B-24 total tonnage numbers!
again not according to official US figure
 The total tonage dropped by the USAAF exceeded RAF tonnage by ~40-60%! This is not open to dispute! See this link from Wiki;
I don't trust wiki, I just believe official document and professional research over that posted by anyone with an internet connection, for gods sake you have changed entries in wiki and we all know how accurate you are
 
During World War II, the B-17 equipped 32 overseas combat groups, inventory peaking in August 1944 at 4,574 USAAF aircraft worldwide.http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-79666-page23.aspx#cite_note-Baugher_Squads-70">[66] B-17s dropped 640,036 short tons (580,631 metric tons) of bombs on European targets (compared to 452,508 short tons (410,508 metric tons) dropped by the Liberator and 463,544 short tons (420,520 metric tons) dropped by all other U.S. aircraft).[http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify">clarifihttp://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify">cation needed]1,556,088 tons total! The British heavy bombers, the http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Avro_Lancaster">Avro Lancaster and http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax">Handley Page Halifax, dropped 608,612 short tons and 224,207 short tonshttp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-79666-page23.aspx#cite_note-71">[67] respectively. OR, 832,819 tons, (Plus another ~200,000 short tons in smaller bombers) or about 50% fewer tons of bombs than the American USAAF!
 
I notice its changed so why not use the current version
During World War II, the B-17 equipped 32 overseas combat groups, inventory peaking in August 1944 at 4,574 USAAF aircraft worldwide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#cite_note-Baugher_Squads-70">[66] B-17s dropped 640,036 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton">short tons (580,631 metric tons) of bombs on European targets (compared to 452,508 short tons (410,508 metric tons) dropped by the Liberator and 463,544 short tons (420,520 metric tons) dropped by all other U.S. aircraft).[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify">clarification needed] The British heavy bombers, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster">Avro Lancaster and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax">Handley Page Halifax, dropped 608,612 long tons (681,645 short tons) and 224,207 long tons (251,112 short tons) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#cite_note-71">[67] respectively

and which well regarded historian entered those facts? and do you know what "clarification needed" means?
oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument
4. The RAF-BC dropped, at least according to the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit less than 1,000,000 tons of bombs durring the entire war.
According to official figures the RAF dropped 1.5x the tonnage of the USAAF
  This is a lie! According to the RAF's own figures, the RAF dropped about 2/3rds as many tons of bombs as the USAAF!
 
not its correct according to sources that have actually research it and not just looked at wiki
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/23/2013 7:10:21 AM
  but if we are looking at heavies we must also ONLY look at USAAF heavies  and not all USAAF figures that he quotes
  Absolutely fair! RAF Heavies dropped about 835,000 tons of bombs among all three types!
The British heavy bombers, the http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Avro_Lancaster">Avro Lancaster and http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax">Handley Page Halifax, dropped 608,612 long tons (681,645 short tons) and 224,207 long tons (251,112 short tons) http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/message.aspx?boardid=6&messageid=79666&page=23#cite_note-71">[67] respectively.
  excuse me but you are using two different measurements again even on these disputed numbers we have 930000tons NOT 835000 tons 
5. In less than half that time, the USAAF dropped 1,600,000 tons of bombs.
no we have ALL USAAF dropped 1400000 tons and that includes all medium and fighter and as the fighters dropped over 400000 tons alone(from US Bomb survey) it means that the mediums dropped... oh wait it would mean that the mediums actually picked up tonnage from Germany and brought them home!

but this figure is for Heavies, mediums and fighters, the figures for Heavies alone is only 640000tons B-17s only! and out of this the B24 carried twice the B17 amount Wrong! See above! 
 
sorry but try looking further than wiki
 
 No mater how you slice thisa, the RAF only dropped about 2/3rds as many tons of bombs as the USAAF!
strange how the US bomb survey has the RAF heavies dropping More than the USAAF heavies but of course that must mean that the US bomb survey is wrong doesn't it
 
This is the important part, they did so by flying about twice as many missions in about 40% as many months while losing much less than half as many men to enemy action!
    ok lets look at these figures, taking Heavies alone we have for BC they lost about 45% of bomber crews, 55000 from 125000 total, now compare this with the USAAF and from 80000 bomber crews we have some 36000 loses No! the USAAF Bomber Command only lost about 26,500 compared to the >55,000 admited to by the RAF!  USAAF statistical summary
no, look at the actual documents or failing that look at the actual analysis and don't rely on Wikipedia and you will see that you are totally wrong
The United States Army Air Forces incurred 12% of the Army's 936,000 battle casualties in World War II. 88,119 airmen died in service. 52,173 were battle casualty deaths: 45,520 http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Killed_in_action">killed in action, 1,140 died of wounds, 3,603 were http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Missing_in_action">missing in action and declared dead, and 1,910 were nonhostile battle deaths. Of the United States military and naval services, only the Army Ground Forces suffered more battle deaths. 35,946 non-battle deaths included 25,844 in aircraft accidents, more than half of which occurred within the continental United States.
The official source for information on USAAF casualties during World War 2 is the "Army Air Forces Statistical Digest (World War II), published by the HQ Army Air Forces immediately after the War. This document is currently available on the Internet at http://www.maxwell.af.mil/
Combined "Battle casualties - Died, Missing, Interned  and Captured" in "Theaters against Germany" (Table 35 in the Digeat) ,i.e. European Theater of Operations (ETO) plus the Medeiterranean Theater of Operations (MTO), amounted to 81,205,
 (i.e. 94,565 total casualties less 13,360 wounded and evacuated), of which 30,099 are classified as "Died" and 51,106 as "Missing, Interned and Captured No breakdown is given for the number of "Interned and Captured" included in the 51,106 figure, however the unofficial estimates of around 26,000 POW would give the estimated total number of “ killed and missing” as about 55,000 (i.e. 81,205 less 26,000) for the two "Theaters". This figure includes both bomber and associated fighter crew members
 
  See above, to know the lie of this sentence!
yep do see above to see the lies of shooter

 

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics