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: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 9:52:20 AM
The 2x4000lbs load was extenal and only to B17s fitted with external rack (not many) it is also worth noting that there is NO record of these bombs being dropped in combat, those that did make it to the UK ended up as gate guards
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/9/2013 9:58:25 AM
whilst I have seen claims that it was the fuel this was debunked a while ago when it was posted that that the fuel used was mixed in the US for fighter use (the claim that it was fuel problems had been attributed to bad mixing of additives)
 
a big problem with early P38 was pilot workload having to adjust so many cantrols in high stress situations, this was reduced by automatic controls but never cured.
 
the performance of the p38 is not cut and dried, I have seen claims that it could outturn a single engine fighte and outclimb it I have also seen reports that it couldnt (even with power assist on the controls)
 
The bottom line is that it did not perform well in europe as a fighter
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 7:23:03 PM

....Sir Douglas Bader?
 
Belisarius







the P47 might produce more power but it also bleeds more energy False. and does so faster, False again. a P47 is out turned by a spit, True under some conditions. it is also loses out in sustained dive and climbs, Not nearly as badly as you think. And depending on the model of Spitfire might easily out dive it for ANY distance! why would the spit run out of gas? Poor throttle and flight management! Even over home field. unless it was forced to fight outside its designed range It's "Designed Range was over 400 miles, yet there was no way to reach even HALF of that figure IF it was required to do so at the so called "Combat Cruise"! an argument you can apply to the p47 if you engage a p47 from norfolk over berlin And the Spit can get to Berlin how? then its going to be short of fuel, stop adjusting the argument to fit your choice, NO, it is a fact of life that the Spit was one, if not THE shortest legged plane of WW-II! Poor throttle management MAY have killed more Spits than any other plane in history! if the fight was over the spit base then the p47 loaded down with 700miles worth of fuel is going to be a sitting target (oh and with that amount of fuel on board its going to roll like the hinderburg) Wrong in so many ways! It is still going to out roll any early Spit with any load of gas up. p47 did not worry luftwaffe pilots That is not what they said! (even the few flown by allied aces) the Spits did, the Jug was a tank and if flown correctly was a dangerous opponent but it was never a true fighter Tell that to Jonny Jonson's targets, or the guy who shot down five Me-109s and Fw-190s in one dogfight! and would have been a libility in another enviroment it was basicaly addiquate given the roles it was asked to do (and by the way 20mm cannons made a right mess of a p47)





Who was it that counted 22 hits from German Cannons with their three times more powerful 20 MM shells and over 200 13 MM holes,

FROM JUST ONE SID

E OF HIS P-47?




No one ever brought a Spitfire home with ten 20 MM hits that I have ever heard of!

Was he supposed to have returned with a Damaged Plane?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 7:36:10 PM


What rubbish you speak, the Lanc could from-the earlest models carry the same bomb load as the later ones Wrong! The first thousand or so Lancs could only cary 14 1,000 pound bombs, BECAUSE there were only 14 bomb racks that could hold a 1,000 pound bomb! It was never a case of lifting capacity, it was a case of number and location of the bomb racks!!! except the 12000lbs tall boy that needed special rack, the upkeep that was a specialiszed weapon and the grand slam which was another specialised weapon, There were only ~30 planes that could cary these three bombs and the ones designed for UPKEEP could not cary Tallboy, or Grand Slam. the only other change was they fitted bulged bombbay dorr to accomadate the 12000lbs light case bomb (which wasnt a tallboy)As I stated in the original post they made about a hundred of these types that could cary the 12,000 pound thin case bomb.

Most lancaster flew with 12000lbs to 14000lbs bomb loads from the wordAbsolutely true, as it applies to the mission flown and the RANGE! go not as you claim some arbitary figure in later yearsIn later years the last Mks could cary 18,000 pounds to the same or longer ranges as the early mods could cary 14,000 pounds! (it was the B17 that was very restricted in early service it having to give up half its bomb load to fuel tanks to enable it to fly to germanyThis is the silliest statement of all! On any given mission profile, the B-17 could fly farther than the Lanc and on mission profiles that the Lanc could not even do... the -17 was fine!

 

all lanc could carry more than 10000lbs regardless of when they were built True! I never said anything other than this! (you are aware are you not that the other than the specials there were only 3 mks of lancaster used in cobat during the war Mk1 and Mk3 were just RR v Packard engined and Mk2 were hurcules But there were "Variants" of two of those three Mks! The original engine was the single stage Merlin of 1,280 HO, IIRC! Later Marks got up to 1,710 HP Merlins, again IIRC, single stage units! Check the detailed history.

 

so documents that show that the B17g could not fit more than 2 x 2000lbs are somehow out of date- ok you provide a source of a B17 with more than 2 2000lbs internally (and not some garinly pic tha you claim show it - actual proof as all the evidence so frsays ou are wrong)
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 7:47:26 PM


Note that much of what you say is correct. Note that however about half of what you say is incorrect.
Exactly which half?
 

In fact most of what you say about the P-38 Lightning and about energy tactics in fighters is flat out wrong.
Exactly what of what I said is wrong? Details not general slurs. http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000172.html" target="_blank">link
 
 

Consider your statements about turn rate and the fight in the vertical plane. It matters not how you combine engine power, altitude climb advantage and roll rate to achieve a position and angle solution on a guns target. This is also true, IF you can point the guns at that point in space where the target will be when the bullets get there. To wit, the poor performance At least the "Poor Performance" of the P-38 was still in our favor for the entire durration of the war, not something that can be said for the SPIT! of the P-38 versus German fighters were traced to two technical problems and one training problem. I would have said two tech problems and three training problems, but they still shot down more Germans than they lost!

Training problems were with regards to poor aircraft tactics. I agree! The P-38 COULD out-turn single-engine fighters to the LEFT.Or Right! (no engine torque and induced right hand side-slip in the bank to afflict it.). Similarly it could out-climb most single engine fighters at most altitude bands. It was a more stable guns platform. OMG! Finally some one admits this vital fact!

 

Pilots who transitioned from single-engined fighters did not understand these three factors. Mostly true! Those who did (Richard Bong for one)-were deadly. Certainly True!

 

Know your horse better than the other guy knows his and you out-ride him at the rodeo. Maybe, but if your on a Burrow and I'm on a Thuroghbred...

 

Aside from those kinds of points, keep up the good work. Shooter talks through his hat.
Can you please post examples with quotes?
 
 

Belisarius

 

 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 7:49:01 PM


The 2x4000lbs load was extenal and only to B17s fitted with external rack (not many) it is also worth noting that there is NO record of these bombs being dropped in combat, those that did make it to the UK ended up as gate guards

While there is absolutely no record of the 4,000 pound MC Bomb being used in combat by B-17s, that does not mean that it was not both possible and internal!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 8:00:51 PM

whilst I have seen claims that it was the fuel this was debunked a while ago when it was posted that that the fuel used was mixed in the US for fighter use (the claim that it was fuel problems had been attributed to bad mixing of additives)
Thank you!
 
 

a big problem with early P38 was pilot workload Abolutely true! having to adjust so many cantrols in high stress situations, this was reduced by automatic controls but never cured. This is ALSO TRUE of ALL other modern fighter planes with VS Props, EXCEPT THE FW-190 at the time! Just not as bad as the P-38!

 

the performance of the p38 is not cut and dried, I have seen claims that it could outturn a single engine fighte and outclimb it I have also seen reports that it couldnt Like ALL other things aircraft, this depends entirely on the sircumstances and conditions! And those varied from plane to plane and many other variables too! That is the point I have been trying to make all this time! (even with power assist on the controls) i WOULD TAKE THE WORD OF THE MEN WHO FLEW THEM, IF i DID NOT KNOW PERSONALLY! Dratts, bit on the butt again by the dreadded Caps Lock Monster!

 

The bottom line is that it did not perform well in europe as a fighter

I think this is where you have to be more objective and knowledgable. While a ~1.2/1 K/L Ratio in the ETO is not that great, it is still a possitive number! Not something that can be said about some of the other planes in this discussian.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 8:25:38 PM







The 2x4000lbs load was extenal and only to B17s fitted with external rack (not many) it is also worth noting that there is NO record of these bombs being dropped in combat, those that did make it to the UK ended up as gate guards



While there is absolutely no record of the 4,000 pound MC Bomb being used in combat by B-17s, that does not mean that it was not both possible and internal!

PS. The external Racks were for the "Disney Bomb" A rocket powered AP bomb for blasting Sub Pens and the like! It was used, WO much success, IIRC, several times.
It seems to me the problem, or at least most of it is because we talk the same language, but it does not mean the same thing? Like the B-17's bomb bay capacity was 8,000 pounds, which is true, as far as it goes! Note that they also state the "Opperational" Take Off Weight was, IIRC, 56,000 pounds. But did you know that the MTO, or as the Brits say, "Overload Take Off Weight was 72,000 pounds, or almost exactly the same as the Lancaster "Specials"?
Most of the books state the "Maximum Bomb Load" was 17,600 pounds. Have you ever woundered how they got to that figure, especialy before the external racks and Disney bombs were made? See this link;
Specifications (B-17G)
Data from The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft[37]...

General characteristics

Performance

Armament

  • Guns: 13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns... in 8 turrets in dorsal, ventral, nose and tail, 2 in waist positions, 2 in "cheek" positions, and 1 in the post-dorsal position
  • Bombs:
    • Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) Also note that these ranges are actually Radius of Action, not Ranges!
    • Long range missions (˜800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
    • Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)Also note that this number is the one in question!
 
One final point. The Range, payload and speed are severely dependant on altitude and weight! IF the B-17 had been tasked to bomb at night and from 15-19,000' instead of 25-30K' these numbers would all have almost doubled!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/9/2013 9:47:12 PM
Note that this IS the image that causes all the trouble with how many and how large the bombs a B-17 could cary.
It is NOT a LOADING CHART! It is a switch chart and note that even on this same page there are several mistakes showing witch bomb size fits on whitch station. Note that there are 42 racks, or shackles as the British say. Note also that they are labeled as if it was a B-17B/C/D, NOT A B-17E/F/G!
Finally, note the realitive sizes of the 2000 pounders in the drawing and how easy it would be to fit 8 of them in! OR for that matter FOUR 4000 pound MC bombs!
Once again, I said fit, not used in battle!
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 12:36:15 AM
Note that this IS the image that causes all the trouble with how many and how large the bombs a B-17 could cary.
It is NOT a LOADING CHART! It is a switch chart and note that even on this same page there are several mistakes showing witch bomb size fits on whitch station. Note that there are 42 racks, or shackles as the British say. Note also that they are labeled as if it was a B-17B/C/D, NOT A B-17E/F/G!
Finally, note the realitive sizes of the 2000 pounders in the drawing and how easy it would be to fit 8 of them in! OR for that matter FOUR 4000 pound MC bombs!
Once again, I said fit, not used in battle!
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics