Best piston engined fighter of 1945?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

[URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/'][B]Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary[/B][/URL] said:
backwater
noun
a part of a river where the water does not flow:

a place that does not change because it is not influenced by new ideas or events that happen in other places:

a place that does not seem to know much about the world and its ways:


[B] [/B] said:
backwater
noun
1 a : water backed up in its course by an obstruction, an opposing current, or the tide
b : a body of water (such as an inlet or tributary) that is out of the main current of a larger body
2 a : an isolated or backward place or condition
b : an unpopular or unimportant field (as of study or business)


Continued use of this word makes clear that, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you do consider the PTO insignificant, unimportant to following world events, and not worthy of study.
 
Huh, the B-29 development and the Manhattan Project, being unrelated however both prived to be a solid investment in the long run.

But again, the ratio of manpower committed versus casualties shows a higher percentage in the Pacific Theater than in continental Europe.

In other words, more men were sent to fight in the ETO/MTO than were sent to the PTO.
Of those numbers committed to the ETO/MTO, a lesser percentage were KIA/WIA than the number of men committed to the PTO.

There is also the issue of topography - the ETO/MTO was by and large, fought over a landmass. So casualties were inflicted over the course of aerial and land battles.

In the PTO, battles were fought over land, sea and air.

When a bomber is shot down, you lose a bomber and (roughly) 10 airmen.
When an aircraft carrier is sunk, you lose a carrier, several dozen (or more) aircraft and potentially up to 2,000 men.
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
 





Continued use of this word makes clear that, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you do consider the PTO insignificant, unimportant to following world events, and not worthy of study.
'Back burner' is another antonymic term - you'd perhaps prefer instead? (I think Curtis Le May just might've).
 
Well, in terms of effort/manpower/priority #1, defeating Hitler was always priority #1 (USAAF lost more airmen in 'strategic' air-raids,
than USMC did in all those 'island hopping' assaults) - so in those terms, the PTO was a 'backwater'.

NOT to take anything away from the tremendous effort/energy/sacrifice required for victory in the Pacific, & indeed, I'll add one more
factor, the ferocity of not only - the fanatical 'Bushido' inspired opposition from the forces of Nippon - but the (so-called) Pacific Ocean
itself, with its propensity towards vicious Typhoons - per: the classic movie 'The Cain Mutiny' - to contend with...

Whether you intend to or not, by using this inapt word you do millions who fought, suffered, and died a disservice. Here's what the word means:



backwater

noun

back·wa·ter ˈbak-ˌwȯ-tər
-ˌwä-

Synonyms of backwater


1
a
:
water backed up in its course by an obstruction, an opposing current, or the tide
b
:
a body of water (such as an inlet or tributary) that is out of the main current of a larger body



2
a
:
an isolated or backward place or condition
b
:
an unpopular or unimportant field (as of study or business)



PTO doesn't fit any of those denotations. Your argument is with Merriam-Webster. The fact that something is not #1 priority doesn't imply that it is unimportant, inactive, or isolated.
 
Last edited:
"...the B-29 development & the Manhattan Project being unrelated..."?

Hey G-G, Project Silverplate just called, they want me to hold their beer!
The B-29 was proposed to the USAAC (Army Air Corps) in early 1940 in response to the Army's December 1939 request for a "super long range bomber".

Three other companies responded as well: Lockheed (XB-30), Douglas (XB-31) and Consolidated (XB-32).

Boeing's XB-29 was selected with the XB-32 as a back up, and the first B-29 flew in summer 1942.

At this point in 1942, the Manhattan Project was still in the process of selecting various sites for developing material, research, testing and so on.

It was by 1943, that the Atomic program had an idea of what the bomb shape would be and what aircraft might be capable of carrying it. The Lancaster was briefly discussed as an option due to the size of the first bomb (Thin Man), but was ruled out. A preproduction B-29 was tested for the Atomic bomb tests in November 1943 under the code name "Silverplate".

By May 1944, the B-29 was accepted into USAAF (Army Air Force) service.

In August 1944, "Operation Silverplate" pulled 17 B-29s off the assembly line for Atomic Bombing modifications.

In December 1944, the 509th Composite Group was formed.

The rest is history.

So no, the B-29 and Atomic program were not the one and the same.
 
There is a huge difference between the Pacific Theater and the European/Mediterranean theaters.

The casualty ratio (percentage) was far higher in the Pacific than in Europe due to the ratio of manpower committed and the nature of combat over geography. And U.S. casualties for the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard were high for the manpower committed.

Calling it a backwater is weird, as the combat was as savage, if not more, than in Europe.

The Aluetians area may have been a "backwater", since it was not a strategic front.
Yes, I remember watching the film Iwo Jima and seeing the Marines rotate between vulnerable positions to relatively safer positions and thinking no way would I want to do that...
 
Or indeed, the totally revised P-51H.

It'd be a curious thing if reliable flight-test data were available to make a fair comparison - of all 4 Griffon powered late-war prototypes to fly.

(CAC-15, Fury I, M-B V, Spiteful).
The big advantage was the contra-rotating prop, eliminating torque issues, especially on takeoff.

Handling was praised, with control harmonisation said to be particularly good.

Another MB5 advantage was the accessibility designed into the airframe and the consequent ease of maintenance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back