First critical element of WW-II fighter plane effectivness?

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: First critical element of WW-II fighter plane effectivness?
45-Shooter 1/18/2013 9:22:46 PM

Given that the "typical" WW-II Single engine fighter could be spotted at 1-2 miles, depending on aspect, about half the time, I propose that the smaller the plane, the more effective it will be! Sort of a semi-stealth solution to the "Spotting" problem?

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 NEXT

45-Shooter 1/23/2013 11:19:08 PM

I no longer see the need to be kind. You have nothing to say on the subject of aircraft, that is of any worth.Come to think of it, you don't seem to have anything of worth to say in race-cars, ICE engines, or just about any subject that you comment on, Shooter.

B.

I would ask what is your experiance with "race-cars", "ICE engines", or any of the other topic we discuss here? Just currious!

Quote Reply

Belisarius1234 FAR more than yours. 1/23/2013 11:25:36 PM

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise 1/24/2013 3:47:31 AM

harse as the huricane was of the same vintage as the P36, the P40 was 4 years later Really?

god cant you even do a minimum of reasearch, the Hurricane entered serive in 38 the P40 in 41 so I was a year out 3 years not 4

by which time the Hurricane was pretty much regarded as obsolete, it aslo had a worse reputation for landing crashes than the spit suposedly weak legsWorse than the Spit? By who's account? What is your source? The Spit's legs were as far as I know, NOT WAEK! They WERE to narrow by ALL accounts and many people say either that it "Killed more of it's pilots than the Luftwaffe." OR that it "Destroyed more planes than the Luftwaffe"!

weak in the sense i was meaning was that it caused a lot of incidents (although not nearly as many as the 109). as for source read the reports from the Desert airforce and how many P40s they lost to the legs folding

The P40 was a 1938 fighter that arrived in 1941! and then was made in stupid numbers many late models were flown directly from the facory to the scrapyard.

the hurricane seems to have shot down quite a few 109s during the bob and could turn inside a 109e-Really? Can you please post a source for this outragous claim? Also Hurricanes shot down more Germans that Spits did, but I think that was a factor of the numbers involved?

Mike Spick, and as he is your favorite autor you should know that

The Russians who were given both the Hurricane and the P-40, used both. The Russians screamed for P-40s and P-39s, but rejected Hurricanes when Churchill offered additional planes. THAT was how bad the Hurricane was. The Russians preferred the better-made American JUNK.

B.

Actually the Russians accepted a lot of Huricanes and used them even when the RAF had stopped, and as pointed out the P40 was a later development (the P39 was ot regarded as a fighter but as a Ground attack which is one of the reasons they often kept the 37mm)

What Stalin wanted was Spits equiping many Gaurds units with them wen they were avaliable

Some good points, some less good points and some BS!

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise 1/24/2013 3:49:26 AM

B.

I would ask what is your experiance with "race-cars", "ICE engines", or any of the other topic we discuss here? Just currious!

From reading his posts and reading yours I would say that his was a damn sight more impressive than yours

Quote Reply

Reactive 1/24/2013 8:06:16 AM

Just in case any poor soul should find himself trying to pick his lonely way through the jungle of this thread.

May I suggest:

a) Not using the quote boxes (OBNY) it makes it virtually impossible to decipher new content from that you've quoted.

b) Not all using the same red colour. May I suggest that when replying directly underneath or in line with previous content B uses red 45 uses blue, and OBNW uses this rather attractive lilac.

That way it might be a bit clearer.

Quote Reply

Belisarius1234 1/24/2013 9:53:18 AM

The problems were. It WAS a failure (China campaign), until the right bombs, tactics and doctrine was employed. It's useful operational lifespan was six years. The plane ate up more dollars, energy, manpower, and production time than the MANHATTAN project.

Compared to the B-36 successor (another botched bomber program) the B-29 did not last as long operationally. It managed to accomplish the WW II mission for which it was designed, but just barely (my opinion of what the facts show.).

B-29 summary....

Let me point out a few critical things, he notes in the numbers. 380 missions, 500 aircraft lost. Not a bad loss rate you say?

Almost half of those losses were not enemy induced. Those were crashes into the sea from takeoffs, engine failures, or just "unknown".

B-29 losses....

And as you can see, what I said about the plane development , the operator/author also says.

Quote Reply

JFKY Belasarius 1/24/2013 11:18:21 AM

The problems were. It WAS a failure (China campaign), until the right bombs, tactics and doctrine was employed.

No wrong again...the China Campaign was doomed by distance, both for bombing and logistics. But no other US bomber would have been able to reach the Home Islands, from China. And the B-29 was the only bomber that could mount attacks in 1944. The US would not have been able to touch Japan until 1945, Summer, without the B-29. By the Summer of 1945 Japan was a burned out husk. The B-29 campaign was successful.

It's useful operational lifespan was six years.

Not true, the B-29/B-50 soldiered on into the 1950's as a bomber (Korea) and a tanker, until the advent of the KC-135. It was replaced, as a bomber, because of a greater need for payload (nuclear weapons), range, and speed (jet engines). This complaint is like saying the F-51 was failure, because it was replaced by the F-80 or F-84!

The plane ate up more dollars, energy, manpower, and production time than the MANHATTAN project.

No, simply, NO...the Manhattan Project consumed about 1% of the US GNP for that time frame, absolutely untrue that the B-29 used so many resources.

Is there an UN-botched bomber project, let's see B-17/24/29/36 all "botched"...as Inago Montoya says, "I doan tink that word means what you tink it does."

So it achieved what it was designed to do...that makes it a SUCCESS, dood....and if by "barely" you mean it destroyed every major urban conurbation in Japan, EXCEPT Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kyoto (spared for strategic reasons), then I guess you're right it barely managed to succeed.

Bottom-line: I'm afraid your definition of botched program is so skewed as to be meaningless, and your analysis of the B-29 so poor as to be laughable.

Quote Reply

Belisarius1234 JFKY 1/24/2013 1:46:14 PM

Go back and check what LeMay did to change how the B-29s were employed when the SAME EXACT failures occurred from their initial Marianas raids.

Quote Reply

JFKY But the PLANE wasn't a failure 1/24/2013 2:03:01 PM

...the plane succeeded, and for all it's developmental drawbacks it was the ONLY aircraft that could reach the Home Islands from Japan or Saipan...

Quote Reply

Schemer Shooter 1/24/2013 2:32:22 PM

My main point is that you focus one 1 element in your critical element lists which does not reflect on the real world.

As a side note spotting distance is not as important as response time. How much time does one have to respond the other aircraft. Therefore relative speed is just as important. You might see a ME-262 at a longer distance but if it has a much greater rate of closure your response time will be less.

Now Belisarius1234 gave us a few great posts explaining what was or was not available to the axis and allies.

This is your first benchmark. You can't deploy what you do not have.

For the Battle of Britain the Hurricane despite being out dated shot down more aircraft then the Spitfire.

Despite it's flaws it was good enough to have that big an impact and remained useable thoughout the war.

It became a carrier based aircraft, ground attack aircraft ect.

Now the ME-262 is the opposite, high performance and ahead of its time. Yet it had no impact at all.

I've read somewhere 1600 were built but only 200 became operational the others never had all the parts.

So which is more effective, the outdated plane thats available in sufficient numbers or the new one thats not?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT