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
45-Shooter       3/25/2013 7:34:48 PM
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! 

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.

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?
You are right, I was being snarky!
 
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 
See Wiki link below; Or use the figures from the Strategic Bombing Survey, It matters not! The Average bomb load was under 8,000

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,
--Yes, it IS the right numbers found in the American Strategic Bombing Survey!
So you are wrong, were wrong and always will be wrong about this!
 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 7:50:30 PM

I notice its changed so why not use the current version
 
">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
This is the problem! This is wrong as we now well know! Explosives are still measured in Short tons world wide, including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!

and which well regarded historian entered those facts? and do you know what "clarification needed" means?
    The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!

oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument
        The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!



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
  Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report! It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 8:12:14 PM
I notice its changed so why not use the current version

">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
This is the problem! This is wrong as we now well know! Explosives are still measured in Short tons world wide, including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!

and which well regarded historian entered those facts? and do you know what "clarification needed" means?
    The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument
        The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
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
Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report! It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!
The RAF dropped le ss bomb tonnage than the USAAF!



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/25/2013 8:49:07 PM

excuse me but you are using two different measurements again even on these disputed numbers we have 930000tons NOT 835000 tons 
OK, which set are you using? Those from the RAF-BC, or those from the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit? They differ, but both are less than 1 Mega-tone!
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!

So, you like those numbers? What a bummer! From the USAAF web site from the prior link; USAAF Heavies in Europe 1,092,544 short tons, All USAAF Bombers 1,396,816 short tons, From Fighter bombers 159,272 short tons, of which 113,963 short tons came from P-47s alone! That is 1,556,088 short tons dropped by the USAAF in the ETO over Germany and it's allies and occupied counties!
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
From the USAAF's web site B-17s = 640,036 tons, B-24s = 452,508 tons, B-26s = 169,384 tons, B-25S = 84,980 TONS, a-20S = 31,856 TONS, a-26S = 18,054 TONS! All short tons! 
 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
A link to this is imperitive!
 
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!
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 non-battle deaths included 25,844 in aircraft accidents, more than half of which occurred within the continental United States.
This is the world wide figure! Not those from the ETO. It is also the casualties from all types of planes. Not just heavy bombers! I note that you list a source document below, but if you had read it, it would have broken those number down further, which would be even more embarassing!
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/" target="_blank">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 memb
ers
Neat! So according to you and this source all USAAF casualties were about 55,000, including both fighters, light, Medium and Heavy bombers! OK, I can live with that! Look into the rest of the figures. They show about/less than 28,000 casualties from American Heavy Bombers. Comp'd to 55,000 casualties from RAF-BC Heavies alone, tells quite a story! Note that it includes the MTO where the RAF dropped very few bombs. You tell us what it means! 
 


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/25/2013 8:53:59 PM
Posting the same lies over and over (repeats the SAME lies I read from eight pages back) convinces no-one.
 
Find new sources to misquote and new lies please, Shooter.
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/26/2013 4:49:06 AM
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!
At last you understand it did not happen as it could fit good its only taked hundreds of posts for you to get it
  
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
See Wiki link below; Or use the figures from the Strategic Bombing Survey, It matters not! The Average bomb load was under 8,000
Then why does the survey state that the average bomb load of the Lancaster was approximately 10000lbs?

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.
 
(for god sake you still dont get that those are different measurements, and that the OFFICAL figures disagree )

Not according to the US Bomb survey,
--Yes, it IS the right numbers found in the American Strategic Bombing Survey!
So you are wrong, were wrong and always will be wrong about this!
 
OK so the Bomb survey is wrong, all posters are wrong and all historians are wrong and ONLY shooter is right, get over yourself
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/26/2013 4:57:41 AM
I notice its changed so why not use the current version
 
">Avro Lancaster and http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/%3Ca%20href=">http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/_blank" handley_page_halifax?="" org="" en.wikipedia.="" wiki="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax" target="_blank">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://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/%3Ca%20href=">http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/_blank" org="" en.wikipedia.="" wiki="" boeing_b-17_flying_fortress#cite_note-71?="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#cite_note-71" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#cite_note-71" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#cite_note-71">[67] respectively
This is the problem! This is wrong as we now well know! Explosives are still measured in Short tons world wide,
Wrong, The British used LONG tons untill we went metric and the Majority of the world uses metric now so you are wrong
including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!
But it doesnt does it, it uses the British measurement as you would expect in a Brtish document

and which well regarded historian entered those facts? and do you know what "clarification needed" means?
    The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
Bollocks, the author is dead so it would be ahell of a miracle for him to have written it, it is someone like you who thinks he knows the answer and just like you he (or she) could be wrong, and wikipeadea is often wrong  enev on basics

oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument
        The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
No its not, its someone who extracted the data and didnt realise that the tons refered to were NOT the same thing 

 

not its correct according to sources that have actually research it and not just looked at wiki
  Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report!
In that case you know the facts and yet you persist in this lie? why? (oh and which volume of the survey?but I doubt very much you have seen a copy
 
 
 It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!
 
no its not, in fact ONLY you out of all the historians that have researched the subject have this oppinion so it looks like you are wrong - live with it
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/26/2013 11:11:28 PM

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
See Wiki link below; Or use the figures from the Strategic Bombing Survey, It matters not! The Average bomb load was under 8,000


Then why does the survey state that the average bomb load of the Lancaster was approximately 10000lbs?
  I read it and did not see that it did. Can you please post a link to said passage, or better yet post a link and a copy of said passage which would be even better!
Otherwise please explane why the figures published by the RAF, RAF-BC and SBSU all over the internet and in many books more or less agree with me? But in no case ever state a weight over 8,000 pounds per sortie! EVER!
 
   
Not according to the US Bomb survey,
Yes, it IS the right numbers found in the American Strategic Bombing Survey!
So you are wrong, were wrong and always will be wrong about this!

 

OK so the Bomb survey is wrong, all posters are wrong and all historians are wrong and ONLY shooter is right, get over yourself
No, it's you who are wrong! The Wiki article sites both the official RAF and RAF-BC Histories as sources, so those figures 640,665 Short tons of bombs dropped from 156,036 sorties are the gospel according to the British Government, the RAF, and the RAF-BC! Then there are the much farther post war Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's studdy which has slightly smaller numbers, also gospel according to the UK Government! So takes you pick and live with it! I do not care which!
Personally, I think that the 10,000 pound figure is a number pulled out of someplace we will not mention and just repeated so often it is taken for truth. But the official Histories can not be made to reconsile with that number! NONE of them! 
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/26/2013 11:23:34 PM

This is the problem! This is wrong as we now well know! Explosives are still measured in Short tons world wide,
Wrong, The British used LONG tons Not for explosives! untill we went metric Not even then, until maybe much later! Looking for the history of UK Government explosives purchases! and the Majority of the world uses metric now so you are wrong Depends on where you go, who is selling and who is buying! Because it is so easy to convert since everything is digitized!
including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!
But it doesnt does it, it uses the British measurement as you would expect in a Brtish document

British Government at that time when purchasing explosives was in short tons! Not long tons!
The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
Bollocks, the author is dead so it would be ahell of a miracle for him to have written it, it is someone like you who thinks he knows the answer and just like you he (or she) could be wrong, and wikipeadea is often wrong  enev on basics

I am refferring to the original documents! oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument No, it is the wiki article that contradicts the RAF-BC, RAF and RAF's SBSU's printed documents!
        The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
No its not, its someone who extracted the data and didnt realise that the tons refered to were NOT the same thing 
No, it was not! Those are the terms used in all of the original documents for ALL of the services all the time in that specific time! Live with it!
 

not its correct according to sources that have actually research it and not just looked at wiki It is the person who entered the data into wiki that made the mistake! Not the hundreds of original documents from every service and published in many logistics manuals and books!
  Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report!
In that case you know the facts and yet you persist in this lie? why? (oh and which volume of the survey?but I doubt very much you have seen a copy
It was on line and I do not have a clue since I used the search engine to find it. But it WAS the original SBSU's paper and it agrees with every other document printed at the time! Explosives were bought by the short ton and that is an irrevolcable fact! 
 
 It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!
 


 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/27/2013 1:15:59 AM
To get the Net Explosive Weight, (NEW)
Quantity x Weight x RE Factor= NEW

This is the military format for explosives.
For example
5 blocks of C4
C4 weighs 1.25 lb's/ block
C4's RE factor is 1.34

5 x 1.25 x 1.34 = 8.375

8.375 is the NEW of JUST the C4, in your calculations you will have to include Detonation cord, initiators, etc...
 
In equivalent TNT. Note that raw weight of explosive can be measured in pounds or kilograms.
 
The British used IMPERIAL measurements  for military ordnance-for EVERYTHING until they went metric.
 
1. Imperial ton, is 2,240 lb (exactly 1,016.0469088 kg).

2. Short ton, in the USA = 2000 lb (exactly 907.18474 kg).
 
 
79,265 (52,000 dead) Americans from all causes lost in the European air war.
 
8AF total loses:
KIA - 26,000 to 28,000 (I have no idea, why there is so big discrepancy)
MIA - 28,000 (POWs in German captivity)
WIA - 18,000 (psychological casualties not included - nobody ever counted them)
Total: 72,000 to 74,000 (34% of those who experienced combat)

Source: "Eight Air Force:The American bomber crews in Britain", Donald L. Miller.
 
=========================================================
55,000 British dead lost and 8900 prisoner +a further 8000 wounded from Bomber Command  
 
These  figures produced for the dozenth time, this time by me.
 
Shooter needs to stop his lies.
 
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