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       3/15/2013 11:24:47 PM

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
But the practice of measuring explosives and ordinance by the short ton is still in use in some places today. The RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit used short tons to account for the ~608,000  dropped by Lancasters during the war!
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? 
No, I say that the 4,200 number might be a typo, or mistake, or right! I do not know, But I do know that official USAAF docs show 3,400 bombers tasked with bombing Germany and Europea targets from the UK. But the ASW mission was the single highest priority of the war. Churchil said it best, If we lost the battle of the Atlantic, all else was moot. (Paraphrasing.)
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/15/2013 11:30:47 PM

Both the long ton and the short ton are 20 >>.="" com="" hundredweight?="" wiki="">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).[>>.="" com="" wiki="" wikipedia:citation_needed?="">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 [>>.="" com="" wiki="" sic?="">http://www.strategypage.com/wiki/Sic">sic] 2240 lb.>>.="" com="" 6-64012-page76.aspx#cite_note-15?="" militaryforums="">http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-64012-page76.aspx#cite_note-15">[12]
 
the wiki definition of short Ton disagres with you
 
The above deffinition is from Wiki, but given the choise I would take the documentation of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit before I would take anything from wiki, or you, or anyone else on this board! The Lancaster figure of about 608,500 short tons is from that source! The RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit, that is! If you do not like it argue with them, not me!

I think this is a case of the mistake, or lie repeated so often it the has the mythos of fact, when in reality it is something else altogether.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/16/2013 3:07:02 PM
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    
But the practice of measuring explosives and ordinance by the short ton is still in use in some places today.
maybe but not here we moved from Imperial to metric and the Tonne we NEVER used the short toon except when referring to US numbers
 
The RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit used short tons to account for the ~608,000        dropped by Lancasters during the war!    
No it was a British report for the British parliament why would they  use a USA measurement? and even if they had for some strange reason then why did they NOT identify it as such otherwise they would have confused the audience
 
There are many ordinance manuals to proove this point!
I disagree and you have not provided a source of these I will just dismiss as sky pixie figures again
 In addition, the RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit Report specified "Short tons" to be compatible with the American  readers and reports.
no way, as stated above it wouldn't have happened and if the reports make reference to US measurements it clearly states such (as in Gallons(US) ), if NO condition was placed on the measurement then it will be in the native, so unless it clearly stated it was in short tons(which it doesn't) then its not
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?       
No, I say that the 4,200 number might be a typo, or mistake, or right! I do not know, But I do know that official USAAF docs show 3,400 bombers tasked with bombing Germany and Europea targets from the UK.
Not according to your countries own figures which surprisingly agrees with the 4200 figure
 
 But the ASW mission was the single highest priority of the war.
Yet it was horribly under resources, given cast off BC aircraft like the Hudson, Whitney and B17 it wasn't until the arrival of the VLR Liberators and Catalina's that joined the Sunderlands in countering the Uboats
 
 Churchil said it best, If we lost the battle of the Atlantic, all else was moot. (Paraphrasing.)      
and? it certainly didn't get 800 B17/24s in total let alone at one time
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/16/2013 3:15:43 PM
Just to make the point a bit more solid, the actual numbers of Liberators and Catalinas used in the Battle of the Atlantic by the Allies never exceeded more than 300 of those two types aircraft at any one time.The usual numbers mentioned is dozens assigned not hundreds.
 
The odd thing is that the one known as Shooter would not know this. It is easily checked and verified. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/16/2013 3:28:28 PM
the wiki definition of short Ton disagres with you    
 
The above deffinition is from Wiki, but given the choise I would take the documentation of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit before I would take anything from wiki, or you, or anyone else on this board!
 
but those figures ARE LONG TONS not the US measurement of the SHORT TON
The Lancaster figure of about 608,500 short tons is from that source! The RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit, that is! If you do not like it argue with them, not me!      
I Can't argue with them as they DON'T use the short ton only you seem to think they do, so the argument is with you not them
 

I think this is a case of the mistake, or lie repeated so often it the has the mythos of fact, when in reality it is something else altogether.
I know this is something you try to do but it is not working the SBU report uses Imperial (long) tons NOT US(short) tons we keep telling you this and yet you are off in your own little world where you cannot be wrong
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/17/2013 1:12:44 PM


So, acording to this "Explosives were measured at the ton of 2,000 pounds.
Yes, to this day!
 
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    

But the practice of measuring explosives and ordinance by the short ton is still in use in some places today.
Yes in Great Britan, the Commonwealth and most of the rest of the world explosives are still measured by the short ton.
 

maybe but not here we moved from Imperial to metric and the Tonne we NEVER used the short toon except when referring to US numbers
  No, they did not switch completely. Explosives are an international market and the only place that they are now measured by the metric tonne is in Russia, china and some other formerly comunist countries.

 

The RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit used short tons to account for the ~608,000        dropped by Lancasters during the war!    


No it was a British report for the British parliament why would they  use a USA measurement? Because they did! and even if they had for some strange reason then why did they NOT identify it as such But they did identify it as such! It's in plane type for all to read! otherwise they would have confused the audience I think that they wrote "Short tons" to avoid confusion with the rest of the marked for that information.
 

 , the RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit Report specified "Short tons" to be compatible with the American  readers and reports.


no way, as stated above it wouldn't have happened But it did happen and the proof is in the document sited! and if the reports make reference to US measurements it clearly states such (as in Gallons(US) ), if NO condition was placed on the measurement then it will be in the native, so unless it clearly stated it was in short tons(which it doesn't) then its notBut there was a condition stated in the document, in that they specified short tons! Look it up for yourself!

So, the original RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit document states, and I quote " Short tons"! Live with it!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/17/2013 2:21:44 PM
So, acording to this "Explosives were measured at the ton of 2,000 pounds.
     Yes, to this day!    
 
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    

But the practice of measuring explosives and ordinance by the short ton is still in use in some places today.
Yes in Great Britan, the Commonwealth and most of the rest of the world explosives are still measured by the short ton.
  really, wasn't aware that the commonwealth used US measurements, but that doesn't change the fact that Britain DIDN'T  

maybe but not here we moved from Imperial to metric and the Tonne we NEVER used the short toon except when referring to US numbers
  No, they did not switch completely. Explosives are an international market and the only place that they are now measured by the metric tonne is in Russia, china and some other formerly comunist countries.
total and complete rubbish explosive's are measures in KGs and Tonnes now in Europe so you wrong again
 

The RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit used short tons to account for the ~608,000        dropped by Lancasters during the war!    
Nope Imperial tons or Long tons to you Americans

No it was a British report for the British parliament why would they  use a USA measurement? Because they did!
No they didn't you moron, It clearly says tons for these figures yet when referring to US contributions they state short tons, why is that? why state short tons when referring to US figure but not to British figure when you are claiming that they were the same figures?
 and even if they had for some strange reason then why did they NOT identify it as such But they did identify it as such!
ONLY when referring to US tonage
 It's in plane type for all to read! otherwise they would have confused the audience I think that they wrote "Short tons" to avoid confusion with the rest of the marked for that information.
You are not thinking you are trying to change facts so you don't have to admit you are wrong here you make unsupported claims to counter the fact that what you claim is just obviously wrong
 

 , the RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit Report specified "Short tons" to be compatible with the American  readers and reports.
and why would they do that? these reports were for British audience and would be MORE confusing as this audience was taught long tons and would have expected a ton to be 2240 lbs not 2000lbs that the US use, it is just the same for a gallon, no one in Britain would think of using a US gallon as a measurement even though we have been metric for 40 years

no way, as stated above it wouldn't have happened But it did happen and the proof is in the document sited! 
No the documents sited clear state short ton where relavent and if you bothered to look those document up (and snippets exist online) you would see that it ONLY sued short tons to refer to US operations, all the rest just state ton which you would expect on a British document, it the same on the US documents they too only refer to tons not to short tons as it is assumed that you are referring to the measurements used in the country of origin
 
), if NO condition was placed on the measurement then it will be in the native, so unless it clearly stated it was in short tons(which it doesn't) then its notBut there was a condition stated in the document, in that they specified short tons! Look it up for yourself!
I did, the ONLY reference is to US figures not the RAF's figures which are all in imperial tons (or long tons to you)

So, the original RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit document states, and I quote " Short tons"! Live with it!
yes they state short tons but in reference to US figures NOT RAF figures which were in Long tons so it is you that must live with the fact once more you are wrong so you had better Live with it!
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/19/2013 1:23:55 PM

The Lancaster figure of about 608,500 short tons is from that source! The RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit, that is! If you do not like it argue with them, not me!      
I Can't argue with them as they DON'T use the short ton only you seem to think they do, so the argument is with you not them
Then down load a copy of their report! It's there in black and white and if the British Government was not so cheep as to require a fee for that, I would have done so already! 

I think this is a case of the mistake, or lie repeated so often it the has the mythos of fact, when in reality it is something else altogether.
I know this is something you try to do but it is not working the SBU report uses Imperial (long) tons No! It does not! The report SPECIFFICALLY states "Short Tons" 
No mater how many times you make the above statements, the facts are still the facts. The RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit report specifically stated Short Tons! Get over it!
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/19/2013 2:44:54 PM
The Lancaster figure of about 608,500 short tons is from that source! The RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit, that is! If you do not like it argue with them, not me!      
I Can't argue with them as they DON'T use the short ton only you seem to think they do, so the argument is with you not them
Then down load a copy of their report! It's there in black and white and if the British Government was not so cheep as to require a fee for that, I would have done so already! 
 
I don't need to The Royal Armouries has a copy and it clearly states  that the weights are in tons, the only reference to short tons is when they refer to US activities and clearly do so to differentiate between the ton (long 2240lbs) and the Short ton (US 2000lbs) so if you had downloaded a copy then you would have seen this.
Basically you have not seen the source yet say that I am wrong, yeah right
 
I think this is a case of the mistake, or lie repeated so often it the has the mythos of fact, when in reality it is something else altogether.
I know this is something you try to do but it is not working the SBU report uses Imperial (long) tons No! It does not! The report SPECIFFICALLY states "Short Tons"     
how would you know you admit that you haven't seen the originals and obviously cannot find an online copy so until you do I will go with the copy I have seen against your impression that they would have used a foreign measurement
No mater how many times you make the above statements, the facts are still the facts. The RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit report specifically stated Short Tons! Get over it!
 what I cant get over is your arrogance that something that you haven't seen and cannot prove is correct despite the fact, that if nothing else, is highly unlikely 
 
so unless you can prove that they did use a foreign measurement then I will ignore any other attempt to  rewrite the truth
and the get over it comments clearly show that you are in a place of weakness and deflecting
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    oldbutnotwise   3/19/2013 4:59:14 PM
Why are you arguing with this moron? I can think of only 2 reasons.
1:   you are having fun demonstration what a dickhead he is OR
2:   you are trying to get him banned from this board (again). 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics