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
Maratabc       4/30/2013 5:27:51 PM
The best answer remains that you are a LIAR.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       4/30/2013 7:40:09 PM

You can not have it both ways. If it is good, then the many pictures of lousy bomb coverage is just an anomaly, but then the part about the quantity of Short Tons of bombs dropped during the War is also good!
OR; The part about the bomb coverage is wrong and then so are the bomb tonnage totals.
So you see why I use the "Your head's caught in the door!" analogy! You just can not have it both ways!
 
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       4/30/2013 10:25:07 PM
I can have it both ways since I am right and you are wrong.
 
Post your pictures and your figures. I've already posted mine, and used them to prove you are a false witness. The burden of proof to redeem yourself, is on you.   
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/25/2013 12:38:14 AM


Actually, your pictures prove my point! Public relations and moral building go hand in hand and the rational person will look at the pictures YOU POST and count the buildings still standing and divide by the total number of buildings in the frame to find the damage percentage. Or the number of hits on the canal as a fraction of the number of bomb craters in the picture frame?

 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/25/2013 5:15:41 PM
Ah when you cannot write the truth, you lie, and expect others to do YOUR work? You wrote the lie Prove it true.
 
Show me. Do not tell me and expect me to believe you after I have already caught you in lie after lie after lie after lie....
 
17 pages worth on this topic alone, which since it is in print I do not have to rewrite to prove your lies, including your lie below repeated  in an earlier variant. (Page 5).
 
You are the comedy!
 
 




Actually, your pictures prove my point! Public relations and moral building go hand in hand and the rational person will look at the pictures YOU POST and count the buildings still standing and divide by the total number of buildings in the frame to find the damage percentage. Or the number of hits on the canal as a fraction of the number of bomb craters in the picture frame?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/27/2013 12:33:13 AM

   
Should I point out that the B-36 grew some jetpods on its wings in a desperate attempt to add speed to a badly designed draggy porcupine-gunned bomber. It did not need speed as such, because even with the jet pods it was still much to slow to out run the early jets. but the pods did give it 8000' of altitude over the jets where they could not fly effectively! Still could not outrun Migs. Still couldn't hit anything with dumb bombs from six miles up. Again not true. See the Elgin test range results of the various bombing comps! Would have been a one way kamikazi if WWIII went hot. The planes' crews knew they were dead meat. LeMay didn't lie about that to them.  He accepted the B-36, hoping that if he threw enough of them at the USSR, enough would make it to their targets to get it done.  80% mission fail is acceptable if you can still hit 150-200 targets. Since there were never more than 3-400 B-36s in service at any one time, 150-200 targets would imply 50-75% success rates.

 

3. I will note, finally, that LeMay removed the gun-turrets on B-2s in late 1944, AND THAT fuel tank (WHY if range was a problem?) he got much more range AND load than the tank and turret weights removed by flying low at night!  He RESTRICTED burden Actually increased bomb load! and payload on the B-29 to meet the range and area bombing accuracy, for a bomber that was originally designed for high altitude cruise and precision bomb drop, so it could intrude Japanese airspace at medium to LOW altitude, to accurately lay mines Most mine missions were flown in day light and from high altitude to ensure safety and accuracy. as well as fire-bomb Japanese cities. Not all B-29s were converted as you state. So, JFKY, it appears that a mission incapable plane that was NOT properly designed for its intended mission, and which at the time LeMay's crews gutted the planes to turn them into ersatz DASH-bombers, WAS stripped of its guns and cleaned up for SPEED in thick air, so that it could marginally do what it was supposed to do.   Speed was never a consideration at the low altitude they flew at night! Mission speed was between 180-240 MPH on those missions.
 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/27/2013 12:40:10 AM

 as launch platforms and target illuminators. Never had to illuminate the target as it had active homing! BOMB self-steered in  a two axis left right up down signal chase logic similar to the one used on FIDO. Wrong! Accuracy in WAR 25% hits or better CONFIRMED.     
 
B.



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       6/27/2013 12:53:31 AM

Ah when you cannot write the truth, you lie, and expect others to do YOUR work? You wrote the lie Prove it true.
Show me. Do not tell me and expect me to believe you after I have already caught you in lie after lie after lie after lie....
 count the craters to determine how many are inside the fence, then count the buildings to find the % destroyed!
 
Actually, your pictures prove my point! Public relations and moral building go hand in hand and the rational person will look at the pictures YOU POST See the link above from your original post! and count the buildings still standing and divide by the total number of buildings in the frame to find the damage percentage. Or the number of hits on the canal as a fraction of the number of bomb craters in the picture frame?



 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/27/2013 5:24:41 AM
SARH. Look it up ignorant one.
 
Quote    Reply

marat,jean       6/27/2013 5:29:18 AM
 
Is this your proof? Are you jesting with us? It is not what I posted at all. But incompetent is what I expect  from you.
Ah when you cannot write the truth, you lie, and expect others to do YOUR work? You wrote the lie Prove it true.
Show me. Do not tell me and expect me to believe you after I have already caught you in lie after lie after lie after lie....
 count the craters to determine how many are inside the fence, then count the buildings to find the % destroyed!
 
Actually, your pictures prove my point! Public relations and moral building go hand in hand and the rational person will look at the pictures YOU POST See the link above from your original post! and count the buildings still standing and divide by the total number of buildings in the frame to find the damage percentage. Or the number of hits on the canal as a fraction of the number of bomb craters in the picture frame?



 
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