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
Belisarius1234    Shooter...   2/14/2013 4:35:50 PM
I posted the Mosquito manual and did the fuel calcs from it. Your numbers are bogus. 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/14/2013 4:52:14 PM
Bomb fusing was changed to desensitize from shock. Inertia hammers replaced impact fuses.
The electric motors in the Sperry were sped up because those Schrage Musik planes came in fast and close.
As the Dyson article mentions that collision and near approach fear was science fiction. It rarely happened enough to be statistically significant. (0.067%) is an acceptable risk for auto-track.  
There is no reflect or low contrast. Gloss underbelly for a Lancaster is about the STUPIDEST solution imaginable for a plane trying to cross a searchlight belt. You want matte gray for the whole plane.
Paths are either plane keel up or down and they have to be power-assisted. That plane is a death-trap otherwise to clear. I don't care how many chute holes you cut in the floor. Once it rolls on its beam and noses over, kiss your asp goodbye.  You aren't going to wing walk off that bird.

I believe the only change between the F and G was the nose turret Boeing didnt even change the model number 
What did I say about heat sensors? This is where the MONICA comes in. Once you get a positive, the heat sensor can automatically turn on the gun radar to determine what the bearing threat is. You know that something is beneath you, that is hot enough to be a machine. Voila, the radio-echo ranging sensor comes on and a guns solution track begins. The radar directed gun shoots, automatically as soon as a positive return registers. This was a possible even with the crude tech of 1944.

The problem with that is that in a BC bomber stream that plane is as likely to be a Another Lanc than a night fighter

Then there is always PAINT. It always struck me how insane the British aircraft paint schemes were. The Germans aloft could pick a Lancaster out by the way moonlight reflected off the beasts! Matte works as does dark GRAY.

Don't you think that it was looked at? the upper surfaces were mat the lower semi gloss as this seem to give the best results, as for grey to match the sky most times the aircraft was seen it was either in search lights or
silhouette against the sky making any colour irrelavent

 Just the way that SMALL plane is put together shows me that the travel paths were tight. I note the stringers and ribs are set too close together for anything but small entryways to interrupt the flow of structure integrity. The only possible large escape paths are out through the nose and tail and the canopy.
Actually there were two escape hatches in the rear fuselarge as well as the main door on the right hand side, I do wonder if a lot of crews ever got the chance to get out, and did Halifax crews tend to leave knowing the plane was lost whilst Lanc crews stayed and got it home, would account for some of the differences in loss rate
The  bomb bay (B-17 and B-24 favorite routes are impossible). Note how the main wing splits the plane in two? Then the tailplane does the same thing? How the bomb bay interrupts the cockpit escape route down (
cockpit escape was suposed to be up thought the canopy escape hatch

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/14/2013 5:03:28 PM

Shooter wrote:
    I just used the numbers most widely accepted. IE 7,377 Lancasters made with 3,249 lost in combat. That is 44% lost in combat. In addition, they flew~156,000 sorties for those 3,249 losses, or a 2.08% loss rate per sortie. For the B-17, those numbers are 4,688 lost in combat from 291,508 sorties, or 1.6% loss per sortie rate! Total B-17s made were over 12,000 B-17s made, with 4,688, or <39% Combat losses of the total.
Yes but as the Lanc losses were over a longer period So the fact that Lancs took a longer time period to complete fewer missions means the Operational Readiness was less than American bombers by what factor? and the b17 missions are heavily weighted towards the end of the war when they were often escorted by 3/4 fighters PER B17 so you could argue quite succesfully that it was the P51 that made this possible not the B17, infact any bomber could have been used
1. The Norden bomb sight was not useless above 20,000'. In fact it was used with out modification at altitudes over twice that height from the B-36. 
no Lemay showed that the Norden was useless above 20000feet even when used by B36 in perfect bombing conditions in post war navada
See this link for typical bombing accuracy;
Shooter," target="_blank">link without checking his facts and logic, wrote:
Given the absolute fact that the USAAF flew more sories, 762,462, dropped more bombs, 1,396,816 tons,
this give an average of less than 4000lbs so basically the B17 was worse than a A4 skyraider
 Yes it does, but it also includes light and medium bombers.
 and had fewer casualties than the RAF BC, see above, I would have to say the entire strategy was flawed at best and totaly screwed at worst. 
and how does bombing the Ruhr compair with bombing french airfields ? or berlin? go back and compair MISSIONS and you would see that you are not compairing like with like, but you have consistantly faILED IN THIS SO i HOLD NO HOPE OF IT HAPPENING THIS TIME
 The differances were caused by the fact that many targets were not available to the RAF because bombing at night was not suitable to attacks by a few planes, or because their was no land marks to deliniate airfields at night, etc...

Your logic makes good sence on it's face but fails utterly if you factor in the RAF's claim post war that "Less than half the bombs hit the target! IE, landed inside the city limits. So if you look at the number of RAF-BC casualties-Vs- the bomb tonnage that actually hit anything it changes the results dramatically!
DOES IT? because it does not seem that way from the reports if you look at comparable missions, in fact in like for like missions the B17 shows rather badly
There were very few "comparable missions" because it was simply not possible to bomb most targets by night!
I note that you have not addressed the fact that the RAF claimed they missed with more than half of their bombs and it's resultant relationship to effects/sortie!

Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/14/2013 5:22:11 PM

Given that overall losses of both planes and crew were so much less with the later marks of both the Lancaster and the B-17, and that B-17 losses per sortie were about half of those of RAF Bomber Command heavies, I would say the above does not make much sence. Furthermore, losses per ton of bombs dropped on target seems to show, at least according to the two previous posts, that night time bombing was a looser.
No thats just you making thing up again the facts do not support this
See the quote from Wiki below, to include links to the source material!
I was reading up on the B17 afters shooters complete bull and found this further info
the B17 engines were actually very unreliable especially the turbo units Then how do you account for the fact that the USAAF flew more missions in less time than the RAF BC?
the defensive armerments were poor and badly designed, taking =them in turn Then how do you account for the fact that the USAAF flew more missions while taking fewer casualties? See the quote below and follow the links to the source documants! 
tail, twin manual .5 in a very limited traverse unit with a pretty useless ring and bead sight Then how do you account for the Germans abandoning all tail chase attacks early in the war?
mid gunners, manual .5s with ring sights with poor visibility
radio compartment, single .5 ring sights virtually no visibility
ball, actually a very good turret especially when upgraded to reflector sights
mid upper, decent martin unit but heavy framing meant visibilty was limited (and standing up for long flights was not going to make for a happy gunner)
much better with the sperry
nose, well they were a complete joke untill the Bendix chin turret and even that was a pretty poor unit and no way comparable to a manned power turret To many defects to list!
the Read project would have fixed these issues but was canned, I was also suprised on how sensitive the B17 was to change in CoG
 Where on earth did you get this idea? I mean I raised it as a very real problem with the Lanc's long bomb bay and now you bring it up out of the blue? Why? What are your sources?
From Wiki and with links to the source documents!
Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes.[clarification needed][24]... A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry officer in World War I.[24]... By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force..., which flew daylight raids over Europe had 350,000 aircrew during the war and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs.[24] Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders. [25]...

Taking an example of 100 airmen:[26]...

  • 55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
  • three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
  • 12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
  • two shot down and evaded capture
  • 27 survived a tour of operations
In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action. From American Combat aircraft by Wagner on page 133 the USAAF flew 762,462 sorties and dropped 1,396,816 tons of bombs for only 9,937 aircraft lost in European combat! How can you make lite of these figures?
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Because they are wrong...?   2/14/2013 5:30:12 PM
I think you need first source docs and NOT Wiki.
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/14/2013 5:48:47 PM
I posted the Mosquito manual and did the fuel calcs from it. Your numbers are bogus.  B.
So did I! The GPH figures were 72 GPH at an all up weigh of only 20,000 pounds which would preclude it carriing the 4,000 pound cookie! It was also a manual for a first gen B-Mk-VI, not even a later B Mk-VI! Or Fighter with refferances to the gun switches. So you think it can fly 1,500 miles at a MTO of 20,000 pounds? Right! EEW 14,300 pounds, IIRC. Plus 715 gallons of gas at 4,719 pounds, 22 gallons of oil at 165 pounds, two crew at 200 pounds each is 19,384 pounds before the first pound of bombs is loaded!
Do you honestly think the plane is not going to use more gas and oil when it is 25% heavier? Then there is all the gas used to start up, taxi, take off, climb to altitude, landing, taxi, shut down and most important of all the emergency reserve! Exactly how many gallons of gas do you think should be helb back for the Reserve? So 715 gallons divided by 72 GPH does not actually equal 10 hours of cruise to and from target AND you used the wrong speed in the calcs! To get to 72 GPH, you have to go 170 knots at 17,000 pounds, or 210 knots at 20,000 pounds, niether weight which would allow it to cary full fuel and bombs! So it is clear that you did screw the pooch with your calcs! 

From Wiki; (With links to the soerce documents!
The very high casualties suffered give testimony to the dedication and courage of Bomber Command's aircrew in carrying out their orders. Statistically... there was little prospect of surviving a tour of 30 operations and by 1943 the odds against survival were pretty grim with only one in six expected to survive their first tour, while a slim one in forty would survive their second tour .[28]... The overall loss rate for Bomber Command`s operations throughout the war was 2.2%, but loss rates over Germany were significantly higher, between November 1943 and March 1944 operations over that country resulted in an average 5.1% loss rate.[29] The highest loss rate (11.8%) on one mission was incurred on the Nuremburg raid (30 March 1944).[30] The disparity in loss rates was reflected in the fact that sorties over France were only counted as a third of an op towards the "tour" total,[31]... and crews derisively referred to officers who only chose to fly on the less dangerous ops to France as "François"[32] Furthermore the official loss rate figures never included aircraft crashing in the UK on their return (usually due to damage suffered whilst on the operation) even if the machine was a write off and/or some or all of the crew were killed, this added at least 15% to the official loss figures.[33] It must also be remembered that losses whilst the crews were training were significant, some courses lost as many as 25% of their intake before graduation, in all 5327 men were killed in training between 1939 and 1945.[34]...
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/14/2013 5:53:14 PM

I think you need first source docs and NOT Wiki.
The original source docs are there in the links provided! What, did you fail to follow the links?
See the other posts in this chain of argument to see other even more damaging facts and the links to their sources!

Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Bullshipping   2/14/2013 6:57:23 PM
is your stock in trade Stuart. You post garbage data, can't do arithmetic, take things out of context, make wild claims and then when someone comes along and tells you to your face that you don't know the subject, proves that you don't the subject, you tell him to look at the MANURE you've posted and accept that as gospel?  
Sorry. You can go peddle that fantasy somewhere else. I know a bull-shipper by the manure he ships.
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/14/2013 7:20:42 PM

is your stock in trade Stuart. You post garbage data, can't do arithmetic, take things out of context, make wild claims and then when someone comes along and tells you to your face that you don't know the subject, proves that you don't the subject, you tell him to look at the MANURE you've posted and accept that as gospel? B.
Like the Pilot's Manual you posted and I used to make lite of your calcs?

Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Now you make it up.    2/14/2013 8:12:01 PM
I would ask what are you talking about, but then I remember that in your delusional mind what you think is real is something real.
Here's a HINT. It never happened.


Quote    Reply