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       1/10/2013 3:15:31 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!

 
shows loading and clearly shows that ONLY 1 2000lbs per side could be carried, tthis has been shown to you many time and yet you still insist on spouting your lies (you even claimed that these exact pics show the 4000lbs internal and had to be corrected)


what a liar you are, firstly this is for a B17F (the fact it states this on the document should have given you a clue)
secondly a 4000lbs was too bog for the bay which is why ist only shown as an option for external (note NO mention of the disney bomb as this was a special and not classed as standard fit)
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 3:23:21 AM
how can you double a payload when
a, in pre G models you had to use half your bomb bay for fuel
b, you couldnt fit any more bombs into your bombbay
c, you couldnt increase the size of your bombbay
d, using external racks so efffected performance that you would be lucky to get to 18000ft
 
face it the B17 was basically bait for the luffewaffe, it wasnt even accurate the famous norden was no better than the british sight in use and the bomb on master that the USAAF used made accurate bombing impossible (even if you could see the target as for the most of the year over germany was cover in cloud)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 3:33:34 AM





   
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!
what rubbish this clearly shows you have No idea of the actual conreols of the earlier P38 and the the balancing act that was need to prevent the turbos from buring out te engine
 
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!
 why do you insist in shouting (and the fact that you type as much again saying sorry shows that you did it on perpurpose as it waould have been as easy to over type it)
but the people who flew them always tend to say the one they flew were best try those that had experiance in multiple types and see thier opinion, but no you wont as it will not agree with your preconceptions

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.
 
mmm let me see a made up number with no supporting evidence? and I am supposed to argue against it, not this time unless you provide evidence of this number explaing the circumstances of the engagements and corresponding engagements of the aircraft you are refering to I will go by my sources one of which is the author you are putting so much faith in at the present.
 





 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 3:57:26 AM





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.
you stated something but this was incorect as vastly more than 100 were made (in total about 100 Lanc were converted to carry the Grandslam, Tall boy and Upkeep so I will give you the benifit of the doubt and say you have these two mixed up.
   


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!
as the 12000mc bomb was dropped on berlin i dont see your point, as the fuel tankage on a lanc was never increased untill the tiger force  versions (which never saw service) I call untruh on this
A B17 needed bomb bay tanks to reach berlin something Lancs did with 14000lbs nigh t after night (as rhe Mancester had a bomb load of 10000lbs with a range of 1200 miles  and the early Lancasters had 2400 miles with 14000lbs something a B17 NEVER achieved) 

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.
yes a later Lancaster was fitted with uprated engines but as these (the MK VI) were only used as pathfinders I had discounted them from the discussion as 9 aircraft is irrelevant all MkI and MkIII were RR mkXX or packard versions 
oh and the 1710 were two stage units










 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/10/2013 11:29:40 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
Non-sequitur.
 
B-17s were able to loft 8000 lbs internal; to an effective combat radius of 500 miles. 
 
  1. ^... 8th AF Missions... 8th AF, 91st Bomb Group, 5 August... 1944..., B-17Gs, Bassingbourn to Nienburg, 8 x 1,000 lb bombs, 800 miles round trip as crow flies, (1,031 miles actually flown as reported by Wayne Frye) .
 So you are wrong.
 
B.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Shooter   1/10/2013 11:38:29 AM
Sir Douglas Bader, abominably incompetent air tactician (Keith Park was the better man), BRILLIANT pilot. Yes he came back down during the BoB after being shot up a few times by BF109s. The German planes with the 20 mm cannon?    
 
"Reach for the Sky". Good book. Get it and read it.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    OBNW   1/10/2013 11:50:03 AM
Be careful about Bombing accuracy.
 
British bomber strikes (Lancasters at night) were dependent upon marker fires set by radio navigation aided pathfinder/marker squadrons who depended on such systems as Gee and H2H to mark the drop area with incendiaries. Even at that the average MISS as the RAF reported was well in excess of a mile and a half of the intended burning AREA so marked.
 
USAAF misses as calculated and reported in the USSBS were off an aim POINT like a river or bridge or large prominent building .
 
Different measurement standard used. Daylight optical aimpoints were usually at 20,000 feet and no larger than a football pitch.
 
The average miss was about a half mile.
 
When the British used such methods, they reported misses of two to five miles.
 
B.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 3:35:05 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
Non-sequitur.
 
B-17s were able to loft 8000 lbs internal; to an effective combat radius of 500 miles. 
 
sorry but why does this contradict me? the B17 could and did carry 8x 1000lbs intenally but we are talking 2 x 4000lbs bombs and as such there is no record of these being dropped, the quote below refers to the biggest load carried by a B17 raid (although I do believe that this excludes the disney bombs which IIRC were 4300lbs and I think carried in pairs)
 
the B17 could theroetically carry a max bomb load of 8x1600 ap bombs internally and 2x4000lbs externally but there is no record of this being carried even stateside, one report I have seen had 6x1600lbs internal and 2x2000lbs external in tests in the US but the aircraft was barely flyable with a max altitude of sub 10000ft,
 
  1. ^...... 8th AF Missions...... 8th AF, 91st Bomb Group, 5 August......1944......, B-17Gs, Bassingbourn to Nienburg, 8 x 1,000 lb bombs, 800 miles round trip as crow flies, (1,031 miles actually flown as reported by Wayne Frye) .
 So you are wrong.
 
no iam not I assume you misunderstood the diffence between a load of 2x 4000lbs and that of 8x1000lbs, the 4000lbs bomb just would not fit into a b17 bombbay, and shooter idea of 4x2000lbs internal fails for the same reason
 
B.
 
 


 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 3:49:16 PM


Sir Douglas Bader, abominably incompetent air tactician (Keith Park was the better man), BRILLIANT pilot. Yes he came back down during the BoB after being shot up a few times by BF109s. The German planes with the 20 mm cannon?    
 
what? Bader was a excelent air tactician and leader (he was badly mistaken strategicly in supporting the big wing) but as a tactical tactician he was damn good
 
Park on the other hand was a genius his ideas of Air defense is still the defacto method 80 years later, if you want a office to label a baffoon then go with Lee Mallory wrong tactics in the BoB and wrong tactics over france and the low countries 
his fighter sweeps  were stupid all they did was place his pilots under the guns of the germans, if they outnumber and/or were in better tactical position the germans just refused to engage, if they wernt they were beaten up by the LW he was THE donkey leading loins of the RAF

"Reach for the Sky". Good book. Get it and read it.
But be aware that Bader was also a braggard and should be taken with some salt (but only some as a pilot with no legs who did what he did does deserve a hell of alot of respect) 

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/10/2013 4:11:49 PM
Be careful about Bombing accuracy. 
Yes you do, post war bombing surveys showed that a lot of what was believed was actually wrong
 
British bomber strikes (Lancasters at night) were dependent upon marker fires set by radio navigation aided pathfinder/marker squadrons who depended on such systems as Gee and H2H to mark the drop area with incendiaries. Even at that the average MISS as the RAF reported was well in excess of a mile and a half of the intended burning AREA so marked.
RAF bomber strikes of late war using the pathfinder force was a bit more complecated than that, the initial markers were dropped with a average of 1/4 mile of the target but then master bomber would direct the mainforce to bomb on a corrected point (ie bomb 1/4 mile west of target markers) these target markers were updated thoughout the raid and every bomber dropped a flare after the bombs and took a photo before they could turn for home,

 
USAAF misses as calculated and reported in the USSBS were off an aim POINT like a river or bridge or large prominent building .
but a large majority of USAAF bombing missions were though 10-10th cloud and never saw the target, those that did worked on a master bomber in the lead aircraft and togglers in the rest this meant that even if the lead bomber was on target the last bomber could be a mile back due to creep, this combined with the inaccuracies of the bomb sight ( in 54 the SAC used the same Norden on B36s at 20000ft in lovely still navada air with no opposition and still didnt get a bomb withing 1000yards of the aim point)
 
 Post was bomb surveys showed that by the end on the war the RAF at night was matching and even exceeding the accuracy of the USAAF day bombing
Le May looked at both USAAF and RAF techniques and decided that the RAF way was correct, he then stripped his B29s of most of its defensive guns loaded them with as many bombs as possible (even stacking them loose in the bays) and sent them in at night using radar
 
Different measurement standard used. Daylight optical aimpoints were usually at 20,000 feet and no larger than a football pitch and history showns that this would have been a fluke if hit as the technology for such feats was unavailble (remember the norden was designed to bomb from 10000ft.

 

The average miss was about a half mile.

 

When the British used such methods, they reported misses of two to five miles.

 

B.

 

 



 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics