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: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       3/27/2013 4:22:46 AM
Then why does the survey state that the average bomb load of the Lancaster was approximately 10000lbs?
  I read it and did not see that it did. Can you please post a link to said passage, or better yet post a link and a copy of said passage which would be even better!
Otherwise please explane why the figures published by the RAF, RAF-BC and SBSU all over the internet and in many books more or less agree with me? But in no case ever state a weight over 8,000 pounds per sortie! EVER!
 
But I have provided sources to the 1000lbs + but you have a selective memory and its pointless me reproducing sources for you to ignore
   
Not according to the US Bomb survey,
Yes, it IS the right numbers found in the American Strategic Bombing Survey!
 
So you are wrong, were wrong and always will be wrong about this!
Not according tothe OFFICIAL version not sure what vesion you are looking at, maybe one produced by Marvell comics?

OK so the Bomb survey is wrong, all posters are wrong and all historians are wrong and ONLY shooter is right, get over yourself
No, it's you who are wrong! The Wiki article sites both the official RAF and RAF-BC Histories as sources, so those figures 640,665 Short tons of bombs dropped from 156,036 sorties are the gospel according to the British Government, the RAF, and the RAF-BC!
 According to wiki! god get a life wiki can be wrong(and often is) you know and if you take the actuual ssources you wil see you are mistaken
 
Then there are the much farther post war Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's studdy which has slightly smaller numbers, also gospel according to the UK Government! So takes you pick and live with it! I do not care which!
Personally, I think that the 10,000 pound figure is a number pulled out of someplace we will not mention and just repeated so often it is taken for truth. But the official Histories can not be made to reconsile with that number! NONE of them! 
 
Sorry but whose figure is picked from where? face it you are wrong again
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/27/2013 4:45:49 AM
This is the problem! This is wrong as we now well know! Explosives are still measured in Short tons world wide,
Wrong, The British used LONG tons Not for explosives! untill we went metric Not even then, until maybe much later!
 ha ha
 Looking for the history of UK Government explosives purchases!
and they are in long tons or metric tons only those bought from the US were in short tons
 and the Majority of the world uses metric now so you are wrong Depends on where you go, who is selling and who is buying! Because it is so easy to convert since everything is digitized!
The majority of the world uses Metric even the US uses metric now
 
 
including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!
But it doesnt does it, it uses the British measurement as you would expect in a Brtish document

British Government at that time when purchasing explosives was in short tons! Not long tons!
but was USING LONG ton when recording bomb loads to parliment
The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
Bollocks, the author is dead so it would be ahell of a miracle for him to have written it, it is someone like you who thinks he knows the answer and just like you he (or she) could be wrong, and wikipeadea is often wrong  enev on basics

I am refferring to the original documents! oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument No, it is the wiki article that contradicts the RAF-BC, RAF and RAF's SBSU's printed documents!
        The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
you are supposed to have read this document why do you insist in saying something that clearly is wrong?
No its not, its someone who extracted the data and didnt realise that the tons refered to were NOT the same thing
No, it was not! Those are the terms used in all of the original documents for ALL of the services all the time in that specific time! Live with it!
 
for the last time it uses long tons in the bomb survey which if you actaully read it (assuming that you were not lying) you will clearly see
 

not its correct according to sources that have actually research it and not just looked at wiki It is the person who entered the data into wiki that made the mistake! Not the hundreds of original documents from every service and published in many logistics manuals and books!
then why do you only refere to wiki if there are so many other sources? could it be that they dont agree with you?

  Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report!
In that case you know the facts and yet you persist in this lie? why? (oh and which volume of the survey?but I doubt very much you have seen a copy
It was on line and I do not have a clue since I used the search engine to find it. But it WAS the original SBSU's paper and it agrees with every other document printed at the time!
and we are expected to belive you? you with the conveintly poor memory, the fact that you cannot provide this source also points to this being fabrication especially as the survey is 280 volumes
 
Explosives were bought by the short ton and that is an irrevolcable fact!
only in your fantasy world, not everything is US centric and the use of US measurements is and was never universal
It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!
 
it is and the story is "shooter cannot be wrong regardless of how many times is pet theories are destroyed"
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 10:22:42 PM

The British used IMPERIAL measurements  for military ordnance-for EVERYTHING until they went metric.
Not true! They, and the rest of Europe and the world used Short Tons for explosives because E. I. DuPont DuNamours, Dynamite Nobel and all others sold all explosives this way from the late 1700s or very early 1800s. It maximised their profits and it did not change in England and the UK until the Metric Conversion Act of, IIRC, 1985! The rest is not realivant because it relates to other stuff.
 
 
79,265 (52,000 dead) Americans from all causes lost in the European air war. OK, we agree!
 
8AF total loses:
KIA - 26,000 to 28,000 (I have no idea, why there is so big discrepancy) OK, Heavy Bomber losses! We agree again!
MIA - 28,000 (POWs in German captivity)
WIA - 18,000 (psychological casualties not included - nobody ever counted them)
Total: 72,000 to 74,000 (34% of those who experienced combat)

Source: "Eight Air Force:The American bomber crews in Britain", Donald L. Miller. Fine by me! I have no argument with these numbers!   
 
=========================================================
55,000 British dead lost and 8900 prisoner +a further 8000 wounded from Bomber Command   Just as I have stated! What do you know, we agree on it all! Thank you for posting this again so that they will hopefully believe you instead of argue with me over these numbers!
These  figures produced for the dozenth time, this time by me. Again, thank you!
 
Shooter needs to stop his lies. See above!
I have never lied about any of this and stated these same figures to proove my points for dozens of posts now! Thanks again for you stating them!
Now on to the details! As shown above, the RAF-BC lost 55,000 Killed, to 26-28,000 American Killed from Heavy Bombers as shown by the numbers above HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW!
So on to the question, why did the RAF-BC Heavies loose so many more crew than the USAAF Heavies in 8th AAF?
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 10:29:04 PM

Then why does the survey state that the average bomb load of the Lancaster was approximately 10000lbs?
I read it and did not see that it did. Can you please post a link to said passage, or better yet post a link and a copy of said passage which would be even better!
Otherwise please explane why the figures published by the RAF, RAF-BC and SBSU all over the internet and in many books more or less agree with me? But in no case ever state a weight over 8,000 pounds per sortie! EVER!
 
But I have provided sources to the 1000lbs + but you have a selective memory and its pointless me reproducing sources for you to ignore
No, you have never posted a link to any source that supports your claim above! Never!   
Not according to the US Bomb survey,
Yes, it IS the right numbers found in the American Strategic Bombing Survey!
So you are wrong, were wrong and always will be wrong about this!

Not according tothe OFFICIAL version not sure what vesion you are looking at, maybe one produced by Marvell comics?
What "Official Version"? Lets do this ourselves; (In nice round numbers!) 608, 000 tons divided by 156,000 sorties = 3.987436 tons of what ever type! Now that is by any measure not nearly enough "tons" to equal 10,000 pounds no matter what kind of "tons" they are!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       3/28/2013 10:42:32 PM

including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!
But it doesnt does it, it uses the British measurement as you would expect in a Brtish document
No, it does not! It specifically states "Short Tons"! Not long tons, metric tons, or tonnes! "Short Tons" is the direct quote from the original RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit document! So no, you are wrong, you were wrong and always will be wrong!!!!
 

British Government at that time when purchasing explosives was in short tons! Not long tons!
but was USING LONG ton when recording bomb loads to parliment
But not in it's, the RAF, that is, own documentation! It's Short tons, it was short tons and always will be written in short tons, unless you can climb into your time machine and go back and change it!
The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!

I am refferring to the original documents! oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument No, it is the wiki article that contradicts the RAF-BC, RAF and RAF's SBSU's printed documents!
The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
No its not, its someone who extracted the data and didnt realise that the tons refered to were NOT the same thing
No, it was not! Those are the terms used in all of the original documents for ALL of the services all the time in that specific time! Live with it!

for the last time it uses long tons in the bomb survey which if you actaully read it (assuming that you were not lying) you will clearly seeI did read it and it states "Short tons", live with it!
 
Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report!
 
 
Explosives were bought by the short ton and that is an irrevolcable fact!
only in your fantasy world, not everything is US centric and the use of US measurements is and was never universal
No, it was commertial requirements. E. I. Du Pont was at one time the largest manufacturer of explosives on the planet. Nobel surpassed them for some time and also sold in "Short tons", to be ecconomically competitive. Then durring WW-II Du Pont again became the worlds largest maker of explosives and propellants by a factor of 4.5 times, IIRC. Because of Government regs, I do not think they stayed the largest maker on the planet past the 60's. but they still sold in short tons. Even to england which stopped making most explosives some time after the war.
 

It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Not worth repeating or answering!   3/28/2013 10:44:44 PM

Not worth repeating or answering!
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       3/29/2013 11:05:16 AM
Liar. My numbers that you misuse are for the 8th Air Force alone. There was also a 15th Air Force flying against Germany.
 
Also the composite numbers do not include Fighter and medium bomber losses for those forces which must be included as part of the overall USAAF strategic campaign totals.




The British used IMPERIAL measurements  for military ordnance-for EVERYTHING until they went metric.



Not true! They, and the rest of Europe and the world used Short Tons for explosives because E. I. DuPont DuNamours, Dynamite Nobel and all others sold all explosives this way from the late 1700s or very early 1800s. It maximised their profits and it did not change in England and the UK until the Metric Conversion Act of, IIRC, 1985! The rest is not realivant because it relates to other stuff.

 
 
79,265 (52,000 dead) Americans from all causes lost in the European air war. OK, we agree!
 
8AF total loses:
KIA - 26,000 to 28,000 (I have no idea, why there is so big discrepancy) OK, Heavy Bomber losses! We agree again!
MIA - 28,000 (POWs in German captivity)
WIA - 18,000 (psychological casualties not included - nobody ever counted them)
Total: 72,000 to 74,000 (34% of those who experienced combat)

Source: "Eight Air Force:The American bomber crews in Britain", Donald L. Miller. Fine by me! I have no argument with these numbers!   
 
=========================================================
55,000 British dead lost and 8900 prisoner +a further 8000 wounded from Bomber Command   Just as I have stated! What do you know, we agree on it all! Thank you for posting this again so that they will hopefully believe you instead of argue with me over these numbers!
These  figures produced for the dozenth time, this time by me. Again, thank you!
 
Shooter needs to stop his lies. See above!
I have never lied about any of this and stated these same figures to proove my points for dozens of posts now! Thanks again for you stating them!
Now on to the details! As shown above, the RAF-BC lost 55,000 Killed, to 26-28,000 American Killed from Heavy Bombers as shown by the numbers above HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW!
So on to the question, why did the RAF-BC Heavies loose so many more crew than the USAAF Heavies in 8th AAF?

 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/29/2013 3:01:00 PM
The British used IMPERIAL measurements  for military ordnance-for EVERYTHING until they went metric.
     Not true! They, and the rest of Europe and the world used Short Tons for explosives because E. I. DuPont DuNamours, Dynamite Nobel and all others sold all explosives this way from the late 1700s or very early 1800s.
ONLY to the US from the late 1890 Sweden was metric and sold in metric tons before that they used the skeppspund, however all countries tend to BUY in their own measurements but you seem to think you know otherwise yet as usual provide no proof
 
It maximised their profits and it did not change in England and the UK until the Metric Conversion Act of, IIRC, 1985! The rest is not realivant because it relates to other stuff.    
 
 maximised their profits ? how the hell do you get this, another comment drawn from your arse
 
 
as for the rest of this I have stated my position and that is that, you may have another that is purely yours (as I have yet to find anyone who agrees with you)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/29/2013 3:07:08 PM
Then why does the survey state that the average bomb load of the Lancaster was approximately 10000lbs?      
I read it and did not see that it did. Can you please post a link to said passage, or better yet post a link and a copy of said passage which would be even better Otherwise please explane why the figures published by the RAF, RAF-BC and SBSU all over the internet and in many books more or less agree with me? But in no case ever state a weight over 8,000 pounds per sortie! EVER!
They don't and the internet doesn't agree with you in fact it a fact of life that everyone who has ever come across you thinks you lie though your teeth and the level of your research is on par with a Hollywood movie
 
But I have provided sources to the 1000lbs + but you have a selective memory and its pointless me reproducing sources for you to ignore
No, you have never posted a link to any source that supports your claim above! Never!   
yes I did, but what the hell it rich coming from you the master of posting things without support (even when you have posted support it has proved to be either the opposite of what you are claiming or is form something completely different
Not according to the US Bomb survey,
Yes, it IS the right numbers found in the American Strategic Bombing Survey!
So you are wrong, were wrong and always will be wrong about this!
Not according tothe OFFICIAL version not sure what vesion you are looking at, maybe one produced by Marvell comics?
What "Official Version"? Lets do this ourselves; (In nice round numbers!) 608, 000 tons divided by 156,000 sorties = 3.987436 tons of what ever type! Now that is by any measure not nearly enough "tons" to equal 10,000 pounds no matter what kind of "tons" they are
 
nope not biting I have said my piece on this and you repeating your flawed understand adds nothing so pointless to continue
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       3/29/2013 3:21:29 PM
including the UK and the RAF-BC during WW-II as printed in the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey! So it is 608,612 SHORT TONS, or 552,129.2 Metric tonnes!
But it doesnt does it, it uses the British measurement as you would expect in a Brtish document
     No, it does not! It specifically states "Short Tons"! Not long tons, metric tons, or tonnes! "Short Tons" is the direct quote from the original RAF Strategic Bombing Survey Unit document! So no, you are wrong, you were wrong and always will be wrong!!!!    
  So I am wrong? not according to the actual documents and so far you have not provided any counter, now comsidering you claim to have these documents wwe can conclude one of two things, either
1 - You don't have the documents
or
2 - you have the documents but they don't support you (ie they are in long tons)

British Government at that time when purchasing explosives was in short tons! Not long tons!
but was USING LONG ton when recording bomb loads to parliment
But not in it's, the RAF, that is, own documentation! It's Short tons, it was short tons and always will be written in short tons, unless you can climb into your time machine and go back and change it!
Must have done because its clearly in long tons
The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
oh diddum's did shooter not get his way and is resulting to childish comments

I am refferring to the original documents! oh and notice the long and short ton reference that actual makes your own source contradict your argument No, it is the wiki article that contradicts the RAF-BC, RAF and RAF's SBSU's printed documents!
ha ha ha ha, please stop your killing me I cant laugh so much something will break
The author of those facts is none other than the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit! Live with it!
No its not, its someone who extracted the data and didnt realise that the tons refered to were NOT the same thing
No, it was not! Those are the terms used in all of the original documents for ALL of the services all the time in that specific time! Live with it!
oh diddums' careful you will be throwing your toys out of the pram soon

for the last time it uses long tons in the bomb survey which if you actaully read it (assuming that you were not lying) you will clearly seeI did read it and it states "Short tons", live with it!
 then you need either better glasses or someone to translate it into what ever language you are reading it in
 
Well yes it is correct! I've seen the actual copy of the RAF's Strategic Bombing Survey Unit's report!
 not from what you are saying here
 
Explosives were bought by the short ton and that is an irrevolcable fact!
well it would be except that its NOT a fact and its certainly isn't irrevolcable what ever that means and as its not even true then I suppose what ever you were trying to say is pointless
only in your fantasy world, not everything is US centric and the use of US measurements is and was never universal
No, it was commertial requirements. E. I. Du Pont was at one time the largest manufacturer of explosives on the planet.
Yet they could sell in other counties measurements? why were they to stupid to calculate the conversion? did they turn away customers who wanted 1000 metric tons
Nobel surpassed them for some time and also sold in "Short tons", to be ecconomically competitive.
what a joke as if the measurement made any difference
 

It states that the RAF actually dropped fewer bombs that the Wiki Article! I do not care which figures you use, the RAF's from Wiki, or the SBS Units figures that are slightly smaller. Because no matter how you cut it, the story is the same!
yes I guess it is, we have what I am saying which seems to be the general view and we have what you are saying which is your view and yours alone
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics