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
45-Shooter       3/12/2013 1:22:01 AM

Total casualties for all bombers (UK) were cited versus casualties for (USAAF).
Vs total casualties for the entire USAAF of just under 50,000 combat losses.
Roughly equivalent. The UK flew more dangerous missions, Not acording to the RAF, who claimed that the only way they could survive was to switch to night bombing. under more dangerous conditions against a tougher defense. This is simply not even close to being true! The evidence presented this far proves this. No, it does not! The RAF-BC stated this in numerous documents, memours and public statements. Being able to shoot back in daylight over France was safer than night over Germany  Not by any strech of the imagination, even according to some on this board! If it was so much safer, why on Earth did the RAF-BC switch to night attacks?

As to casualty data:

The casualty rates can be examined as casualties
;per sortie unit,

:per 100,000 hours air-flight time (the usual modern measurement)

You can find that by type.

Prediction: you will find the two air forces B-17 versus Lancaster will be comparable.
No, you will not find this to be equal, or anything near it. Back then, casualties per sortie was the definning number. and there is no way that anyone could think that >291,000 missions were equal to 156,000 sorties between the B-17 and Lanc. So this argument falls apart instantly! Then there is the casualty numbers directly, 25-30,000 for USAAF bomber crews during the war, Vs 55,000 for the RAF-BC, not counting the fighters and other losses. So it is half as many missions and twice as many casualties to the RAF-BC.
Note on flying speed limits;

The B-17s control systems froze and wings tore off in a dive under burden over 300 knots.

The Lancaster's didn't.

The Lancaster was the better built plane as far as flying characteristics. 
You might be right! I do not know and this sounds plausable to me. But it was very much less sturdy when damaged.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/12/2013 2:22:31 AM
You write much, but what you write makes no sense at all.

I think you need to write less and read more. 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 9:17:22 AM
 . No-one of substance has ever claimed that the Merlin had a great TBO of much over 3-400 hours! Yet the Wright Cyclone of 1933 had a TBO of >500 hours and by 1939 it was over 800 hours. Most other American and British Air Cooled Radials had similar TBOs, ALL much longer than any version of the Merlin!
 
figures from the sky pixi again i see
 
Just where did you find these numbers for "US Official bomb figure" A source and page, please
USAF Historical Website. The Museum of the USAF. Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes, Wiki. and many other well documented sources! See the list of source foot notes in Wiki to get a hint of the depth and width of the documentation on this!
yes but if you actaul look at those sources a different picture appears but of course tats beyond you
3, the Official US figues have the average US heavy bomber load at 3200lbs Where did you get these figures?
If this is true, it means that the USAAF flew three times as many sorties as the RAF instead of only twice as many?
and it means that the B17 was only about 1/3 -1/4 as effective as a Lancaster  or about as effective as the wellington medium bomber (less so actaully as the Wimpy COULD manage a 4000lbs)
I see that you used some of the same sources that I sited, how do you explain that the numbers above do not match between those that I have axcess to like the "(Army Air Force Statistical Digest (World War II), HQ AAF.1945. (available on
the Internet)"
if you think for a secod that we believe you have read these volumes you must take us for complee fools
 
really as my copy of his book does not provide enough information to make any such leap
You also need to have the Spick book Fighter Aces and use the formuli there to extrapolate.
oops now you refer to another book, but damn I have that one too and what do you know that doesnt provide the data either, try again
 
 But in any case, there is no possible way that more than half of all RAF losses in nighttime raids was as much as half of all casualties!
makes no sense try again in english
 
 We lost about HALF as many bomber crew casualties as the RAF and flew many more missions! Almost twice as many missions! No mater which source you claim, the RAF had many more casualties per sortie as the USAAF.  

 
and as pointed out the fact of target selection pays such a huge factor in these figures that ANY conclusion that does not take this into account is meaningless and the fact that you needed 4x as many sorties to drop the same weight of bombs
 
The RAF numbers are ~55,000 casualties from Bomber Command alone while the USAAF lost about half that number from bombers and about 50,000 total casualties in combat, including fighters!
 
No you sudenly include the fighter losses when you had no idea before it was raised, you havent checked the source becuase if you had you have realised it DID NOT include fighter losses

This is the single most telling factiod about RAF planes and in my opinion the Merlin which was a frail and very easy engine to damage when compaired to the Air Cooled Radials used by everyone!
 
yet the radial engined Lancaster suffered higher loss rates than the merlin versions how is that?
also the fact that the Lancaster could and did return from Germany on two engines (sometimes even one)
 
How else can you explain such a HUGE disparity in casualty rates?
Lets not fight about the numbers of dead, but instead try to come to a conclusion about why that was?
 
the problem is that its not coming to some conclusion its trying to explain to you why your overly simplistic view is flawed, but you ahve an inability to grasp that thing are rarely as simple as your ideas make them (or is it that you cannot grasp complex ideas?)
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 9:35:24 AM
  I do not have a clue and have said so several times, but there are so many reasons that have little to nothing to do with how strong and durrable the plane is!
yet you claim loss rates are despite different target selection, talk about being selective, only accepting data that supports your view

what like the Vulcan Victor or valiant? or the Canberra that even the USAF liked so much they bought in large numbers? 
  Just one quick question; How many of all of those types did the RAF buy compaired to how many B-57s did the USAF buy?
as the US had bled the UK dry during the war we were lucky to afford any, especially as the crooks from lockheed were bribing there way to success

your problem is you are narrow minded to the extreme
 You can not seem to get past the hyperboil to answer just those questions.   
 but you cannot get past your big picture to understand the numbers without understanding there can be no conclusion
It all boils down to the last PP, highlighted in yellow. Until you can answer those questions, any other argument you make is irrealivant.
On the other hand, I have answered those questions and gone beyond to other hypothisys which you argue over the piddling details, but fail to answer the BIG questions;
ANSWERED MAN TIMES BUT AS IT FAILS TO AGREE WITH YOU THEN ITS DISMISSED
 
That makes absolutely no sence at all!
Are you stating that the RAF failed to fly every mission they could?
Are saying that the USAAF flew EVERY day? you rearly dont dont have a clue do you
So, if not, then they both flew as many missions as they could bassed on the availibility of the aircraft!
Aircraft availibility, crew availibility, weather thier were many reasons why missions were sceduled but of course you pick on only one
There were about as many RAF Bomber/days availible in relation to the tonnage of bombs dropped as there were to the Americans in relation to their bomb tonnage dropped!
not according to your figures you have the USAAF as having over half again as many
You have no proof that the RAF flew harder or longer missions, but on the contrairy, most have admitted that the Night missions were easier than daylight missions.
easier? i that theyhad a beter chance of survival at night WHEN ATTACKING THE SAME TARGET then yes, but as the USAAF were targeted against easier targets then NO but this seems to beyond your ability to understand
 So that leaves only one viable conclusion. The Air Cooled Radial types were more reliable than the LC Types! Since this agrees well with the general Mythos of the time, even into now that they were more reliable than their LC counterparts!
so you have 1+1 = 4532, broken logic there you make a coclusion from incomplete data then state its theONLy one possible, conciet and ignorance in one statement
2. How did so many Lancasters get shot down on night missions that the RAF/USAAF and every other expert on the planet thinks were less dangerous than those much larger number of B-17 daylight missions?
because those experts look at Comparable missions none I know of thinks that the average USSAF mission was as dangerous as the avarage BC one
Until you can answer these two big questions in detail, everything else is irrealivant!
so you say, its funny how its irreavent because you cannot defend it
Maybe that the B17 needed 3 fighters each to esure those daylight missions, when against opposed targets, had a  hope of success without cripling losses
    I have never said this whas not true! But it is not an explanation of how some planes flew twice as many missions per bomber/day
no but 2 crew per bomber might be, also a lot more short ranged missions that keep the filght hours down also helps, but of cause these are irrelavent 
the bigger question is why did they need to fly 4x as many missions to drop a similar amount of bombs?
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 9:45:03 AM







firstly the figue used for B17 totnage is in short tons not the long tons of the lancaster figure
This source disputes the Long Tons myth! British Bombing Survey Unit! They were ALL in short tons back then! no one outside of the shipping industry used long tonnes!
actually for your information the Long ton is the US name for the ton(uk) and as such was the primary unit in the UK your ignorance is showing again
 
 
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, the Peak USAAF was 4200 4 engined Bombers(UK only this does not include the MTO or PTO)
See the above source in Red Highlight to dispute this claim!
nope it doesnt try re-reading it, but go slower and try to understand it this time
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/12/2013 9:48:04 AM
really do not know as to whether he ignores anything that does not agree with his view or is a troll who does it to wind us up (surely anyboby that fails to understand the huge amount of data provided to dispute his posts must be to stupid to operate a computer, or walk and chew gum for that matter)
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 1:01:02 AM




























firstly the figue used for B17 totnage is in short tons not the long tons of the lancaster figure
This source disputes the Long Tons myth! British Bombing Survey Unit! They were ALL in short tons back then! no one outside of the shipping industry used long tonnes!
actually for your information the Long ton is the US name for the ton(uk) and as such was the primary unit in the UK your ignorance is showing again
 Both the long ton and the short ton are 20 hundredweight, being 112 and 100 pounds respectively. Before the twentieth century there were several definitions. Prior to the 15th century in England, the ton was 20 hundredweight, each of 108 lb, giving a ton of 2,160 pounds (980 kg).[citation needed] In the nineteenth century in different parts of Britain, definitions of 2240, 2352, and 2400 lb were used, with 2000 lb for explosives; the legal ton was usually [sic] 2240 lb.[12]
So, acording to this "Explosives were measured at the ton of 2,000 pounds. There are many ordinance manuals to proove this point! In addition, the RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit Report specified "Short tons" to be compatible with the American  readers and reports. 
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, the Peak USAAF was 4200 4 engined Bombers(UK only this does not include the MTO or PTO) The American records state 3,400 four engined bombers in the eight AF to bomb europe. The rest were on ASW Patrol.
See the above source in Red Highlight to dispute this claim!

nope it doesnt try re-reading it, but go slower and try to understand it this time




 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/15/2013 4:57:27 AM
firstly the figue used for B17 totnage is in short tons not the long tons of the lancaster figure
This source disputes the Long Tons myth! British Bombing Survey Unit! They were ALL in short tons back then! no one outside of the shipping industry used long tonnes!
actually for your information the Long ton is the US name for the ton(uk) and as such was the primary unit in the UK your ignorance is showing again
Both the long ton and the short ton are 20 http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Hundredweight">hundredweight, being 112 and 100 pounds respectively. Before the twentieth century there were several definitions. Prior to the 15th century in England, the ton was 20 hundredweight, each of 108 lb, giving a ton of 2,160 pounds (980 kg).[http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed">citation needed] In the nineteenth century in different parts of Britain, definitions of 2240, 2352, and 2400 lb were used, with 2000 lb for explosives; the legal ton was usually [http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Sic">sic] 2240 lb.http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-64012-page76.aspx#cite_note-15">[12]
 
the wiki definition of short Ton disagres with you
 

The short ton is a unit of mass equal to 2,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)">pounds (907.18474 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram">kg).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton#cite_note-NIST44-C-1">[1] In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States">United States it is often called simply tonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton#cite_note-NIST44-C-1">[1] without distinguishing it from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne">tonne (1,000 kilograms / 2,204.62262 pounds) or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_ton">long ton (2,240 pounds / 1,016.0469088 kilograms); rather, the other two are specifically noted. There are, however, some U.S. applications for which unspecified tons normally means long tons (for example, Navy ships)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton#cite_note-BTS.GOV-2">[2] or metric tons (world grain production figures).

Both the long and short ton are defined as 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredweight">hundredweights, but a hundredweight is 100 pounds (45.359237 kg) in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units">U.S. system (short or net hundredweight) and 112 pounds (50.80234544 kg) in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_units">Imperial system (long or gross hundredweight).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton#cite_note-NIST44-C-1">[1]

A short ton–force is 2,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-force">pounds-force (8,896.443230521 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)">N).

In the UK, short tons are rarely used. The word "ton" is taken to refer to a long ton, and metric tons are distinguished by the "tonne" spelling.

 
 
So, acording to this "Explosives were measured at the ton of 2,000 pounds.
In the 19th century and as neither the B17 or the Lancaster was built until the 20th I feel that this is a bit irrellavent
 
There are many ordinance manuals to proove this point! In addition, the RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit Report specified "Short tons" to be compatible with the American  readers and reports.
4 the peak BC strength in 4 engined bombers was 1400 aircraft, the Peak USAAF was 4200 4 engined Bombers(UK only this does not include the MTO or PTO) The American records state 3,400 four engined bombers in the eight AF to bomb europe. The rest were on ASW Patrol.
you are saying that the USAAF ran 800 bomber on ASW work from The UK? have you a source for this as I was unaware of any USAAF aircraft doing this all was done by Coastal Comanad on tis side of he pond and those operating from the US and Canada wer NOT included in your numbers, I will assume that this is another "MADE UP NUMBER" as usual
See the above source in Red Highlight to dispute this claim!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    My error   3/15/2013 6:32:01 AM
seemingly I was wrong and the USAAF did operate ASW patrols from the UK, they had 4 squadrons opeating in the 479th Antisubmarine Group  in Cornwall
 
however I doubt that 4 squadrons had 800 planes operating at once which is what he was claiming
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 11:14:48 PM

seemingly I was wrong and the USAAF did operate ASW patrols from the UK, they had 4 squadrons opeating in the 479th Antisubmarine Group  in Cornwall
 
however I doubt that 4 squadrons had 800 planes operating at once which is what he was claiming
So do I, but the only other possability is that who ever wrote the larger figure made a mistake or a typo, since it was somebody else besides me who posted the data from the USAAF that stated 3,400 planes, IIRC!
Interesting line of thought though?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics