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       1/13/2013 1:03:48 PM
Have you actual read this?
 
I have read the conclusion and dont actually see where it contridicts what I have said
 
A few choice quotes
Every month before November 1944 the Eighth’s percentage of sorties devoted to oil exceeded that of Bomber Command by 25 to 50 percent. In November the two air forces devoted an equal percentage of  resources. From December until the war’s end, Bomber Command’s percentage of effort more than doubled that of the Eighth’s. It would appear that Harris fulfilled his directives
 
Bomber Command persisted in area bombing after it had developed an accuracy surpassing even visual bombing as practiced by USSTAF
 
now i will admit that I have at present only read the conlusion and may change opinion once I have read the whole thing .
 
One thing that I will acknowledge is that I was unware of the level of USAAF had adopted some of the RAF techniques
 
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Out of context and with bias.   1/13/2013 2:02:10 PM
Yes, I read about how unhappy Eisenhower was with the RESULTS.
 
B.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/15/2013 8:59:37 PM

Bombing the European Axis Powers
A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive
1939–1945 Both of you, OBNW and Shooter, should read that book to correct many errors I read you make in your arguments. B.
Did you read the about the author page? To see that this was the work of a well conected, but still private citizen? Also note the "Disclamer" Page/statement?
While the book looks neat so far, I'll have to read it to make any sence out of it.

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/16/2013 3:29:32 AM

He still makes a lot more sense than you do, its amazing how you havent read it and yet feel it neccessary to coment, as if to prepare us for you disagreeing with it.
If you do disagree you bettter provide evidence this time
 




Bombing the European Axis Powers
A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive
1939–1945 Both of you, OBNW and Shooter, should read that book to correct many errors I read you make in your arguments. B.



Did you read the about the author page? To see that this was the work of a well conected, but still private citizen? Also note the "Disclamer" Page/statement?
While the book looks neat so far, I'll have to read it to make any sence out of it.

 



 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/18/2013 2:10:10 AM





He still makes a lot more sense than you do, its amazing how you havent read it and yet feel it neccessary to coment, as if to prepare us for you disagreeing with it.

If you do disagree you bettter provide evidence this time
 











Bombing the European Axis Powers
A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive
1939–1945 Both of you, OBNW and Shooter, should read that book to correct many errors I read you make in your arguments. B.











Did you read the about the author page? To see that this was the work of a well conected, but still private citizen? Also note the "Disclamer" Page/statement?
While the book looks neat so far, I'll have to read it to make any sence out of it.

 










Well it took me a week to do it, but I've read it all! It does not dispute the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey, OR the British version of same to any great extent. It makes excellent points about the "Accuracy" of the various types of bombing, none of which is a large surprise. Furthermore, underlines the equity of total tonnage dropped, over 1,000,000 tonnes each out of just over 2,000,000 tonnes total! I find that to be very interesting! But, the most interesting point to be made was that of air crew casualties and their chance of survival.

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    You didn't notice?   1/18/2013 3:40:29 PM
The Americans with a numerically equivalent force mounted TWICE the number of raids and hit TWICE as many targets as the RAF Bomber Command to make that tonnage equivalence happen in HALF the time and suffered roughly equivalent aircraft losses? The USAAF fought HARD and their effort killed the Luftwaffe, not the RAF, nor the Russian PVO. The USAAF over Germany was so onerous that the Luftwaffe was forced to commit their nachtjager force to reinforce their dayfighters. The USAAF chopped those jokers to bits.  
 
SUBTLE is the data in that staff study. You need to understand what the numbers MEAN.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/18/2013 5:36:50 PM

The Americans with a numerically equivalent force mounted TWICE the number of raids and hit TWICE as many targets as the RAF Bomber Command to make that tonnage equivalence happen in HALF the time and suffered roughly equivalent aircraft losses? The USAAF fought HARD and their effort killed the Luftwaffe, not the RAF, nor the Russian PVO. The USAAF over Germany was so onerous that the Luftwaffe was forced to commit their nachtjager force to reinforce their dayfighters. The USAAF chopped those jokers to bits. 
 
SUBTLE is the data in that staff study. You need to understand what the numbers MEAN.
B.
Yes you are absolutely right! Now can you point to any part of this document that disputes anything I have said, or written on these pages?
One of the neatest things about this paper is the fact that hundreds, maybe even thousands of details are there for our consumption. Did anyone notice the survival odds and casualties according to Bomber type?

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Shrug   1/18/2013 5:45:44 PM
Not that it matters, but why post a piggyback post onto mine, Shooter? 
 
You OBVIOUSLY had no idea for what to look; until someone showed you.
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/18/2013 7:54:51 PM

Not that it matters, but why post a piggyback post onto mine, Shooter?  You OBVIOUSLY had no idea for what to look; until someone showed you. B. Because I thought it was realivant?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/18/2013 9:41:45 PM
Just some quotes from America's Hundred-Thousand by Francis H.
Dean:

(Re: Handling)
P.341-42:

"The Allison Mustangs had a
limit dive speed of 505 mph IAS. Up to the normally attained diving speeds of
the airplane very little trouble was encountered with instability or other
peculiar flight characteristics generally inherent in most airplanes of the
period at higher Mach numbers
"

"The P-51B and P-51C airplanes
with Merlin engines were considerably heavier, and used a
propeller with four
wide chord blades to efficiently utilize the increased engine power,
particularly for high altitude flight. The new propeller caused a marked
decrease in directional stability
which became serious at high
speeds....
"

"Early P-51D aircraft were still directionally
unstable....
"


(Re: Maneuverability and ground attack)

P.353:

"In ALLISON powered Mustangs the pilot could obtain high
maneuverability with minimum effort; his ability to track and aim on a target
was improved as a result of unusually light control forces. MERLIN powered
Mustang gun platform qualities were about the same as a P-40, but not as good as
a P-38 or P-47.
"
Do the high lighted parts above surprise any of you?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics