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
Heorot    Leigh Mallory   1/10/2013 7:07:08 PM
“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,”

So true!

Robert Stanford Tuck was the leading British fighter ace when he was shot down by a German quad 20 and spent the remainder of the war in a German POW camp. He escaped into Russia in 1945.

Tuck is often overlooked when aces are being discussed. His tally when he was shot down on 28 January 1942 was: 29 enemy aircraft destroyed, two shared destroyed, six probably destroyed, six damaged and one shared damaged.

Who knows how many he would have scored but for Leigh Mallory’s policy caused him to be shot down. 

Try to get a copy of  “Fly for Your Life: Robert Stanford Tuck” by Larry Forester.  Well worth reading, not only for Tuck’s aerial exploits but also for his leadership qualities
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 8:42:24 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!




 

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)
 

Do you not believe that the American DoD ever made a mistake? Or a typo? Or worse yet a diagram for one modle for a second type that closely resembles it?
Secondly, the Disney bomb is ~4,500 pounds not 4,000.
Thirdly, have you ever actually measured the bomb bay on a B-17E/F/G?
I have! It is 100" wide to the open door edge. The racks are about 4.5" wide each and the walkway between them varis from 4.8 to 6.3" depending on the 5Ws. That leaves, as you can see from the picture posted, 38.6" wide, OR much more than enough to load a 4,000 pound MC Bomb inside on each side. The rack is aldo 84" inches tall and wide enough half way up to lo0ad a second 4,000 pound MC Bomb on each side.
Next time you go to a museum with a B-17 in it ask politely if you can crawl under it and measure the bomb bay yourself.

 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 8:57:43 PM

 
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
 And you do have a clue? Right! Got any time in ANY aircraft as pilot in charge, or solo? Right! 

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.


OK! For the forth or fifth time read Ray Wagner's "American Combat Aircraft". See page IIRC 322!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 9:08:54 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) 



 




Sir Douglas Bader is/was one of my heros when I was a kid! I used to teach skiing to disabled people and he was the example I used to inspire them. And you are right, he was a braggart and never brought back a Spit with more than 5-6 each 20 MM Cannon holes in it! If it is six, two of the burst points are so close together than it is very hard to tell they were not a single shell! Also, those were very early shells fom the MG-FF and only had 3.5-5.6 Grams of Pentolite in them, not 17 Grams of RDX/Aluminum as the later "Mine" shell!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/10/2013 9:23:14 PM


Be careful about Bombing accuracy. 
 

Yes you do, post war bombing surveys showed that a lot of what was believed was actually wrongTrue, but still very much closer than the brits.
 
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. Note that even with these tactics, the RAF failed to get half of their bombs incide the city limits! As per post war bombing studdies by the RAF.
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,Note that even with these tactics, the RAF failed to get half of their bombs incide the city limits! As per post war bombing studdies by the RAF. 
USAAF misses as calculated and reported in the USSBS were off an aim POINT like a river or bridge or large prominent building . True!
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)
  USAAF bomber were not alowed to drop through cloud unless they were lead by the "Master Bomber" equiped with H2S or BTO Radar. They still mist indavidual factories, but by the RAF standard, IE inside the City limits, they got nearly 100% hits!
 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 What are you smoking? Post war surveys by the RAF concluded that the NEVER got as many as half their bombs to land inside the city limits!
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. Is that why they rarely got nearly 100% hits from 25-30K'? 
The average miss was about a half mile. I think this is mostly true!
When the British used such methods, they reported misses of two to five miles. I think this is mostly true!


Pick a standard to use for accuracy, then apply that single standard to BOTH AFs, the USAAF and the RAF!

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    OBNW   1/11/2013 2:19:01 AM
RADAR and radio-nav-aid bombing did not involve the Norden bombsight, or its British equivalent, for either Allied air force when bombing under 70% clouded condition. (Yes, the Americans used radio-nav-aid bombing) 
 
#  8 Pathfinder Group took weather (wind) into account to correct for bomb drift. That was part of their drill for OBOE.
 
Other than that, your comments are reasonably accurate.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       1/11/2013 2:25:54 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. 

 

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.

 

 



It contradicts your claim as to internal load carriage by MASS of the B-17 bomb bay. Refer to what you wrote please.
 
The other fact is that I pointed out that the ship-killers were EXTERNAL LOAD when I made the B-17 manual citation for page 91. The same manual lists internal max bomb load in Appendix 2 as 4 tons.  
 
B.

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    I missed this...   1/11/2013 3:39:10 AM
"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."
 
Wrong, I'm afraid.
 
Bomber Harris' tactics for European cities were not what inspired LeMay. He, LeMay was one of America's best air tacticians, not some !@#$%^&*()! incompetent brainless stubborn butcher of men and waster of aircraft, such as Harris or that American incompetent imbecile, Brereton.    
 
The Americans discovered in mid 1944 over Japan, what the Japanese had known and mapped since 1932. It was the JET STREAM.  
 
This meant that (especially for Japan, as she lay at the right latitudes), that jet stream shove forces would drive bombers off the one minute stable programmed runs that daylight bombing accuracy required. Crabbing its called.
 
So strong was the jet stream effect over Japan, that aimed bombing above 20,000 feet day or night with 1944 tech was useless. You had to come in fairly low at less than 3 miles altitude. 
 
That more or less compelled area carpet bombing at night when the winds over Japan in the mid altitude bands were calmer or at least predictable (no solar heating and capricious mid altitude thermals). This was USAAF understood to be necessary despite the already American known assessment of the RAF bombing campaigns in the Ruhr and elsewhere as bloody failures using RAF night area bombing techniques.
 
 This obscures another oft overlooked factor that the British mythmakers like to ignore. As early as 1936, the USAAC began to research incendiaries designed to burn Japanese cities. The preferred bomb was to be a roof breaker that could be dispersed as a cluster bomb. 
 
 The American INTENT before 1939 was clearly to firebomb Japanese cities.
 
 LeMay didn't copy anyone. He adopted and adapted USAAC planned war policy to meet a surprise weather condition and newly available cluster fire-bombs. The Americans needed to work the bigs out of the prototypes, they had pre-war. He also had an aircraft  range problem he had to address. The B-29s were at max range limit. Any unnecessary weight had to be dumped for an extra fuel cushion.
 
The night bombing he used was a further reaction to the fact that Japanese night fighters were a joke, but their day fighters at 21,000 feet and below, as well as their flak defense was not. 
 
The Americans still performed and preferred daylight precision raids for certain missions during the night-bombing campaign. Those were the B-29 mine-laying raids which required DAYLIGHT delivery to place the aerial mines in the Japanese harbors. Quite accurate and COSTLY.
 
Furthermore, your claim about the B-36 is in error. The 1950s practice drops were dummy atomic bombs. Standard accepted miss was less than 500 feet as the bomb was parachute delayed to allow the bomber time to escape. That was measured for an AIRBURST aimpoint in six directions (Up down left right over short)  usually released from six miles up and not ground impact. 
 
B.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/11/2013 3:43:32 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)
 





Do you not believe that the American DoD ever made a mistake? Or a typo? Or worse yet a diagram for one modle for a second type that closely resembles it?
 
so rather than you being wrong its the US Govenemt? have you ever considere that it may be you thats wrong?

Secondly, the Disney bomb is ~4,500 pounds not 4,000.
 
Never claimed it was in fact in another post I state it was > 4000lbs

Thirdly, have you ever actually measured the bomb bay on a B-17E/F/G?
No and i bet you have neither
 
I have! It is 100" wide to the open door edge. The racks are about 4.5" wide each and the walkway between them varis from 4.8 to 6.3" depending on the 5Ws. That leaves, as you can see from the picture posted, 38.6" wide, OR much more than enough to load a 4,000 pound MC Bomb inside on each side. The rack is aldo 84" inches tall and wide enough half way up to lo0ad a second 4,000 pound MC Bomb on each side.
Realy as the the bomb diagram I posted show how little space was availible on loading 1 2000lbs bomb and the 4000lbs was bigger I will believe the US govenemt over your flawed assesment every time, the loading diagram for the B17 g show only two shackles for 2000lbs and none for 4000lbs bombs - it clearly states that they were only carried externally  
 
Next time you go to a museum with a B-17 in it ask politely if you can crawl under it and measure the bomb bay yourself.
next time you go ask  them if it was possible and I bet the answer is no (but knowing your track record of infomation from museums i bet you come back saying it could carry a 12000lbs internally, I still remember you claimb a B29 in a meseum in the US carried tallboys on combat mission yet that plane didn roll off the productionline until post war
So is it any wonder noone trusts your posts?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/11/2013 3:46:31 AM
Try actual research as none of you above comment about accuracy are factual in aany aspect , to be honest I wonder why I bother,
 
Shooter by the way exactly how long do you expect to be on here before you get banned again?
and exactly how many sites have banned you for making claims wihout evidence and ignoring corrections?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics