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       2/19/2013 3:30:05 AM
Given the absolute fact that the USAAF flew more sories, 762,462, dropped more bombs, 1,396,816 tons,
Yes it does, but it also includes light and medium bombers.
so wait aminute you include light and medium figures????? adn the compair them agaisnt Lancaster figures as if thats comparable? or are you compairing it agaisnt BC figures in which case the fact that the USSAF was much much bigger might be a factor might it not? god you decoming more and more dishonest
Yes, I did. Either you comp American Heavies Vs RAF heavies, or all Vs all, because using the Mosquito WO comping it to American twin engined bombers seems limp to me. So is it the fact that the B-17 flew more missions,(>291K!) in less time( One year less!) dropping more bombs(>640Kt!) than the Lanc and the rest of RAF Heavies, or is it the fact that the entire USAAF dropped about 40% more tons of bombs than the entire RAF during the entire War?
and the fact that the size of the bomber fleets were so different does not make a difference? the fact that the defensive strength of te Germans was considerably less during this period? the fact that the occupied airspace was considerably less? that the escort was often >3x number of bombers?
none of the above efects the figures? you take facts out of context, without sontext the facts are worthless
 
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
Sources for this bogus claim? Exactly how many day light missions did the RAF fly?
 
how can you csay my facts are bogus and then admit you dont know the source? either you dont know or you do know and can claim its bogus, this shows you are unable to look past your nose (ps I was refering to targets, when the RAF bombed the same target as the USAAF the USAAF losses were higher, so if the USSAF lost less aircraft thet would tend to point to a higher proportion of easier targets does it not?)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/19/2013 3:35:26 AM
In comparing heavy bombers in WWII, and attempting to determine the best, it probably would be more accurate to decide which is the best of the worst.  Performance standards for British and American designs used in the European theater were very close. True! The B-17 is easily the most damage resistant,
True! 
No not true, noone has provided any solid evidence on this so its conjecture
but it could not Did not, is different than could not. carry the massive bomb-load of the Lancaster, so their relative survivability is a wash, Not true at all. In either casualties per ton or planes lost per ton, the Lanc comes off poorly copm'd to the B-17!
badly? the lanc dropped over twice the bomb tonnage of the B17 per aircraft lost in combat, and if you do not take into account the targets they were tasked with then this whole point becomes a waste of electrons
 
since the Lanc can do the same job with half the planes or missions using the same number of planes, But only if you do not count losses. thus putting the Lancaster at risk for (roughly) half the time. But it was much less than half as durrable. Both were better than the Liberator, as far as survivability is concerned,
  No, the B-24 was slightly better than the lanc in losses per sortie and slightly worse in losses per ton.
Not in the real world it didnt
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/19/2013 3:59:51 AM

agains failing to understand what the numbers represent
  How have I "failed to understand" the fact that the RAF/Lanc dropped fewer bombs for more caualties per ton of bombs?
you have been told many times that your headline figures does not tell the story, its like saying that the B17 in bitish service was the worst bomber of the war as it lost more aircraft ber ton of bombs than any other (including the Battle) this is a true fact but is itfair and accurate assesment of the B17 - no because thie are facts behind it that makes a big difference
 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?
more aircraft? BC never had the numbers the USSAF had at the end of the war (easier missions helped too)
 
More aircraft? True! huge supply of spares? Also true, but less realivant because the radial engine was both more durrable and more reliable. but no thier can be only oe reason even if that reason goes against known facts
actually the radial in the B17 does not show this it was reknown for leaking head gaskets, and numerous other issues  
  You are the one making these points, not me. I just pointed out the facvts that they would have been better served by planes with air cooled radial engines bombing from higher altitudes in day time with fighter escort.
actaully y late war BC was bombing more acuurately than USAAF (its why the USAAF adopted the british bombing aids), aylight raids were bait for geman fighters
because that played right into the turrets strong point it was for most practical purposes a fixed read mount, it was a bodge as the tail of the B17 had never been designed to take a turret.  the most critical defensive postion and the B17 was designed with out it
And this applies to the B-17 E-F-G?
yes, the G model still had MANUAL guns in the tail even when, by then, it was common knowledge that manual guns were not up to defense against fast fighters
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
Given the huge differances in control athority between the B-17 and Lancaster, in the B-17's favor, I mean just look at the differances in tail plane size to know the lie this is, How can you make this canard?
so wait a minute the fact that the B17 was unstable and needed vast increase in tail surfaces makes it better thana lanc (which actaully REDUCED tail surfaces over the manchester) and yet the Lanc was regarded as being not only easy to control but actaully could be slung arround like a light bomber,
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?
I provided my source where yours to say that the lanc had problems? becuse you havent provided one yet
B17 The story............,  by Roger Anthony Freeman  I just ordered it! Will see what it states. Can you list a page number for your claims above? In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown by the RAF, 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?
can you list like for like missions? if not then these figures are not comparable and makes as much sense are compaire BC in ww2 to USAF in Veitnam
and understanding that those stats mean is key, and you are certainly not doing that, stats are meanigless unless you understand what they aare telling you and to do that you need context but when that is porvided you ignore it and spout the figures anyway
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Incompetent.   2/19/2013 7:30:45 AM
1. Gun turrets were and and are not plane control surfaces. Control limits, mechanical travel and operation speeds are different.
2. WW II tech versus today's tech.
3. All electric F-16? Stuart.
Two hydraulic systems, aboard one for the speed brakes and fuel proportionater  and the other for landing gear and brake chute deployment, NWS, JFS  and inflight refuel deploy and operation. Where is proportional speed  and moment arc control involved in that, Stuart?    
 
Conclusion, you spout utter ignorance as usual.
 
B.



B wrote: that nose, okay, I see your good point, but didn't you mean CANOPY, too? There you don't have a choice. You have to have blow-out panels for either manual bail-out or ejector seat. That sheeting is THICK and HEAVY. Skin thicknes was less than ONE Milimeter thick! So how is it thick and heavy? If this is proof of your aerodynamic engineering knowledge???


B wrote:
The gimbal quad mount can be stuck under the gunner bubble, as it was in the later B-47. 
-"Gimbal quad mount in a B-47??? Just one more example of your faulty aero-anything knowledge base!!!
B wrote:

I prefer 100% electrical control and feed. Hydraulics may seem lighter but in reality not. Electrical allows fine control and slam stop with variable slew elevate track. Plus there is FIRE hazard with hydraulics.


Then why are all modern aircraft made with hydraulic
systems instead of electric drive for the movable control surfaces?  Electric circuts do not have a fire hazard? These are two more examples of your faulty knowledge base!!!!        
    


 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/19/2013 11:16:25 AM

OBNW wrote:

Again failing to understand what the numbers represent.

Stuart wrote:

How have I "failed to understand" the fact that the RAF/Lanc dropped fewer bombs for more caualties per ton of bombs?

OBNW writes:

You have been told many times that your headline figures do not tell the story, its like saying that the B17 in British service was the worst bomber of the war as it lost more aircraft per ton of bombs than any other (including the Battle) this is a true fact but is it a fair and accurate assessment of the B17 - no because there are facts behind it that make a big difference.

B writes:

The facts being:

  1. The bomber was an early model, not hardened for battle damage.

  2. The early model bomber used de-rated engines that affected performance.

  3. The model (export) was shoddily manufactured. There were thousands of lessons learned design changes that had to be made (the tail being the major one)

Stuart wrote: 

[If] 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?

OBNW wrote:

More aircraft? BC never had the numbers the USSAF had at the end of the war (easier missions helped too)

B writes:

4: More mechanics, BETTER mechanics, more spare engines to swap out, plus as the war dragged on the engines got much better.

5. NOTHING was like Black Thursday. Nothing. Bomber Command had its Gethsemane, but it was not an epiphany like that was to the USAAF. Things changed.

Stuart writes:

More aircraft? True! huge supply of spares? Also true, but less realivant because the radial engine was both more durrable and more reliable. but no there can be only only reason even if that reason goes against known facts

OBNW writes:

Actually the radial in the B17 does not show this it was reknown for leaking head gaskets, and numerous other issues  

B writes:

The Wright R-1820s were CRAP. Should have gone with Pratt R-1830s or R-2000s.

Stuart wrote: 

You are the one making these points, not me. I just pointed out the facts that they would have been better served by planes with air cooled radial engines bombing from higher altitudes in day time with fighter escort.

OBNW writes:

Actually y late war BC was bombing more accurately than USAAF (its why the USAAF adopted the British bombing aids), Daylight raids were bait for geman fighters

OBNW wrote:

because that played right into the turrets strong point it was for most practical purposes a fixed read mount, it was a bodge as the tail of the B17 had never been designed to take a turret.  the most critical defensive position and the B17 was designed without it

Stuart wrote:

And this applies to the B-17 E-F-G?

OBNW wrote:

Yes, the G model still had MANUAL guns in the tail even when, by then, it was common knowledge that manual guns were not up to defense against fast fighters

Do you mean the Cheyenne turret?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

http://www.sas1946.com/main/in...

It had powered traverse/manual elevate. Rotten mixed solution as clock range rating was impossible.

OBNW wrote:

The Read project would have fixed these issues but was canned, I was also surprised on how sensitive the B17 was to change in CoG.

B writes.

Why? Given that pitch was sensitive to the point of absurdity and the beast trimmed out yaw heavy why would load distribution issues be a surprise? I told you Boeing made a lot of mistakes applying airliner logic to a bomber.

[next post]
 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234       2/19/2013 11:16:47 AM

OBNW writes:
Given the huge differences in control authority between the B-17 and Lancaster, in the B-17's favor, I mean just look at the differences in tail plane size to know the lie this is, How can you make this canard?

B wrote.

Pitch control was a problem but YAW (rudder control) was more so.

OBNW writes:

So wait a minute the fact that the B17 was unstable and needed vast increase in tail surfaces makes it better than a Lanc (which actually REDUCED tail surfaces over the Manchester) and yet the Lanc was regarded as being not only easy to control but actually could be slung around like a light bomber,

B writes:

I've noted with some surprise how SMALL the Lancaster is.

About 21 meters long, 31 meters main wingspan and 6.25 meters from wheels to canopy.

B-17

About 22 meters long 31.5 meters main wingspan and 6 meters from wheels to canopy.

Stuart opined:

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?

OBNW writes:

I provided my source, where yours to say that the Lanc had problems? Because you haven’t provided one yet

Stuart wrote (and lied since he hasn't READ IT, Should proof your copy before you gaffe up like that Stuart.

B17 The story..................,  by Roger Anthony Freeman  I just ordered it! Will see what it states. Can you list a page number for your claims above? In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown by the RAF, 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?

B writes:

Plucked from Wiki. Note the dishonesty?


On the stats, themselves, I already noted that twice the sorties to produce equivalent tonnage dropped exposed twice as many machines and men to combat; means the USAAF was four times mechanically less efficient than the RAF over Germany. Fewer casualties per bomb? Rough equivalence (actual NUMBERS of fail to return not Stuart fantasyland) means the RAF was ½ as efficient at crew defense as the USAAF. Better bailout from dead Lancasters and fixing that Schrage Musik problem would have cut those numbers in HALF.



OBNW writes:

Can you list like for like missions? if not then these figures are not comparable and makes as much sense are compare BC in ww2 to USAF in Vietnam

And understanding that those stats mean is key, and you are certainly not doing that, stats are meaningless unless you understand what they are telling you and to do that you need context but when that is provided you ignore it and spout the figures anyway

B writes:

Agree 100%.


B.

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       2/19/2013 11:43:38 AM
OBNW wrote:

Yes, the G model still had MANUAL guns in the tail even when, by then, it was common knowledge that manual guns were not up to defense against fast fighters

Do you mean the Cheyenne turret?
no the cheyenne was a retrofit in late model G's that was adpoted as factory fit in late 44, it is seeminly up for debate as to weather they were powered, the best it seems would be that they had power assist (similar to the guns fitted to some Bostons giving less effort to the traverse much no additional speed,  I was unaware of the fitting of reflector sights di this occur during the war as the info I read had them still using ring and bead
 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

http://www.sas1946.com/main/in...

It had powered traverse/manual elevate. Rotten mixed solution as clock range rating was impossible.
as above the traverse seems to have been power assit not power driven as in the B24 turret

OBNW wrote:

The Read project would have fixed these issues but was canned, I was also surprised on how sensitive the B17 was to change in CoG.

B writes.  

Why? Given that pitch was sensitive to the point of absurdity and the beast trimmed out yaw heavy why would load distribution issues be a surprise? I told you Boeing made a lot of mistakes applying airliner logic to a bomber because the reports online didnt mention them its only when you investigate actual performance does it come to light

 
Quote    Reply

Belisarius1234    Sad. When    2/19/2013 1:53:27 PM
someone like Stuart misunderstands Newton's laws of motion and then uses a video-game to argue against physics and common sense?
 
B.
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 3:35:06 PM

Here is a HINT, the Germans shot DOWN 4000 RAF night flying bombers (44% of the intruders over time aggregate.) That means something.
Yes, it does! But most/at least 1/3 were shot down by flack, not night fighters. If one was to add up all the planes CLAIMED to have been shot down by Night fighters it comes out to about 5/8ths of ALL RAF BC losses. I do not know how to gage the Claim/kill ration of German Night Fighter Pilots.  
SL is right about space invaders. That game teaches that a lot of little guys all coming at you at once, something will get through. That is why I think a low level dash bomber might have been a different way to do it cheaper.  Who knows? It might have cost the same, or maybe less. was worth a try. Even if you could have only whittled the losses by 25% that is 12,000 men and lot of machines. Couldn't do worse than what happened. By your logic, we should have replaced them all with P-47s and P-38s since the -47 could cary the same 2-3,000 pounds and the -38 could cary 5,400 pounds of bombs when comp'd to the Mossy? While I freely admit this is a specius argument, I also think it is just about as realivant as the argument above and for the same reasons, except that the later two are very much more dangerous and much more likely to be able to protect them selves.

All I can say is that the "cork Screw' was the preferred RAF Bomber counter-measure...it was NOT simply a Flak counter...Cork screwing...a rapidly descending turn, pulling you off the "radar screen" of the Night Fighter "sensor" the Eye Ball Mk1....
Firing on the night fighter, UNLESS he was actually closing and firing was NOT considered a wise idea....the gunners were baskically 'sentries" reporting on the presence and location of night fighters. The corkscrew is a "positive G maneuver and can to a greater or lessor degree can be performed by any plane that can fly! It like the "Barrel Roll" is one of those things that sounds great, but in reallity was no big thing!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       2/21/2013 3:40:33 PM

ONBW wrote:
The problem with red-light is that maps end up as two colour, is that a road or rail or canal? 
All maps back then were printed in B&W, not any collor at all.

B.
Photo maps were also printed in B&W! Because the film was predominently B&W too.     


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics