# Greatest aviation myth this site “de-bunked”.



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2020)

I’m not really sure where this thread belongs. 
I have seen a few myths “busted” here. 
Range and capabilities of certain aircraft. 
The worst plane ever built ( so many too choose from) but actually performed yeoman service. 
Policy and strategy wrongly attributed to a leader ..and so on. 
I encourage thread drift. C’mon MythBusters, let the games begin!
Rob

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2020)

Not exclusively by members of this site, but some of them might've been:
- P-39 was used in ground support role by Soviets, including the role of tank busting
- P-40 was conceived as Army support fighter
- RR Peregrine was a bad engine
- Yak-3 played the role in 1943 air battles, including the ones above Kursk
- V-1710 was not supercharged
- Hawker Hurricane have had canvas-wrapped fuselage and, at 1st, wings, because the supply of light alloys in the UK was problematic
- Miles M.20 and 1-seat Defiant were actually great designs
- P-61 was the best night fighter
- Claims of German fighter pilots are to be taken as gospel, ditto for claims of Hs 129 tank-buster pilots
- Zeros were a frequent sight over CBI in late 1941-43
- Hellcat was a reliable 400 mph fighter
- XP-39 did 400 mph
- P-39 was a bad fighter

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 21, 2020)

We busted the myth that Greg is Greg. We now know for certain that Greg is not Greg. Indeed, Greg himself stated that he is not Greg.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
6 | Funny Funny:
7 | Winner Winner:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> - P-61 was the best night fighter



Did you just make that up?
Has that really been a myth?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

RAF Mk1 Mustangs escorted RAF bombers on a raid into Germany.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> RAF Mk1 Mustangs escorted RAF bombers on a raid into Germany.


Where di they escort them to?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Where di they escort them to?


They didn't. It is a misunderstanding based on historians trawling though communications. RAF Mk1 Mustangs made a raid in to Germany and RAF Bombers made a raid in the same region (not target) at a similar time, these were put together in a report from UK to USA then later dug up by someone who thought it was a single raid. A historian friend and colleague of Bill explained it a short time ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2020)

Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...

The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.

Reactions: Like Like:
9 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...
> 
> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


You should have posted it in German and then imagined it being called out on a 1940s A/C radio.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

There was that thing about Bf109s all being destroyed in landing accidents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2020)

The myth that I had always thought true was the P-51 was the only fighter capable of escorting the bomber streams deep into Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> We busted the myth that Greg is Greg. We now know for certain that Greg is not Greg. Indeed, Greg himself stated that he is not Greg.


Do you have corroborating documentation that Greg can PROVE that he is not Greg?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2020)

The Tuskegee airmen never lost a bomber under their escort.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 21, 2020)

The Me-262 was not produced because Hitler wanted a bomber.

The SBDs sank the IJN carriers at Midway because their escorting Wildcats dove on the Zeros and shot them down before they could stop the dive bombers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> There was that thing about Bf109s all being destroyed in landing accidents.


That’s a new one for me.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 21, 2020)

Here's a couple of PDFs about the TUSKEGEE AIRMEN

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 21, 2020)

This is the one I was looking for...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 21, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Do you have corroborating documentation that Greg can PROVE that he is not Greg?



It's in the archives along with the corroborating documentation that the XP-39 did not go 390 mph.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> It's in the archives along with the corroborating documentation that the XP-39 did not go 390 mph.


I’m sorry I doubted you.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil


Yep, that's pure "Caidinism" - the Luftwaffe pilots usually referred to them as "Lightnings" and the American pilots (my great uncle Jimmy included) were the ones who called the P-38 the "Fork-tailed Devil".

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 22, 2020)

British-produced Merlins were hand-crafted until the US auto industry showed the Brits how to set up a production line. Oh...and Packard-built Merlins were better than RR-built Merlins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> British-produced Merlins were hand-crafted until the US auto industry showed the Brits how to set up a production line. Oh...and Packard-built Merlins were better than RR-built Merlins.


 RR Merlins sound better though FACT.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> British-produced Merlins were hand-crafted until the US auto industry showed the Brits how to set up a production line. Oh...and Packard-built Merlins were better than RR-built Merlins.


That’s another new one for me.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 22, 2020)

The Flying Tigers were flying operations before the war started, and even provided information regarding A6M performance before Pearl Harbor

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 22, 2020)

Oh ya, a few more that pop up constantly on a certain social media page, and I have become weary of correcting...

-Spitfires were only capable of 369 mph, and thus completely incapable of intercepting V1's
(Googling "Spitfire top speed" will provide that completely arbitrary figure)

-All Japanese fighters were flimsy, and lacked armor protection whereas all American fighters were well armored and essentially flying tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2020)

...that the Allies' aircraft were universally inferior and just produced in such vast quantities that they won merely by attrition
...that USAAF day bombers were significantly more accurate and precise than RAF night bombers
...that Hitler cost Germany the war and they would have won had he just gave the generals their head

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 22, 2020)

I think the Buffalo's poor reputation has been debunked fully here, at least from the Finnish point of view.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2020)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The Flying Tigers were flying operations before the war started, and even provided information regarding A6M performance before Pearl Harbor


Ya know, I should have known that was a myth.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> ...that the Allies' aircraft were universally inferior and just produced in such vast quantities that they won merely by attrition
> ...that USAAF day bombers were significantly more accurate and precise than RAF night bombers
> ...that Hitler cost Germany the war and they would have won had he just gave the generals their head


I think these are “The Big Three”.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...
> 
> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


On a related note, was Whistling Death for the Corsair a “Caidinism” as well?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 22, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> British-produced Merlins were hand-crafted until the US auto industry showed the Brits how to set up a production line. Oh...and Packard-built Merlins were better than RR-built Merlins.


We can't make any conclusions on reliability after so many decades, but when Canada's Avro Lancaster flew in the UK it suffered a catastrophic engine failure. The RAF Memorial Flight loaned the Canadians a spare RR Merlin while the Brits rebuilt the Packard engine - that's the difference between a private museum and a well funded MoD. I wonder how often a Lancaster (or any aircraft) flew with a mix of RR and Packard engines.

Canadian Lancaster warplane — one of only two remaining — effectively stranded in U.K. after engine failure | National Post


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> On a related note, was Whistling Death for the Corsair a “Caidinism” as well?


Whistling Death was used by Americans/Allies.
The Japanese were not prone to glorifying anything of their enemies.
Same goes for the Beaufighter and it's nickname of "Whispering death".

Typically, if an enemy named something belonging to their adversary, it was un-flattering, like the name "Nacht Hexxen" the Germans gave to the Soviet Women who flew nigh harassment missions over German lines. Back then, calling a woman a witch was the equivellent of using the "C" word in today's world.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Whistling Death was used by Americans/Allies.
> The Japanese were not prone to glorifying anything of their enemies.
> Same goes for the Beaufighter and it's nickname of "Whispering death".
> 
> Typically, if an enemy named something belonging to their adversary, it was in-flattering, like the name "Nacht Hexxen" the Germans gave to the Soviet Women who flew nigh harassment missions over German lines. Back then, calling a woman a witch was the equivellent of using the "C" word in today's world.


Would be calling a Supermarine MKXXI Potato a Spitfire the same thing?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> We can't make any conclusions on reliability after so many decades, but when Canada's Avro Lancaster flew in the UK it suffered a catastrophic engine failure. The RAF Memorial Flight loaned the Canadians a spare RR Merlin while the Brits rebuilt the Packard engine - that's the difference between a private museum and a well funded MoD. I wonder how often a Lancaster (or any aircraft) flew with a mix of RR and Packard engines.
> 
> Canadian Lancaster warplane — one of only two remaining — effectively stranded in U.K. after engine failure | National Post


It did a shake down flight and flew over my mothers house as we set off to her brothers funeral, he was ex RAF Bomber command, a very, very strange experience.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 22, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> On a related note, was Whistling Death for the Corsair a “Caidinism” as well?


Quite likely. I would suspect enemy nicknames given to aircraft are most often short and at least somewhat insulting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 24, 2020)

Thanks guys, I learned a few things. I was kind of hoping for Amelia Earhart to show up standing next to crates of unpacked Hurricanes in Nepal or maybe FlyboyJ would admit to us the world really is flat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Thanks guys, I learned a few things. I was kind of hoping for Amelia Earhart to show up standing next to crates of unpacked Hurricanes in Nepal or maybe FlyboyJ would admit to us the world really is flat.


The Hurricanes are on top of the Fw 190s which conceal the gold and Picassos.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 24, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Thanks guys, I learned a few things. I was kind of hoping for Amelia Earhart to show up standing next to crates of unpacked Hurricanes in Nepal or maybe FlyboyJ would admit to us the world really is flat.


Well I'll just have to prove it! Oh, wait...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2020)

Looks flat to me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 24, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Looks flat to me.


Actually, the World is flattened round the poles an bulged round the centre so sea level is 200-300 feet higher round the Equator.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 25, 2020)

All 62 of the 48 Seafires carried by the British Pacific Fleet were destroyed in landing accidents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 25, 2020)

Hi

Myths are persistent mainly because people 'like them', the 'truth' is rather 'boring' in many cases. Aviation myths are still around from the First World War let alone the Second. For example the ever popular "8000 British pilots killed in training" out of "14,166 pilots who lost their lives in the war". The problem is of course is that the numbers of British and Commonwealth air service personnel that died is 9,350, that is all ranks, men and women, all causes of death, so 8000 killed in training is a bit problematic! We do have the names of the dead (see 'Airmen Died in the Great War 1914-1918' now on DVD-ROM so searchable), looking through these I have found around 1,600 killed in Training Units, that is all aircrew not just pilots. If we could add those killed when 'training on squadrons' we would still be under 2000 probably, out of a total of 2844 Killed Whilst Flying (accidents) with 3,592 KIA (not just air crew). However, even in 2016 we have Dr James S. Corum writing a chapter 'Air War over the Somme' in the book 'The Battle of the Somme' (ed. Matthias Strohn, Osprey) that states about 'British' training:

"This informal and haphazard approach to training by the RFC killed far more British pilots than the Germans - the biggest cause of death for British airmen in World War I was training accidents. A total of 8,000 British aircrew were killed while training in the UK - a record of casualties per training hours that exceeded that of the Germans, French and Americans by several times."

If you start your analysis with 'false figures' then the result is going to be incorrect. So how does the 'British' figure for training deaths compare with the German one,? According to Major G P Neumann in 'The German Air Force in the Great War' (1920), the figures were:

"Among those on home service alone, most of whom were engaged on training duty either as pupils or instructors, we lost 1399 pilots and 401 observers between August 1914 and October 1918. These figures require no comment."

In number terms there is not much difference in 'British' and German training deaths although the 'British' trained more air crew than the Germans.

Another myth is that the Junker J.I was an armoured ground attack aeroplane, when it was actually an Infantry aeroplane undertaking what the British called 'Contact Patrols', these were to locate the front line of your own troops. For this it had wireless, flares etc. and armed with one machine gun in the observer's cockpit. It was not manoeuvrable enough for ground attack missions and was also under powered. German ground attack aircraft in the 'Schlachtflieger' units were generally either un-armoured or had much lighter armour protection as they needed to keep up their performance to undertake ground attack missions and carry the weapons for that purpose. 

I suspect any 'Myths busted' on this forum will still appear elsewhere and be believed even by 'History professors' let alone the general public, that is the nature of a 'myth'.

Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 25, 2020)

MikeMeech said:


> Hi
> 
> I suspect any 'Myths busted' on this forum will still appear elsewhere and be believed even by 'History professors' let alone the general public, that is the nature of a 'myth'.
> 
> Mike



I think thats a particualry serious problem in academia (as it is these days anway), for a start nobody has time to do proper research as they`re all busy trying to get grants or publishing their quota of papers so they dont get sacked, so they just copy-paste stuff from the other "big names" each all hoping the others did their job properly (when none of them did).

Also history profs cant really say anything too contentious as they`ll now be deplatformed from twitter.

(disclaimer, I do rate Prof David Edgerton at Kings College London, he writes pretty good stuff like "Britains War Machine")

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Winner Winner:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> I think thats a particualry serious problem in academia (as it is these days anway), for a start nobody has time to do proper research as they`re all busy trying to get grants or publishing their quota of papers so they dont get sacked, so they just copy-paste stuff from the other "big names" each all hoping the others did their job properly (when none of them did).
> 
> Also history profs cant really say anything too contentious as they`ll now be deplatformed from twitter.


My folks worked in academia. That was their experience as related over the dinner table. Sorry, no documentation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Jun 25, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> British-produced Merlins were hand-crafted until the US auto industry showed the Brits how to set up a production line. Oh...and Packard-built Merlins were better than RR-built Merlins.



My brother once chatted to a fellow who claimed to have worked on both who said that Packard parts were more interchangable due to better machining tolerance.

That kinda fits with the Packard line being set up with the benefit of hindsight, but doesn't equal significantly better.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 25, 2020)

gruad said:


> My brother once chatted to a fellow who claimed to have worked on both who said that Packard parts were more interchangable due to better machining tolerance.
> 
> That kinda fits with the Packard line being set up with the benefit of hindsight, but doesn't equal significantly better.



Nope no mein nada no. All RR Merlin V1650 and Packard Merlin engines were built to the same very exact tolerance. Rolls Royce despite the myth did not build Merlins by carving it out of a block of aluminium.

This myth has been busted so many times I think it's time it should be burnt at the stake.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nuyttens (Jun 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, that's pure "Caidinism" - the Luftwaffe pilots usually referred to them as "Lightnings" and the American pilots (my great uncle Jimmy included) were the ones who called the P-38 the "".


The Germans called Lightnings Gabelschwanzteufel after they met them in Tunis .The translation would be Fork-tailed Devil.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 25, 2020)

Nuyttens said:


> The Germans called Lightnings Gabelschwanzteufel after they met them in Tunis .The translation would be Fork-tailed Devil.



No, they did not. The myth was started by am author named Martin Caiden. The Germans never ever called it. Not in Tunisia, not in Germany, not anywhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 25, 2020)

Maybe we should re-title this thread "Greatest aviation myth this site thought it had "de-bunked""?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ssnider (Jun 25, 2020)

Nuyttens said:


> The Germans called Lightnings Gabelschwanzteufel after they met them in Tunis .The translation would be Fork-tailed Devil.



Teufel is not linearly translatable to devil and is often used as a cuss word so Gabelschwanzteufel could also be translated to Fork-tailed F--ker


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2020)

Nuyttens said:


> The Germans called Lightnings Gabelschwanzteufel after they met them in Tunis .The translation would be Fork-tailed Devil.


The Germans referred to the various Allied types by their known names (B-17: Boeing, Spitfire: Spitfire, P-38: Lightning, Hurricane: Hurricane, P-51: Mustang, etc.).
Tthe American pilots were calling the P-38 a "Fork-tailed Devil" starting around '41/'42 when it was starting to go into service.

The P-38 didn't show up in the Tunis area until '43...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 25, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Teufel is not linearly translatable to devil and is often used as a cuss word so Gabelschwanzteufel could also be translated to Fork-tailed F--ker





GrauGeist said:


> The Germans referred to the various Allied types by their known names (B-17: Boeing, Spitfire: Spitfire, P-38: Lightning, Hurricane: Hurricane, P-51: Mustang, etc.).
> The American pilots were calling the P-38 a "Fork-tailed Devil" starting around '41/'42 when it was starting to go into service.



Perhaps P-38 drivers who were experiencing hypothermia or engine failures at high altitude behind enemy lines in Europe, or got locked up in compressability during dives called the plane "Fork-tailed F--ker."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Germans referred to the various Allied types by their known names (B-17: Boeing, Spitfire: Spitfire, P-38: Lightning, Hurricane: Hurricane, P-51: Mustang, etc.).
> Tthe American pilots were calling the P-38 a "Fork-tailed Devil" starting around '41/'42 when it was starting to go into service.
> 
> The P-38 didn't show up in the Tunis area until '43...


...and now we know. Myth Busted!


----------



## wuzak (Jun 25, 2020)

gruad said:


> My brother once chatted to a fellow who claimed to have worked on both who said that Packard parts were more interchangable due to better machining tolerance.



That would explain why Rolls-Royce engines were broken down to provide spares for P-40Fs in North Africa.


----------



## yosimitesam (Jun 25, 2020)

The most egregious (IMO) are on the WWII "documentaries" on TV where the narator claims this or that subject of the show "undoubtedly shortened the war by 'X' amount of time." To paraphrase one wag: "If you add up all these 'shortened the war by ...' assertions then the war would have ended 20 years before it started."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 25, 2020)

yosimitesam said:


> To paraphrase one wag: "If you add up all these 'shortened the war by ...' assertions then the war would have ended 20 years before it started."



Despite being funny, it's quite plauseable. The end of the Great War and Germany's treatment subsequently had an enormous impact on those seeking to go to war in Europe twenty years later...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> We busted the myth that Greg is Greg. We now know for certain that Greg is not Greg. Indeed, Greg himself stated that he is not Greg.



Put an umlaut somewhere in Greg's name and he becomes Uber-Greg, far superior than Allied Gregs and a Mosquito killer...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yosimitesam (Jun 26, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Despite being funny, it's quite plauseable. The end of the Great War and Germany's treatment subsequently had an enormous impact on those seeking to go to war in Europe twenty years later...


True. The demeaning (and naive) Versailles Treaty coupled with the economic ravages of the Great Depression were fertile ground for a generation of Germans to turn to radical politics for an answer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2020)

Don't forget that despite other Central Powers being involved in the great war, it was Germany who was the "last man standing" when the armistice was signed and the war reparations imposed on Germany were staggering.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (Jun 26, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Nope no mein nada no. All RR Merlin V1650 and Packard Merlin engines were built to the same very exact tolerance. Rolls Royce despite the myth did not build Merlins by carving it out of a block of aluminium.
> 
> This myth has been busted so many times I think it's time it should be burnt at the stake.



As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.

In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.

In the US, with more expensive labour, larger production runs and presumably a more highly developed capital raising system they'd spend more on production machinery that produced tighter tolerances in the first place, without requiring the manual sorting and matching.

Both were valid for their particular circumstances.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2020)

ktank said:


> As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
> 
> In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
> 
> ...



Please explain how your concept of "shorter production runs" tallies with the plain fact that British Merlin production outstripped American production by a considerable margin. 

That British production included setting up brand new factories in areas where there wasn't a skilled workforce pool. That's not something you can do using the approach of hand-fettling each part.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2020)

ktank said:


> As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
> 
> In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
> 
> ...


You just continued the myth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Don't forget that despite other Central Powers being involved in the great war, it was Germany who was the "last man standing" when the armistice was signed and the war reparations imposed on Germany were staggering.



...and likely less than those imposed on France after the Napoleonic Wars, yet France didn’t get taken over by anything like the nazis. That Versailles was a particularly vicious or financially onerous is another myth that needs busting. Compare it to the Treaties of Vienna and Frankfurt or Brest-Litovsk (which was nullified by Germany’s ultimate defeat in 1918).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 26, 2020)

ktank said:


> As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
> 
> In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
> 
> ...



Not sure that the UK had lower wages.

And Rolls-Royce were ramping up production at their factories before Packard even started work on the Merlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

Myth Busted!


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Not sure that the UK had lower wages.
> 
> And Rolls-Royce were ramping up production at their factories before Packard even started work on the Merlin.


In a war time economy wages are not so important or telling. What the UK was short of was people, they had largely run out of places that a factory of 10-15,000 people could be put. For the Glasgow factory they had to build accommodation and move people to it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 26, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> ...and likely less than those imposed on France after the Napoleonic Wars, yet France didn’t get taken over by anything like the nazis. That Versailles was a particularly vicious or financially onerous is another myth that needs busting. Compare it to the Treaties of Vienna and Frankfurt or Brest-Litovsk (which was nullified by Germany’s ultimate defeat in 1918).


The problem that made it rather unlikely that an acceptable treaty could be negotiated or imposed after WW1 was that everyone on both sides had been exposed to four years of propaganda from controlled newspapers. Thus everyone on both sides knew that their cause was just and any attempt to impose a war guilt clause was likely to generated a burning sense of injustice. It was easier after WW2 because most people blame Hitler for that whilst arguments on who started WW1 continue fiercely to this day in academia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2020)

cherry blossom said:


> The problem that made it rather unlikely that an acceptable treaty could be negotiated or imposed after WW1 was that everyone on both sides had been exposed to four years of propaganda from controlled newspapers. Thus everyone on both sides knew that their cause was just and any attempt to impose a war guilt clause was likely to generated a burning sense of injustice. It was easier after WW2 because most people blame Hitler for that whilst arguments on who started WW1 continue fiercely to this day in academia.



They do?

At least part of the reason that Germany went into a hyper-nationalist frenzy after losing WW1 was because the kaiser skittered away and the military leaders immediately started a blame game, where everybody except them was at fault. The "stab in the back" has as much currency and staying power as "the lost cause" and an equal amount of historical basis, _i.e._, none. Both were made up after the fact for political gain, nazism and right-wing revanchism in one case and white supremacy in the other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2020)

Post WWI Germany, and to a certain extent, the rest of Europe, was put into turmoil as society was moving away from a traditional class system that had existed for centuries. Italy, Spain, Greece are just a few examples of radical change in the post WWI years.
In the late 1920's and early 1930's, Germany had roughly 150 political parties, a broken government and astronomical inflation just to name a few points in the perfect storm. The National Socialists were able to gain traction with the public, because they offered stability in a tumultuous environment and used jews and communists as their scapegoat. The Social Democrats and their paramilitary arm, Antifaschiste Aktion (funded by Moscow) played right into the National Socialist's dialogue, too.

And in regards to my earlier comment about staggering debt, I'm pretty sure that 132 billion Geldmarks in 1921 was not pocket change. Germany fell behind on their payments and France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 creating a considerable amount of tension.

Had the Allies helped stabilize Germany and other ruined nations after WWI, then I'm sure the social and political landscape would have been much different by the late 1930's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 26, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Social Democrats and their paramilitary arm, *Antifa*schiste Aktion (funded by Moscow) played right into the National Socialist's dialogue, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2020)

Yes, Antifa is short for Antifaschistische Aktion.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Post WWI Germany, and to a certain extent, the rest of Europe, was put into turmoil as society was moving away from a traditional class system that had existed for centuries. Italy, Spain, Greece are just a few examples of radical change in the post WWI years.
> In the late 1920's and early 1930's, Germany had roughly 150 political parties, a broken government and astronomical inflation just to name a few points in the perfect storm. The National Socialists were able to gain traction with the public, because they offered stability in a tumultuous environment and used jews and communists as their scapegoat. The Social Democrats and their paramilitary arm, Antifaschiste Aktion (funded by Moscow) played right into the National Socialist's dialogue, too.
> 
> And in regards to my earlier comment about staggering debt, I'm pretty sure that 132 billion Geldmarks in 1921 was not pocket change. Germany fell behind on their payments and France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 creating a considerable amount of tension.
> ...



Germany also had unreliable security services -- the police would not follow orders from the legitimate government -- a military leadership, _e.g._, Hindenburg and Ludendorff who were actively lying about the reason Germany surrendered -- that it had been beaten -- and a government that was _deliberately_ inflating the currency. That Versailles was particularly punitive is a myth -- its reparations were not more severe than those of the Treaty of Vienna and many of its provisions were less harsh than the Treaty of Frankfurt. Germany's internal problems were not those of the Entente; they were the result of an unreliable police and military, a massive portion of elites who were actively against the concept of anything resembling representative democracy, and the violent _Freikorps. _

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2020)

You CANNOT place all of Germany's tribulation on the National Socialists. The years leading up to 1934 were pure chaos. You had 150+ political parties vying for power - those included Fascists, Nationalists, Communists, right, left, ultra-right, ultra-left and everything in between.
The National Socialists were the ones that prevailed.

And how could Germany deliberately inflate it's currency? It was broke after waging total war, it's industry was in a shambles, it's GDP was almost non-existant amd there was no cohesive plan to get it's infrastructure restored because of a lack of a decisive government.

I know it's easy to just say it's all the Nazi's fault, but realistically, alot happened between 1918 and 1933 that set the stage for their rise to power.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 27, 2020)

ktank said:


> As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
> 
> In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2020)

rochie said:


>


You know, Karl, you can thin slice all that spam, pan fry it, dice it up and fold it into a cheese omelette, add seasoning to taste.

It'll be a hit with the patrons and you'll be a hero!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 27, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> You know, Karl, you can thin slice all that spam, pan fry it, dice it up and fold it into a cheese omelette, add seasoning to taste.
> 
> It'll be a hit with the patrons and you'll be a hero!


I'll put it on the menu when we re open .

On a more serious note, i am just glad America let us dumb British build your magnificent Packard merlin, even if Rolls Royce didnt build it very well or very quickly !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2020)

rochie said:


> I'll put it on the menu when we re open .
> 
> On a more serious note, i am just glad America let us dumb British build your magnificent Packard merlin, even if Rolls Royce didnt build it very well or very quickly !


We were glad to help! I should also mention that you Brits are most fortunate that it was Packard that saved you - had it been Henry Ford, he'd have taken over everything and claimed as his own

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2020)

rochie said:


> I'll put it on the menu when we re open


Seriously, my Mom used to dice pan-fried spam and folded it into omelettes and other dishes, like Macaroni and Cheese and fettuchini carabonara.
She'd also add just a dash of Lowrey's seasoned salt to the melted cheddar cheese in the omlette when she was adding the diced spam.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jun 27, 2020)

And, of course, there's Spam fritters ..................... once one of the staples in the canteens of UK Social Security main sites.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 27, 2020)

Airframes said:


> And, of course, there's Spam fritters ..................... once one of the staples in the canteens of UK Social Security main sites.


Spam fritters, Mmmmmmmmm !

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 27, 2020)

There is a respectable origin of the idea that RR's tolerances were looser than ideal for mass production in Hooker's autobiography Not Much of an Engineer.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 27, 2020)

cherry blossom said:


> There is a respectable origin of the idea that RR's tolerances were looser than ideal for mass production in Hooker's autobiography Not Much of an Engineer.



I don't doubt Hooker was a superb mathematician and engineer but he didn't have anything to do with the production side of things in 1940, he was working on superchargers. I don't think a 23 year old would have been anywhere near a senior management discussion.

It's a good story but I wouldn't be surprised if he heard it 2nd or 3rd hand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 27, 2020)

rochie said:


> Spam fritters, Mmmmmmmmm !


The only thing better than spam fritters is Czech salad. It's made with tomatoes, peppers, hard boiled eggs, cheese and spam, all chopped up into small cubes then mixed with half a jar of mayo. Lush. Eat with French stick. Almost as good as corned beef hash.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

cherry blossom said:


> There is a respectable origin of the idea that RR's tolerances were looser than ideal for mass production in Hooker's autobiography Not Much of an Engineer.


It was said by Lovesey to someone from Ford, in the very early days of production expansion. Lovesey wasn't a production engineer and up to then his main involvement in engines were the racing engines for the Schneider Trophy. He was quite probably just being polite.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 27, 2020)

cherry blossom said:


> There is a respectable origin of the idea that RR's tolerances were looser than ideal for mass production in Hooker's autobiography Not Much of an Engineer.



There is also credible production specification data from Rolls Royce archives, to include production specifications and design drawings, which show that tolerances were well defined and were anything but loose.

Again, I would ask people to think about the logic of the idea. The Merlin had been in production in the UK since 1936. The first Packard-built engine ran in August 1941. Britain produced 168,000 Merlins across 4 different sites. Licence production in the US was about 55,000. I'd really like to know how the Brits managed to produce so many engines, especially those prior to August 1941 (bearing in mind every Spitfire and Hurricane had a Merlin) if tolerances were "looser than ideal for mass production." 

The evidence all points to a large degree of interchangeability between RR and Packard Merlins, to include RR-designed modifications being implemented in the Packard production line first. You simply can't do that if tolerances are so different. The only other scenario is that UK tolerances were looser in the period 1936-1941 but were tightened up based on Packard recommendations. There is ZERO evidence that anything like that happened, plus it would require all 4 UK-based factories to alter their production methods to align with the Packard tolerances. Again, those 4 UK factories more than twice the number of Merlins than did the US factories. 

Sorry, but the whole idea is laughable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry, but the whole idea is laughable.


I think it is a myth that will never be busted, despite all the evidence so many people like it, it supports all their ideas and preconceptions.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 27, 2020)

Quoted from wiki

_At first, the factory had difficulty in attracting suitable labour, and large numbers of women, youths and untrained men had to be taken on._

Doesn't sound like craftsman style production. Roughly half the new wartime workers were women who would have had no opportunity to train in a trade prewar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Jun 27, 2020)

I am exposing my deep ignorance but might the issue have been that RR used first-angle projection and Ford and later Packard used third-angle projection. Is it possible that Hooker misreported the issue whilst correctly reporting that Ford had to redraw everything?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2020)

cherry blossom said:


> I am exposing my deep ignorance but might the issue have been that RR used first-angle projection and Ford and later Packard used third-angle projection. Is it possible that Hooker misreported the issue whilst correctly reporting that Ford had to redraw everything?



Ford UK likely used the UK standard, which was first angle.

Packard definitely had to redraw to US standard 3rd angle.

If the tolerances had to be tightened, it would have been at the behest of Ford UK, and happened before Packard got the contract to build the Merlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Quoted from wiki
> 
> _At first, the factory had difficulty in attracting suitable labour, and large numbers of women, youths and untrained men had to be taken on._
> 
> Doesn't sound like craftsman style production. Roughly half the new wartime workers were women who would have had no opportunity to train in a trade prewar.


There were "disputes" in the shadow factories because (for example) Capstan lathe operators were paid less. But the capstan lathe operators in the main RR factory could machine anything, the ones in the shadow factories made one item on one machine. While the main demand was for the two stage Merlin, RR were also making all sorts of other Merlins (like the ones for the Hornet) Griffons and in the early part of the war Peregrins and Vultures.


----------



## BC1 (Jun 27, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, that's pure "Caidinism" - the Luftwaffe pilots usually referred to them as "Lightnings" and the American pilots (my great uncle Jimmy included) were the ones who called the P-38 the "Fork-tailed Devil".



Luftwaffe ace Heinz Knocke describing his first encounter with P-38s said "It flies like the very devil himself" - close


----------



## ssnider (Jun 27, 2020)

According to this, RR did not supply tolerances and Packard had to work them out on their own.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

ssnider said:


> According to this, RR did not supply tolerances and Packard had to work them out on their own.


This myth gets even better, did Packard decide the direction of rotation too? Surely Rolls Royce were a bit to dim to have sorted the bore and stroke on their own?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

BC1 said:


> Luftwaffe ace Heinz Knocke describing his first encounter with P-38s said "It flies like the very devil himself" - close


Could this be the birth of that myth?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

RE: post #85. Rolls Royce has a certain reputation among ALL my friends. We would all agree with buffnut453. The idea that Rolls Royce doesn’t know how to build engines is ridiculous. We would have thought the reverse would have been the myth.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 27, 2020)

ssnider said:


> According to this, RR did not supply tolerances and Packard had to work them out on their own.



There tends to be a great deal of information in corporate drawing standards that doesn’t get listed on drawings. Maybe somebody didn’t connect these to the drawings.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 27, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Could this be the birth of that myth?


Only if Knocke encountered the P-38 in '41 and used that description while BS'ing with American pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

Don’t bother me with facts.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> There tends to be a great deal of information in corporate drawing standards that doesn’t get listed on drawings. Maybe somebody didn’t connect these to the drawings.


There has been all sorts of things posted including actual drawings and tolerances by Snowygrouch from archives. People are happy to believe that a company like Packard undertook license production of an engine and made up their own tolerances, so I fear the myth will never be de bunked.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Could this be the birth of that myth?



Doubt it. The myth was started somewhere between Caiden and the Stars & Stripes Newspaper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2020)

From the manual for P-38, dated 1st August 1945:

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 27, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> From the manual for P-38, dated 1st August 1945:
> 
> View attachment 586380



Myths have amazing power. Somebody reads a story, tells somebody, and it gets sourced to somebody who had guarded PoWs, and then to the Germans. Maybe even a prisoner, who read about it in Stars and Stripes used the story to cadge a few more cigarettes from a guard.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

ssnider said:


> According to this, RR did not supply tolerances and Packard had to work them out on their own.


That would be a great read if it wasn't written with such a silly partisan point of view. It openly contradicts itself trying to present Packard as a business separate from government and RR as a puppet of the British government.


----------



## ssnider (Jun 27, 2020)

Rolls-Royce Vs. Packard: Who Built a Better Merlin? 

More fuel sor the fire


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Rolls-Royce Vs. Packard: Who Built a Better Merlin?
> 
> More fuel sor the fire


You are not adding anything to the discussion just perpetuating the myth the article is for the amusement of car owning petrol heads and has little to do with reality.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 27, 2020)

ssnider said:


> Rolls-Royce Vs. Packard: Who Built a Better Merlin?
> 
> More fuel sor the myth



Fixed that for you.

Why is it so important for people from the USA that this myth is true. Does the fact that Packard license built a British engine (quite brilliantly I must add) upset people. Is the US phyche so fragile that at all costs the USA must be seen to be the best at everything. 

The USA did many amazing things during WWII even when neutral they helped keep the flame of democracy burning. So why try and claim something that is demonstrably not true especially when five minutes online research will prove the falsehood.

You could try and blame Hollywood I suppose. The pile of steaming horse shit masquerading as a film U571 still makes my teeth grind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> Why is it so important for people from the USA that this myth is true. Does the fact that Packard license built a British engine (quite brilliantly I must add) upset people. Is the US phyche so fragile that at all costs the USA must be seen to be the best at everything.
> 
> ...


Since the whole thing is that Packard built Packards it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the only people to build Merlins built the best ones.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2020)

For anybody who has read Hookers autobiography the story about the Men from Ford and them wanting tighter tolerances is told as as Hooker getting a bit of a comeuppance. 
The only reason he was involved in the conversation was that he shared an office with Lovesey and just happened to be there when the chief engineer from Ford wanted to talk to Lovesey.
He wasn't in charge of anything or responsible for anything to do with Ford preparing to make Merlin engines. He tells of his comment as himself being full of pride in working for Rolls Royce and getting a lesson in actual manufacturing. 

This is the end of the story from page 59. after Ford undertook took to redo all the drawings.

"It took a year or so, but was an enormous success, because once the great Ford factory at Manchester started production, Merlins came out like shelling peas at a rate of 400 per week. And very good engines they were too, yet never have I seen mention of this massive contribution which the British Ford company made to the build-up of our air forces. "

The Autobiography was first published in 1984.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> For anybody who has read Hookers autobiography the story about the Men from Ford and them wanting tighter tolerances is told as as Hooker getting a bit of a comeuppance.
> The only reason he was involved in the conversation was that he shared an office with Lovesey and just happened to be there when the chief engineer from Ford wanted to talk to Lovesey.
> He wasn't in charge of anything or responsible for anything to do with Ford preparing to make Merlin engines. He tells of his comment as himself being full of pride in working for Rolls Royce and getting a lesson in actual manufacturing.
> 
> ...


When did the conversation take place? So far all I have known is that it was someone from Ford, but RR were also in discussions with Ford in France for license production and Ford in USA too.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

RE post #106. I disagree with you FM, I have posted previously most folks I know hold Rolls Royce in VERY high regard. 
There are people who won’t believe anything not built here could be better. I had that attitude myself a few years ago. Those guys will post on various sites and “prove” they’re right. They’re really a minority. Problem is, there will be a higher percentage of people posting who are nutters IMO. They’re as embarrassing to me as they are annoying to you. 
Yes, U571 was pure crap. The critics here panned it. It was mentioned that “Cousins” really captured the enigma device. Hey, they were trying to sell popcorn not knowledge. Most people didn’t care. It was just escapist fantasy. 
The P-80 can’t take the 262. Bummer. I moved on.... and if the name plate says Spitfire it’s a Spitfire!!!!


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jun 27, 2020)

rochie said:


>


OK, now: MODS! ADMINS! Rochie's spamming the forum. Deal with it please.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 27, 2020)

How are you going to get rid of myths like Rolls vs Packard when you’ve got people like Giorgio Tsoukalos pushing Nazi Time Travellers?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jun 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> How are you going to get rid of myths like Rolls vs Packard when you’ve got people like Giorgio Tsoukalos pushing Nazi Time Travellers?
> 
> View attachment 586389


We need an emote giving a van gough scream...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Fixed that for you.
> 
> Why is it so important for people from the USA that this myth is true. Does the fact that Packard license built a British engine (quite brilliantly I must add) upset people. Is the US phyche so fragile that at all costs the USA must be seen to be the best at everything.
> 
> ...



I think you answered your question in your own post. It’s a combination of psych, ego, hollywood and overcompensation for other areas. There is part of the population not thinking everything USA is the greatest or the “best of the best” is un-American, un-patriotic and you should get out of the country. 

This obviously does not apply to true historical scholars, or hobbiest people who truly research the subject, most people on this site. I think for the most part, these idiots that you refer to are a minority. Minorities are always the loudest.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 27, 2020)

The application of the Balkenkreuz increases the performance of any craft on the air, land or sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> View attachment 586390
> 
> The application of the Balkenkreuz increases the performance of any craft on the air, land or sea.


At first I thought that was an eye test.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## NevadaK (Jun 27, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> We need an emote giving a van gough scream...


Now, you all know I’m just joking...right?


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 27, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Now, you all know I’m just joking...right?



Too late, you can't take it back.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> From the manual for P-38, dated 1st August 1945:
> 
> View attachment 586380



Propaganda

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 27, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think you answered your question in your own post. It’s a combination of psych, ego, hollywood and overcompensation for other areas. There is part of the population not thinking everything USA is the greatest or the “best of the best” is un-American, un-patriotic and you should get out of the country.



Yet a great many Americans equate a "Bristish accent" with high IQ and competence.
Why Do British Accents Sound Intelligent to Americans?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

The British accent is also great for delivering jokes. 
Please sir, may we have more Black Adder?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Propaganda



Of course. But originating from someone else, not Martin Caidin.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 28, 2020)

Caidin was notorious for taking things out of context as well as outright fabricating "information" to sensationalized his articles and publications.
So in the case of the P-38, he took a bit of propaganda and sensationalized it to his benefit and we've been stuck with that Caidinism ever since...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jun 28, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> View attachment 586390
> 
> The application of the Balkenkreuz increases the performance of any craft on the air, land or sea.


Bingo


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Yet a great many Americans equate a "Bristish accent" with high IQ and competence.
> Why Do British Accents Sound Intelligent to Americans?


I thought that British people arriving in USA with a "home counties" accent were arrested for being master criminals or offered a part as a master criminal in the next Hollywood movie.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I thought that British people arriving in USA with a "home counties" accent were arrested for being master criminals or offered a part as a master criminal in the next Hollywood movie.


Yes, us Brits are a race of master criminals. Luckily, only the Iranians have recognised this.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 28, 2020)

No, really MORE BLACK ADDER, please.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 28, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> No, really MORE BLACK ADDER, please.



You need a cunning plan

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Of course. But originating from someone else, not Martin Caidin.



True, but he took the propaganda and really ran with it. I'm sure you read his book about the P-38.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2020)

I was scrolling through the threads of time ( circa 2009) and came upon some posts regarding the B-17 vs B-24 (B17 vs B24 vs Lanc). 
Jhor9 and Erich (the old sage) had some posts about LW interceptors preferring to attack B-24’s over B-17’s. Could that be true or is that a myth too?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I was scrolling through the threads of time ( circa 2009) and came upon some posts regarding the B-17 vs B-24 (B17 vs B24 vs Lanc).
> Jhor9 and Erich (the old sage) had some posts about LW interceptors preferring to attack B-24’s over B-17’s. Could that be true or is that a myth too?


Erich is well learned in Luftwaffe techniques through both his research, interviewing countless Luftwaffe pilots and personal connections.
Add to this, the fact that the B-24 had ten .50 MGs as defensive armament where the B-17 was better defended by thirteen .50 MGs and a better field of fire - the B-24's dual horizontal stabilizers were a large "blind spot".
Not a myth at all.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 1, 2020)

B24s tended to fly a bit lower than the Fortress so perhaps that explains the preference.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2020)

I framed my question incorrectly. Did LW pilots divert(?) from attacking B-17’s to B-24’s if formations of both were in the same vicinity?


----------



## Greyman (Jul 1, 2020)

I've read anecdotes from German pilots saying that B-24s were more susceptible to gunfire than B-17s.

If I had to take a wild guess -- since the B-24 was harder to fly in formation, their combat boxes might not have been as tight -- leading to Luftwaffe fighters attacking them instead.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 1, 2020)

Thanks for that.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 1, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> B24s tended to fly a bit lower than the Fortress so perhaps that explains the preference.



Why was that?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 1, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Why was that?



It may have been because the B-24 had a higher wing loading.

Interestingly, the B-24 seemed to have a _lower_ loss rate than the B-17 in the hands of the Eighth Air Force; see The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress vs. the Consolidated B-24 Liberator - Warfare History Network

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 2, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> It may have been because the B-24 had a higher wing loading.
> 
> Interestingly, the B-24 seemed to have a _lower_ loss rate than the B-17 in the hands of the Eighth Air Force; see The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress vs. the Consolidated B-24 Liberator - Warfare History Network


Great link! That was not what I was expecting. I’m still a B-17 fan but point we’ll taken. It also backs up the views of some of those old posts. Thanks.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Great link! That was not what I was expecting. I’m still a B-17 fan but point we’ll taken. It also backs up the views of some of those old posts. Thanks.


The Halifax and Lancaster here a similar quirk in statistics. You were more likely to survive being shot down in a Halifax, you were less likely to be shot down in a Lancaster but for Harris you needed more Halifaxes than Lancasters to drop the same amount of bombs and he didn't know survival rates until after the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2020)

Dare I say the idea that RAF didn't use 100 octane during the BOB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 2, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Why was that?



I have heard two reasons. 1 the B24 had a higher wing loading. 2 the B24 was less manoeuvrable at altitude possibly linked to No1.

Apart from that I got nothing as the bombing campaign isn't really something that interests me. Now paint the B24 or B17 white and load them with Depth charges and ASV radar and I'm interested.


----------



## jayastout (Jul 2, 2020)

Anecdotal, but one of the B-24 fellas I interviewed said that he made a recommendation that no one under 160 pounds be selected to fly B-24s because the controls were VERY heavy. Consequently, they might have been more difficult to fly in close formation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 2, 2020)

8th AF B-17 bombing Europe from 35,000 ft

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2020)

Another myth that was scrutinized and debunked here was the Italian P-38 supposedly used to attack Allied bombers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jul 2, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> It may have been because the B-24 had a higher wing loading.
> 
> Interestingly, the B-24 seemed to have a _lower_ loss rate than the B-17 in the hands of the Eighth Air Force; see The Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress vs. the Consolidated B-24 Liberator - Warfare History Network



Read most of the article, to me it seems to have a little tendency. Were Ploesti and Wiener-Neustadt better protected than Leuna, Krupps works in the Ruhr Valley or Berlin? I'm a bit sceptical.
I came across the fact that B-24 seemed to have a _lower_ loss rate than the B-17 in the hands of the Eighth Air Force in mid-70s while readeing parts of the Medical Services Volume of the US Army official history of the WW2 series but it also says that according to rumours the most dangerous missions were given to B-17 groups. Not sure if those rumours hold water but my recollection is that the 1st or 3rd Bomber Divisions (the B-17 divs) usually were the van division and German fighters usually tried to hit the van first in their head-on attacks.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 2, 2020)

I imagine any mission that someone was shooting at me would be the most dangerous mission.


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Another myth that was scrutinized and debunked here was the Italian P-38 supposedly used to attack Allied bombers.



This reminded me of some primary source material I found about this many years ago. From the 12th Bomber Command Intops summary of 11 August 1943: "_40 unescorted 301st BG B-17s attacked Terni railroad yards at 10:29. 1 B-17 shot down by hostile P-38, crashed in water at 41-10N, 12-00E, 7 chutes seen to open._" [USAFHRA Microfilm Roll No. A6336]

And also: "_B-17 shot down on 11.08.43 by hostile P-38. Attack began five minutes after coast was left. Attack was “persistent and aggressive” for fifteen minutes. A P-38 had been identified on Guidonia airfield by PR on several occasions since 25.07.43, the latest being 09:30 11.08.43. Enemy P-38 had black or very dark fuselage, with two white or yellow bands halfway between tail assembly and fuselage. Behind bands was black swastika etched in white. Twin red air scoops of P-38 were seen._"

Plus: "_Tan P-38 seen to follow 320th BG for around 40 miles over sea on return leg of mission to Grazzionise._"

And from 14 August 1943: "_P-38 seen again at Guidonia after a few days absence._"

From 20 August 1943: "_B-25s attacking Benevento marshalling yards report being shadowed by tan P-38. Bombs dropped 13:33. P-38 followed formation 3,000 feet below for ten to fifteen minutes and then headed back to Italy._" That was the last mention I could find of the Italian P-38.

The 419th BS/301st BG diary notes on 11 August 1943: "_Plane #0307 was the first plane to be lost by enemy action since operating in North Africa. This plane was shot down by a P-38 with German markings which had been captured by the Germans ..._"

Shores _et al_. confirm the Italian P-38 victory on pages 279-280 of _Mediterranean Air War Volume 4_. So the Allies certainly thought that one of their bombers was downed by an Axis-flown P-38.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 2, 2020)

The Legend was, an Italian captured P-38 was approaching U.S. bomber formations in U.S. markings and "tagging along" only to suddenly attack them - this tale was in one of Caidin's books: "Fork Tail Devil - the P-38".

There was indeed a P-38 captured by the Italians when it accidently landed at Sardinia and it was evaluated against native types and then on 11 August 43, it was used to down a B-24 by Col. Tondi in Regia Aeronautica colors.
It did not last long, however, as the engines soon gave out and it was grounded for lack of parts.

So there was an Italian P-38 used to down a B-24 (and possibly a B-17), but not a "persistant phantom" as told in the book.

I meant to also add that the Italians were also testing a new heavy fighter around this same time period at Guidonia, the Savoia-Marchetti SM.91, which bore a strong resemblance to the P-38.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 2, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Legend was, an Italian captured P-38 was approaching U.S. bomber formations in U.S. markings and "tagging along" only to suddenly attack them - this tale was in one of Caidin's books: "Fork Tail Devil - the P-38".
> 
> There was indeed a P-38 captured by the Italians when it accidently landed at Sardinia and it was evaluated against native types and then on 11 August 43, it was used to down a B-24 by Col. Tondi in Regia Aeronautica colors.
> It did not last long, however, as the engines soon gave out and it was grounded for lack of parts.
> ...


Were there any other reports of captured Allied aircraft attacking Allied formations?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

In the thread regarding the ME-110 someone mentioned “the myth of the Luftwaffe being a tactical Air Force only is still alive”. Being an aeronautical novice I thought that was true. I wonder if someone would shed some light on this. Maybe Tomo Pauk might know who to ask.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Were there any other reports of captured Allied aircraft attacking Allied formations?


Yes and no.

The Axis distributed bulk captured aircraft (such as French, Dutch, Norwegian, etc.) among each other but they were painted in that nation's markings and paint-scheme. Even the captured P-40Es in Japanese service bore IJA markings.

When Germany captured the latest Allied aircraft (P-47, P-51, Spitfire, etc.) they were typically marked with German recognition markings and used for evaluation, training and in cases of bombers, for transportation of supplies and agent insertion, but rarely for action against Allied aircraft.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> The Axis distributed bulk captured aircraft (such as French, Dutch, Norwegian, etc.) among each other but they were painted in that nation's markings and paint-scheme. Even the captured P-40Es in Japanese service bore IJA markings.
> 
> When Germany captured the latest Allied aircraft (P-47, P-51, Spitfire, etc.) they were typically marked with German recognition markings and used for evaluation, training and in cases of bombers, for transportation of supplies and agent insertion, but rarely for action against Allied aircraft.


I’ve seen pictures of captured allied aircraft with axis markings, the reverse as well. Either side would of course test them. You did, however, say “but rarely for action against Allied aircraft.” It’s the word “rarely” I’m asking about. Just a turn of phrase or was there another incident?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2020)

Rarely, like the instance in 1943, where a B-24 with 392nd BG markings (which was not yet active) joined a formation of B-24s from the 44th BG, later departing the formation.

There were other isolated cases, but by and large, any captured aircraft that was pressed into service, carried that nation's markings, like the afore-mentioned Regia Aeronautica P-38.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ktank (Jul 10, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> Yet a great many Americans equate a "Bristish accent" with high IQ and competence.
> Why Do British Accents Sound Intelligent to Americans?



And in how many US TV series and movies are people with upper-crust British accents the villains?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2020)

James Bond and the Saint (aka Simon Templar) were always badass (and the hero).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> James Bond and the Saint (aka Simon Templar) were always badass (and the hero).



Apart from Daniel Craigs Bond who looks like he is suffering from a bad case of constipation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Apart from Daniel Craigs Bond who looks like he is suffering from a bad case of constipation.



Blasphemy, Craig’s Bond is second only to Sean Connery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 10, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Blasphemy, Craig’s Bond is second only to Sean Connery.



I always held Sean in the number 1 Bond spot. Until Daniel Craig. Both executed the role very well, just differently.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 10, 2020)

Mr. Connery is Bond, James Bond. Roger Moore is the Saint. But John Cleese is the best Q hands down. 
Who is Daniel Craig?


----------



## davparlr (Jul 10, 2020)

To hijack this site some more, who is the best Bond girl? In my mind, always, Diana Rigg, the Avenger girl.


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jul 10, 2020)

ktank said:


> As I understand the two companies simply took different ways of manufacturing an engine to the required tolerances.
> 
> In the UK, with cheaper labour and (generally) shorter production volumes they'd produce components to looser tolerances, then after manufacture get these groups into matching assemblies with the required tolerance.
> 
> ...



I`d been waiting for someone to lay down all the Ford, RR and Packard drawings next to eachother and check the tolerances. Seems like you must have done that yourself, Please reply with drawing #`s and tolerances.

All the first 2-stage packards were made with conversion kits which Derby shipped to packard. What a miracle they all fitted right onto the Packard engines.

(NARA-6550737)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> All the first 2-stage packards were made with conversion kits which Derby shipped to packard. What a miracle they all fitted right onto the Packard engines.



No Miracle, Packard recruited ex Willys-Knight sleeve valve engine workers to meticulously hand fit the parts  (joke) 
we can't let this argument die simply because of truth.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 10, 2020)

Snowygrouch said:


> I`d been waiting for someone to lay down all the Ford, RR and Packard drawings next to eachother and check the tolerances. Seems like you must have done that yourself, Please reply with drawing #`s and tolerances.
> 
> All the first 2-stage packards were made with conversion kits which Derby shipped to packard. What a miracle they all fitted right onto the Packard engines.
> 
> (NARA-6550737)


Us bumbling, dumb, unskilled Brits must've got lucky eh ?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jul 10, 2020)

also all that hand fitting, filing and fettling probably weakened everything and thats why all British aircraft were fragile too !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Caidin was notorious for taking things out of context as well as outright fabricating "information" to sensationalized his articles and publications.
> So in the case of the P-38, he took a bit of propaganda and sensationalized it to his benefit and we've been stuck with that Caidinism ever since...


Here’s an article from 1945 extolling the virtues of The Fork Tailed Devil
LiTOT: The Fork-Tailed Devil
The article also includes the myth that the P38 was the first US plane to shoot down an enemy plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 10, 2020)

Reply


SaparotRob said:


> Mr. Connery is Bond, James Bond. Roger Moore is the Saint. But John Cleese is the best Q hands down.
> Who is Daniel Craig?



One of the actors who portrayed Bond after Sean Connery, and likely the best of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Here’s an article from 1945 extolling the virtues of The Fork Tailed Devil
> LiTOT: The Fork-Tailed Devil
> The article also includes the myth that the P38 was the first US plane to shoot down an enemy plane.


Regarding the “fork tailed devil” thing, Grau Geist said LW pilots called the P-38 the Lightning. Was that the English “Lighting” or German “Blitz”?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2020)

The P-38's nickname was picked up and used for propaganda purposes.
Authors writing later, took that "legend" and embellished on it - from there, the "legend" took on a life of it's own.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 14, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-38's nickname was picked up and used for propaganda purposes.
> Authors writing later, took that "legend" and embellished on it - from there, the "legend" took on a life of it's own.


No, that I got. The LW pilots called it the Lightning. Did they say “Gerhardt, was that fokker flying a Lightning?” or “Jah, that Fokker was flying a Blitz?”

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2020)




----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 14, 2020)

Probably along the lines of: "Gerd, that Schfanz nearly shot me down!"

(The expletive can apply to Lightning, Mustang, Spitfire or other type)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Probably along the lines of: "Gerd, that Schnearly shot me down!"
> 
> (The expletive can apply to Lightning, Mustang, Spitfire or other type)



Fixed for accuracy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Jul 16, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> Nope no mein nada no. All RR Merlin V1650 and Packard Merlin engines were built to the same very exact tolerance. Rolls Royce despite the myth did not build Merlins by carving it out of a block of aluminium.
> 
> This myth has been busted so many times I think it's time it should be burnt at the stake.


Point taken. The story is wrong and so was I on further investigation.

Packard churned out loads of engines but the RR conglomerate turned out more and they can only have done this by using the same modern manufacturing techniques. 

It's really undermining a great British success story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2020)

gruad said:


> Point taken. The story is wrong and so was I on further investigation.
> 
> Packard churned out loads of engines but the RR conglomerate turned out more and they can only have done this by using the same modern manufacturing techniques.
> 
> It's really undermining a great British success story.


The story results in looking backwards at history. The Merlin first ran in in 1933, it was just another engine, no more or less special than a Kestrel Peregrine Buzzard and Goshawk. Most engines of the time had a run of a few thousand IF they were lucky, Packard demanded a minimum run of 5,000 to become involved, that is more than were produced for the Kestrel Peregrine Goshawk and most others. The suggestion is that RR were remiss in not designing the Merlin to be mass produced, well who forseaw a war being declared in 1939 prior to 1933? Who foresaw all the alternatives to the Merlin failing in one way or another leaving it the only choice or best choice for planes that were designed up to seven years after it first ran. Much hinges on a single quote by Lovesey about tolerances but Lovesey was speaking to someone from Ford not Packard and RR were in discussion with Ford not only in UK and USA but also France from very early days. Lovesey was involved with the Schneider "R" engines, there were 19 produced, although it was developed from the Buzzard I really dont know how a company produced 19 engines over several years, it is hobbyist production levels.


----------



## ssnider (Jul 16, 2020)

"The suggestion is that RR were remiss in not designing the Merlin to be mass produced, well who forseaw a war being declared in 1939 prior to 1933? Who foresaw all the alternatives to the Merlin"​​That's exactly right The Merlin was designed for station or _Carousel_ mass production, not method used by Packard. The choice of method depends the economics of volume of production, Continuous line requires high volume to be advantageous, thus the required minimum number of engines, The method also requires closer part tolerances then are needed for station or _Carousel_ methods. That however says nothing about the tolerances used by RR and the final engine tolerance have to be very close to work properly.​
This web site may (or may not) have info on Packard tolerances but costs money" Packard Merlin V-1650 - Blueprints, Drawings & Documents | AirCorps Library 

Attached is what English writer Ian Lioyd in Rolls Royce: The Merlin at war had to say about missing tolerances

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 16, 2020)

ssnider said:


> "The suggestion is that RR were remiss in not designing the Merlin to be mass produced, well who forseaw a war being declared in 1939 prior to 1933? Who foresaw all the alternatives to the Merlin"​​That's exactly right The Merlin was designed for station or _Carousel_ mass production, not method used by Packard. The choice of method depends the economics of volume of production, Continuous line requires high volume to be advantageous, thus the required minimum number of engines, The method also requires closer part tolerances then are needed for station or _Carousel_ methods. That however says nothing about the tolerances used by RR and the final engine tolerance have to be very close to work properly.​
> This web site may (or may not) have info on Packard tolerances but costs money" Packard Merlin V-1650 - Blueprints, Drawings & Documents | AirCorps Library
> 
> Attached is what English writer Ian Lioyd in Rolls Royce: The Merlin at war had to say about missing tolerances


Actually, I just want someone to explain why Packard, Ford and Allison didnt have a better engine shooting off a dozen lines in 1939. An obvious question that needs an answer, like why did some Liberty ships break in two?


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Actually, I just want someone to explain why Packard, Ford and Allison didnt have a better engine shooting off a dozen lines in 1939.


Government and Money. Nasty combination.


pbehn said:


> An obvious question that needs an answer, like why did some Liberty ships break in two?


"critical temperature" below which steel loses its flex ability and thus under stress snaps.
Different steel formulas have different "critical temperature" points.
Also, square hatches on ship decks become focal points for stress. The cracking that in a few cases resulted in failure of the whole steel structure started there.
Also, welding methods involve local extreme temperature melting the metal together, and the cooling down afterwards results in steel with different flex/stress behavior.
Much better write-ups are available.
We cured the problem with rounding the hatch corners, and welding differently.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Regarding the “fork tailed devil” thing, Grau Geist said LW pilots called the P-38 the Lightning. Was that the English “Lighting” or German “Blitz”?



Here's an extract from a _Luftwaffe_ report from 20 November 1942, which was the first time the Germans reported the P-38 in North Africa.




Cheers,
Andrew A.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Government and Money. Nasty combination.
> 
> "critical temperature" below which steel loses its flex ability and thus under stress snaps.
> Different steel formulas have different "critical temperature" points.
> ...



A number of the ships with the steels with a high NDT (nil ductility temperature) were kept in service, but restricted to warmer waters. One of the results of this problem was the development of fracture mechanics.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Actually, I just want someone to explain why Packard, Ford and Allison didnt have a better engine shooting off a dozen lines in 1939. An obvious question that needs an answer, like why did some Liberty ships break in two?



To whom would they be selling these aircraft engines? The government wasn't buying that many aircraft, and the commercial market was fulfilled by Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Curtiss-Wright, Lycoming, Continental, Jacobs, Kinner, etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2020)

it took about 2 years in the US to go from a bare plot of ground to a factory making just under 1000 engines a month. That is for a licensed engine they are given the plans for. 
So the buildings would have had to have been built and equipped in 1937 with workers hired in 1938 to come close to putting out hundreds of engines in the fall of 1939. 
ANd what wonder engine should they have tooled up for?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 16, 2020)

Andrew Arthy said:


> Here's an extract from a _Luftwaffe_ report from 20 November 1942, which was the first time the Germans reported the P-38 in North Africa.
> 
> View attachment 588348
> 
> ...


Thanks for that. I went with winner instead of informative. It was a toss up.


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 17, 2020)

Andrew Arthy said:


> Here's an extract from a _Luftwaffe_ report from 20 November 1942, which was the first time the Germans reported the P-38 in North Africa.
> 
> View attachment 588348
> 
> ...


Most German pilots would have had at least a little English. Being reasonable at one language and having a little of a 2nd would be normal for a German of the time.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 17, 2020)

pbehn said:


> like why did some Liberty ships break in two?



The Liberty was based on a British WWI design for a cheap easily built cargo vessel. The original design was for a rivetted vessel altering it to a welded construction introduced the problems. The hulls were too rigid, rivetted hulls could flex. The Royal Navy preferred to use rivetted ships on Arctic convoys because a crack in a cold rivetted vessel would only grow as far as a rivet hole and stop. A crack in a cold weld can grow at a very fast speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 17, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The Liberty was based on a British WWI design for a cheap easily built cargo vessel. The original design was for a rivetted vessel altering it to a welded construction introduced the problems. The hulls were too rigid, rivetted hulls could flex. The Royal Navy preferred to use rivetted ships on Arctic convoys because a crack in a cold rivetted vessel would only grow as far as a rivet hole and stop. A crack in a cold weld can grow at a very fast speed.


For myths to survive they must deliberately ignore all known facts, which was what I was doing (deliberately). The SAW welding process was only patented in 1935 which meant they learned all the drawbacks during the war. As a welding process it was revolutionary but there is no "free lunch" in engineering. Much of my working life was in testing of SAW welds and almost all of the tests and testing regimes grew out of WW2 experience. It created not only a new welding process but also a whole new area of metallurgy and production engineering and new types of destructive and non destructive testing. One of the peculiarities of the problem is that a perfectly sound weld doesn't crack but does induce cracking in the parent material. There are various types of cracking and crack propagation, when it changes from growing due to cyclical stress to the "letting go" with a catastrophic failure the crack propagates at the speed of sound in steel which is circa 5,900m/s. I only witnessed it once and it is like an explosion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Simon Thomas (Jul 17, 2020)

My materials lecturer told us that the problem with the Liberty ship welding was due to the welders being paid by the rod, so "they" used to put a pile of welding rods in the joint and then put a capping weld over the top. 
How widespread "they" used to do that - and even if it is true I have never established.


----------



## Acheron (Jul 18, 2020)

Andrew Arthy said:


> Here's an extract from a _Luftwaffe_ report from 20 November 1942, which was the first time the Germans reported the P-38 in North Africa.
> 
> View attachment 588348
> 
> ...


You wouldn't happen to have the Luftwaffe's reports on first encountering the long-range escorts (P-51s) over Europe? I would kinda imagine this being a major shock for the Luftwaffe, with some immediate emergency meetings to figure out how to deal with this?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2020)

Simon Thomas said:


> My materials lecturer told us that the problem with the Liberty ship welding was due to the welders being paid by the rod, so "they" used to put a pile of welding rods in the joint and then put a capping weld over the top.
> How widespread "they" used to do that - and even if it is true I have never established.


Your lecturer was wrong, or at least couldn't prove that he was right legends about welders welding over rods exist all over the world. I have seen welders "blocking in" welds which increases the risk of cracking but the issue is that a perfectly sound weld by a coded welder can crack. Here is a report on a failed pipeline that I was sort of involved in. The manufacturer had fraudulently stated incorrect Carbon Equivalent Values on the material certificates. That alone was enough to cause cracking, starting at the weld root and propagating through the weld/parent material. It was discovered by fishermen noticing gas bubbling up in the Irish Sea. BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM LTD & ORS v DALMINE SPA (2003) I knew one of the men responsible, he ended up in jail. The other issue is that cracks can form a long time after the weld is completed which leads to everyone involved in testing being accused of not doing their job.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 18, 2020)

I thought the filling gaps with rods and welding over was a German tank thing done by slave labour.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> I thought the filling gaps with rods and welding over was a German tank thing done by slave labour.


Welders live just a few millimetres up the scale from slave labour in the eyes of many, and are easily blamed, when corners were really cut short on quality for the sake of production management was always involved, it had to be to organise the fiddles needed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 18, 2020)

It wasn’t just liberty ships that broke in two. Esso Manhattan was a T2 tanker
Esso Manhattan - (1942-1959)
She was built by Sun Shipbuilding, a very reputable yard. She was repaired and had a long career, finally scrapped in 1974.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 18, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Welders live just a few millimetres up the scale from slave labour in the eyes of many, and are easily blamed, when corners were really cut short on quality for the sake of production management was always involved, it had to be to organise the fiddles needed.


















The full paper is attached

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 18, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The Liberty was based on a British WWI design for a cheap easily built cargo vessel. The original design was for a rivetted vessel altering it to a welded construction introduced the problems. The hulls were too rigid, rivetted hulls could flex. The Royal Navy preferred to use rivetted ships on Arctic convoys because a crack in a cold rivetted vessel would only grow as far as a rivet hole and stop. A crack in a cold weld can grow at a very fast speed.


One of the Liberty ship myths is that they were an old design whereas in fact they were very new. In order to obtain new orders in the great depression British shipyards developed "economy" designs that minimized operating costs, in particular fuel, while being easy to build. The Dorington Court built by J L Thompson was one such design. Its hull form was further improved by extensive hydro dynamic testing to provide the optimum design combining ease of construction with maximum propulsion efficiency. The hull maximized the straight length and minimized the number of compound curves. The first ship built to this design was the Empire Liberty built by Thompson which became the prototype for the ships built in both British and American yards.
The other Liberty ship myth is that American know how made them easier to build. In fact it took more man hours to build in an American yard than a British one. The American system was designed to maximize the number of ships produced by minimizing the time a slipway was tied up, hence the emphasis on prefabrication.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 18, 2020)

Welds tend to degrade material qualities near them, in the heat affected zone. Poor weld quality can also build in tensile stresses around the weld and inclusions that act as crack initiation sites. 

The other issue is that many steels have a temperature, called the nil ductility temperature, below which the steel behaves almost like glass. Above the NDT, the steel will plasticly yield at the tip of the crack, slowing and possibly stopping its propagation. Riveted joints will stop the crack, but welded joints won’t.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 18, 2020)

One of the interesting things to note is that the Liberty ship fractures often occurred at the square corners of the hatches. The design was modified to alleviate this problem. This reminds me of the sad story of the square windows on the de Havilland Comet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 18, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> View attachment 588497
> 
> 
> View attachment 588498
> ...


That is so bad AND typical it is laughable. As I said, for these fiddles to work management must be involved from the very top downwards. "Automatic welding adjacent to critical welds was prohibited after February 1943" so they decided what was "bad workmanship" after the event. Allowing "ringers" to sit tests is as old as testing itself, it is only allowed when people want it to happen. What part did the "great and good" who were experts in the field play, was everyone involved in ship building advised of the problems associated with SAW welding? Certainly not, because the great and the good were just learning themselves. The experts who wrote this piece don't seem to have the imagination to see any other scenario than the one presented by their retrospectoscope. If you have a new super duper welding machine it is perfectly reasonable to complete as much of all weld joints with it. If the operator doesn't know that you need run on and run off plates to do the weld properly whose fault is that? Try telling a welder in 1940 that welding out the last few inches of a weld with manual electrodes will cause the ship to split in two, until it happens and becomes common knowledge, with pictures and explanations it is as stupid an idea as soldiers marching across a bridge causing it to collapse through resonance (which also happened). A shipyard, welding or fabrication shop is a different world. Everyone who has worked in on has tales of apprentices being sent for "sky hooks", "tartan paint", "metric adjustables" or "long stands" because young people in a strange environment are very gullible. You may think it is perfectly obvious that laying down uncoated electrodes or "slugs" and welding over them is "cheating" but that is only because you know it is. In principle what is the difference between that and a backing strip or EB insert? Where did the slugs come from? In 1990 I was involved in a shipment of pipes from Bethlehem Steel to Europe, they were unable to provide a tally list of pipe number heat number and length for shipment which means they did not operate any sort of QA system in house, yet during the war some poor kid was held responsible for ships sinking. In 1992 I rejected half a dozen pipes that had had a "gash" repair to longitudinal SAW seams as bad as anything you read about on Liberty ships, but the welders were working to a procedure approved by the company, they dont see the client specification that states "blow throughs shall not be repaired". The managers even tried to say to me "I dont know why they tried to do that", well they tried to do THAT because you told them to do THAT. As late as 1995 I had a British quality assurance manager ask me "what is an arc strike, what is the problem with them"? When I explained the problem he said he would sack the operator that caused the arc strike, he never considered sacking himself, the ffing idiot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jul 19, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> One of the interesting things to note is that the Liberty ship fractures often occurred at the square corners of the hatches. The design was modified to alleviate this problem. This reminds me of the sad story of the square windows on the de Havilland Comet.


The Comet windows were not square. De Havillands were well aware (as any engineer would) of the propensity of a square corner to initiate and propagate a crack. Thus the windows had rounded corners. What no engineer knew, at that time, was the effect of multiple pressurisation cycles on the aluminium used in the gauge used. After the discovery by sad accidents the next generation of airliners went overboard in window roundness but there are plenty of examples of round cornered airliner windows in modern service. A failure of knowledge not silly design. The square window Comet is a myth.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 19, 2020)

yulzari said:


> The Comet windows were not square. De Havillands were well aware (as any engineer would) of the propensity of a square corner to initiate and propagate a crack. Thus the windows had rounded corners. What no engineer knew, at that time, was the effect of multiple pressurisation cycles on the aluminium used in the gauge used. After the discovery by sad accidents the next generation of airliners went overboard in window roundness but there are plenty of examples of round cornered airliner windows in modern service. A failure of knowledge not silly design. The square window Comet is a myth.


Did I say it was a silly design? Did I say It was a perfect square? Did I critsize the designers of the Comet in any way?


----------



## yulzari (Jul 19, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Did I say it was a silly design? Did I say It was a perfect square? Did I criticise the designers of the Comet in any way?


Indeed not; but you did say 'square' and a 'reply' was the simplest way to refer to the popular myth. My apologies if I offended you.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 19, 2020)

Another myth busted!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 19, 2020)

For the record.







The DeHavilland Comet Crash – Aerospace Engineering Blog

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ruud (Jul 19, 2020)

Germany/Nazi myths, there are so many.
Germany would have won the war if Hilter had let his generals run it - false. He pushed them into many of their early victories, but then defeats later on. If you take out the early victories, who knows where WWII goes.

Versailles treaty = WWII - false. There were many economic and social changes happening. Also, major economic collapses, like the Great Depression and the Great Recession, lead to more upheaval and more populism (see 1930's and the 2010s). Still, the Nazis took it to the next level.

Germany did not go to a war economy until 1943 (IIRC) - true, and it was all going according to plan until 1942...

The Wehrmacht was just a bunch of great and noble soldiers ridding the world of communism, the SS were the evils ones that did all the evil stuff - false. They were very involved with many roundups etc. You could ignore it if you were in the weeds, but if you kept your eyes open or were an officer, you knew and/or were involved. See "the Myth of the Eastern Front"

Man for man, the Wehrmacht got more out of their troops than other nations - true. Even with all the books i have read, i still can't fully understand how it was possible. They are just people, just like soldiers from other nations. Still, with less support forces, less mechanization, they did more with less from start to finish.

France was a powerful nation in 1939-40 - false. Their military was in very poor shape. Between the Right wing/Vichy, the Communists, moderates, and others... If they would have been given the time, like GB had, who knows if they could have united.

The Dutch were a valiant people that did all they could to fight the Nazis. - like most things, some truth/some false. The Germans were able to take of the Netherlands very quickly (small country with few geographic advantages. There was a Nazi party in the Netherlands (NSB) that helped the Nazis establish their power after the invasion. The Netherlands lost the highest percentage of their Jewish population and did have many people volunteer to fight with the Germans in an SS unit. The Netherlands also did not have an easy way to have Jews and others escape the country. The best places to hide were in Friesland and Groningen (more rural and also somewhat separate from other Dutch provinces).

The Soviets were great allies - meh. Stalin was way to power hungry to be a true ally. He did what he had to do to his own people and military to win the war, but he worked the USA and GB for all he could get. Without the USSR, Germany holds Europe, that i believe. Still, holding allied pilots. Interning their aircraft... I've heard it said that the Soviet army walked on US boots, drove in US trucks and jeeps, and talked via US wire. Sure the aircraft and tanks given to them did not do much, but a lot was given to them. The price the common people of the Soviet Union paid to both the Soviets and the Germans, too horrible to contemplate.

Most of this is going off of memory (from reading Max Hastings and Len Deighton etc). Discuss away!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Jul 19, 2020)

Ruud said:


> Germany/Nazi myths, there are so many.
> Germany would have won the war if Hilter had let his generals run it - false. He pushed them into many of their early victories, but then defeats later on. If you take out the early victories, who knows where WWII goes.


Although much agreed, this is off: If Hitler had let his generals run the war, (Hitler rants against Jews, Slavs, Roma, ETC, but does not lay down a start date for invading Poland) the war would not have started by Germany. Stalin would have started the shooting with Finland, the Baltics, and possibly Poland also. Germany would then (if the Generals had their way) been in the (real history) S.U. position of rescuing half of Poland from Stalin.



Ruud said:


> Man for man, the Wehrmacht got more out of their troops than other nations - true. Even with all the books i have read, i still can't fully understand how it was possible. They are just people, just like soldiers from other nations. Still, with less support forces, less mechanization, they did more with less from start to finish.


Crystal Meth, Culture, and political motivation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 19, 2020)

Acheron said:


> You wouldn't happen to have the Luftwaffe's reports on first encountering the long-range escorts (P-51s) over Europe? I would kinda imagine this being a major shock for the Luftwaffe, with some immediate emergency meetings to figure out how to deal with this?



Hi,

I did a blog post on this a couple of years ago, which can be found here, including an early German report titled 'Mustang as Escort Fighter': Mustang P-51B entry into service - Air War Publications. The German report had been intercepted and decrypted by the British.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jul 20, 2020)

Andrew Arthy said:


> Hi,
> 
> I did a blog post on this a couple of years ago, which can be found here, including an early German report titled 'Mustang as Escort Fighter': Mustang P-51B entry into service - Air War Publications. The German report had been intercepted and decrypted by the British.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Just wondering if the Luftwaffe leadership and pilots fully appreciated what the long-rage escort meant for them.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> That is so bad AND typical it is laughable. As I said, for these fiddles to work management must be involved from the very top downwards. "Automatic welding adjacent to critical welds was prohibited after February 1943" so they decided what was "bad workmanship" after the event. Allowing "ringers" to sit tests is as old as testing itself, it is only allowed when people want it to happen. What part did the "great and good" who were experts in the field play, was everyone involved in ship building advised of the problems associated with SAW welding? Certainly not, because the great and the good were just learning themselves. The experts who wrote this piece don't seem to have the imagination to see any other scenario than the one presented by their retrospectoscope. If you have a new super duper welding machine it is perfectly reasonable to complete as much of all weld joints with it. If the operator doesn't know that you need run on and run off plates to do the weld properly whose fault is that? Try telling a welder in 1940 that welding out the last few inches of a weld with manual electrodes will cause the ship to split in two, until it happens and becomes common knowledge, with pictures and explanations it is as stupid an idea as soldiers marching across a bridge causing it to collapse through resonance (which also happened). A shipyard, welding or fabrication shop is a different world. Everyone who has worked in on has tales of apprentices being sent for "sky hooks", "tartan paint", "metric adjustables" or "long stands" because young people in a strange environment are very gullible. You may think it is perfectly obvious that laying down uncoated electrodes or "slugs" and welding over them is "cheating" but that is only because you know it is. In principle what is the difference between that and a backing strip or EB insert? Where did the slugs come from? In 1990 I was involved in a shipment of pipes from Bethlehem Steel to Europe, they were unable to provide a tally list of pipe number heat number and length for shipment which means they did not operate any sort of QA system in house, yet during the war some poor kid was held responsible for ships sinking. In 1992 I rejected half a dozen pipes that had had a "gash" repair to longitudinal SAW seams as bad as anything you read about on Liberty ships, but the welders were working to a procedure approved by the company, they dont see the client specification that states "blow throughs shall not be repaired". The managers even tried to say to me "I dont know why they tried to do that", well they tried to do THAT because you told them to do THAT. As late as 1995 I had a British quality assurance manager ask me "what is an arc strike, what is the problem with them"? When I explained the problem he said he would sack the operator that caused the arc strike, he never considered sacking himself, the ffing idiot.


The paper does state that only 25% of the problems could be directly attributed to poor workmanship with another 20% possibly prevented by good workmanship so the majority of problems were due to other causes.
In defence of the workers and their supervisors the US did not have a significant ship building industry before WWII and they were alll learning on the job. On the other hand Table 4 shows significant differences between yards, with Oregon and Calship looking particularly bad. As the old saying goes A fish stinks from the head.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 20, 2020)

yulzari said:


> Indeed not; but you did say 'square' and a 'reply' was the simplest way to refer to the popular myth. My apologies if I offended you.


I try to put myself in the shoes of the engineers making the decisions at the time. What knowledge did they have to draw on and what tools did they have to solve the problems? In the Comet case there was very limited experience with pressurized aircraft and certainly no massive computers to run simulations. I don’t see how they could have anticipated the problem.
To understand how engineers worked in the aircraft industry in that era I suggest reading Neville Shute’s autobiography Slide Rule. His description of the calculations of stress in the R100 is enlightening.
In my university days I wrote a program in FORTRAN to calculate stresses in a truss and it was not easy. If I had to calculate them by hand I would have gone mad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 20, 2020)

glennasher said:


> I think the Buffalo's poor reputation has been debunked fully here, at least from the Finnish point of view.


The Buffalo didn't deserve a poor reputation from its time in Malaya either. The RAF had five active Buffalo squadrons (~60 aircraft) to patrol and protect a territory as large as the the entire UK, which in autumn 1941 had over 70 active Spitfire/Hurricane squadrons. 

The Buffalo was fine for Malaya's defence, and those five squadrons racked up a good kill score over the five IJAF _Hiko Sentai_ (~three fighter squadrons each) of Ki-27 and Ki-43 and nine IJAF _Hiko Sentai_ of bombers and reconnaissance aircraft. On top of this are the IJN's land based bombers and A6M fighters in FIC (the fomer sank Force Z). In 1940 Malayan Command told Churchill and the War Office that it needed 300-500 active combat aircraft (plus spares). Make those 300 active Buffaloes (25 squadrons) and I'd say the Japanese will have a challenge. Of course there weren't 300 Buffaloes to be had, but this isn't the fault of the aircraft.

There was nothing wrong with the Buffalo for Malaya, there just weren't enough of them, and they were negligently deployed in poorly located, prepared and defended air bases. At >320 mph and armed with four machine guns, the Buffalo was faster and better armed than the Ki-27 (the most numerous IJAF fighter) and not much slower and still better armed than the Ki-43.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ruud (Jul 20, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Although much agreed, this is off: If Hitler had let his generals run the war, (Hitler rants against Jews, Slavs, Roma, ETC, but does not lay down a start date for invading Poland) the war would not have started by Germany. Stalin would have started the shooting with Finland, the Baltics, and possibly Poland also. Germany would then (if the Generals had their way) been in the (real history) S.U. position of rescuing half of Poland from Stalin.



I was assuming that the Nazi invasion of Poland was still on. But your are right. It is an interesting what if. Stalin was as impulsive as Hitler when i came to killing folks, but when i came to strategic thinking... He probably would have kept nibbling away at eastern Europe until Germany attacked. Given a few more years to rebuild before Germany attacks them, who knows how powerful the Soviet Union would have been. Strong enough to go toe to toe with the Nazis? IIRC, the generals were not super pumped about invading Poland so early.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 20, 2020)

Stalin may have been planning an attack on Germany, if so, I suspect he would have waited until Germany was occupied elsewhere, perhaps after a German attack westward. Why attack a powerful country that can exert its full strength against you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jul 20, 2020)

Ruud said:


> I was assuming that the Nazi invasion of Poland was still on. But your are right. It is an interesting what if. Stalin was as impulsive as Hitler when i came to killing folks, but when i came to strategic thinking... He probably would have kept nibbling away at eastern Europe until Germany attacked. Given a few more years to rebuild before Germany attacks them, who knows how powerful the Soviet Union would have been. Strong enough to go toe to toe with the Nazis? IIRC, the generals were not super pumped about invading Poland so early.


If Stalin looks to be the greater of two evils in Europe, do we see Britain (if no WW2, likely without Churchill as PM) allying itself with Germany and (a yet to be invaded) Poland against the USSR?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 20, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The paper does state that only 25% of the problems could be directly attributed to poor workmanship with another 20% possibly prevented by good workmanship so the majority of problems were due to other causes.
> In defence of the workers and their supervisors the US did not have a significant ship building industry before WWII and they were alll learning on the job. On the other hand Table 4 shows significant differences between yards, with Oregon and Calship looking particularly bad. As the old saying goes A fish stinks from the head.


My issue is with the words poor and workmanship, it implies that poor work is the result of a poor workman, since the top boffins in USA and UK were still figuring out what was going on and what was important, some kid out of school shouldn't end up in court. The report mentions that an SAW machine was used with two wires instead of one when not set up for it. On line pipe welding it is impossible to produce a satisfactory weld with a single wire weld. It is normal practice to have 4 and 5 wire welding, in 1986 I saw a 12 wire welding set up in a shipyard in Japan, to me single wire welding is "poor workmanship" to start with. The main issue is about what is or was a "critical weld". It turned out that almost any weld could be critical, even a gash weld of a safety rail or footway. The Alexander L. Kielland disaster which killed 123 people in 1980 was traced to a 6mm fillet weld attaching a sonar sensor which eventually caused a leg to come off the platform and the whole rig to capsize. Alexander L. Kielland (platform) - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 20, 2020)

Ruud said:


> Still, holding allied pilots. Interning their aircraft...



Aircraft (some, not all) were interned. Pilots were de-jure interned but later secretly moved to their countries.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 5, 2020)

I’m following the Atomic Lancaster thread. 
The Black Lancaster Squadron. No official documentation. No markings. Only reference; YouTube. 
Were they real or myth?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I’m following the Atomic Lancaster thread.
> The Black Lancaster Squadron. No official documentation. No markings. Only reference; YouTube.
> Were they real or myth?


Their last mission was to transport a hoard of Nazi gold, priceless art, FW190s and Spitfires to be hidden in a tunnel in Austria. FACT

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 31, 2020)

The BF109-F was hurried into production because of the P40-E

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Aug 31, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> The BF109-F was hurried into production because of the P40-E


Beat me to it

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 31, 2020)

rochie said:


> Beat me to it


Great minds think alike.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 31, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> The BF109-F was hurried into production because of the P40-E



Have I missed the memo??


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 31, 2020)

From another thread, Tomo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 31, 2020)

@tomo pauk  Spitfire V Versus P-40E

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 31, 2020)

...and another tip of the braided hat fubar57!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 31, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> @tomo pauk  Spitfire V Versus P-40E



Cheers, Geo

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 31, 2020)

The Doolittle Raid used B-25’s to strike Tokyo. 
According to a YouTube video; Battle of Midway (1942): A turning point during the Pacific War. The Pacific War Channel, the Doolittle Raid consisted of sixteen B-52’s.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2020)

Wow...sixteen B-52s?

There would have been little left of Tokyo if that were the case: each Buff can carry about 70,000 pounds of bombs x 16 = (roughly) 1,120,000 pounds of bombs raining down in one pass...


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Wow...sixteen B-52s?
> 
> There would have been little left of Tokyo if that were the case: each Buff can carry about 70,000 pounds of bombs x 16 = (roughly) 1,120,000 pounds of bombs raining down in one pass...


Heck, they might not even need a carrier. It also took 2 weeks to repair U.S.S Yorktown at Pearl after the Coral Sea action. I’m thinking of a new thread:
CanYou Find All The Mistakes?! (Hint, there’s a lot!)


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 1, 2020)

Oh, boy:
The Ha-25 engine was upgraded with the 2-stage supercharger, thus becoming the more powerful Nakajima Ha-115 engine


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Sep 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Wow...sixteen B-52s?
> There would have been little left of Tokyo if that were the case: each Buff can carry about 70,000 pounds of bombs x 16 = (roughly) 1,120,000 pounds of bombs raining down in one pass...


Not to worry: that much weight would sink the carrier!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> Not to worry: that much weight would sink the carrier!


*if* B-52 could fit on a carrier

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> *if* B-52 could fit on a carrier



I thought the B-52 would just pick up the carrier and drop it on the target!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2020)




----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 2, 2020)

The video does have a picture of either the Akagi or Kaga on fire which I have never seen before.


----------



## Maachi (Sep 2, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...
> 
> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


In the late 80s I was living in West Germany. A German I knew repeated some war stories from his father. One such was that the German soldiers called the P-38 "Mann Jäger" (man hunter), because P-38 pilots were willing to strafe solitary soldiers caught out in the open. I assumed this was due to the P-38's nose guns not needing a convergence point.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 3, 2020)

Maachi said:


> In the late 80s I was living in West Germany. A German I knew repeated some war stories from his father. One such was that the German soldiers called the P-38 "Mann Jäger" (man hunter), because P-38 pilots were willing to strafe solitary soldiers caught out in the open. I assumed this was due to the P-38's nose guns not needing a convergence point.


A former co-worker (from many years ago) used the same term for the P-51, too.


----------



## ODonovan (Sep 3, 2020)

I haven't been here in a few days and come back to find you guys have let me down. I saw the discussion about RR vs Packard and couldn't wait to find the TRUTH about the two versions of the Merlin.

1) The US version used imperial measurements while the Brit version used metric.
2) The RR had all the bolts reverse threaded compared to the Packards, so they had to be turned the "wrong way" to be installed.
3) Because all the bolts were backward, the propeller shaft spun the other way, so planes with the RR engines had to have their propellers put on backward.
4) Planes with the RR Merlins had to drive on the wrong side of the runway.

(Sorry, that's all I could think of on such short notice. I'm sure some of you guys will help me out with the rest.) 



-Irish

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 4, 2020)

ODonovan said:


> Planes with the RR Merlins had to drive on the wrong side of the runway.



No no planes with Merlin's drove on the right side of the runway, which is of course the left. Packard's drive on the wrong side which is the right side. See it's simple.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 4, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> No no planes with Merlin's drove on the right side of the runway, which is of course the left. Packard's drive on the wrong side which is the right side. See it's simple.


This is why I enjoy this forum. Simple explanations that even I can understand.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 6, 2020)

ODonovan said:


> I haven't been here in a few days and come back to find you guys have let me down. I saw the discussion about RR vs Packard and couldn't wait to find the TRUTH about the two versions of the Merlin.
> 
> 1) The US version used imperial measurements while the Brit version used metric.
> 2) The RR had all the bolts reverse threaded compared to the Packards, so they had to be turned the "wrong way" to be installed.
> ...


No chance pre-decimal Britain used metric measurements on their engines, IMO. They would have likely used incompatible Whitworth tooling.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Sep 6, 2020)

On another topic: one of the myths I think was busted in this forum was that the B24 was much inferior to the B17.

For some reason the Liberator is considered the wildebeest of the skies, whereas the Fort is the indomitable knight of the skies, able to return after any level of punishment. The fact that the 24 is an ungainly box slab and the 17 a glittering silver beauty does not help.

Actually the machines were comparable with the 24 faster, longer ranged and with a higher ceiling [No it did not see later correction B17 better ceiling] as it was a later design. The B17 was tougher and less prone to fire.

Ironically the myth works in reverse for the Uk bombers where the Halifax III is considered on a par with the Lancaster when it was actually markedly inferior.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

A pseudo myth I’d like to know the truth of is, was the P-47 called the Juggernaut. 
The story I’ve heard is that the Americans called the P-47 the “Jug” because it looks like a jug. The British THOUGHT it was short for Juggernaut.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 6, 2020)

gruad said:


> Actually the machines were comparable with the 24 faster, longer ranged and with a higher ceiling as it was a later design. The B17 was tougher and less prone to fire.



The B24 had a lower ceiling it was usually flown about 25,000ft on a bombing mission, the B17 usually about 28,000ft

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Sep 6, 2020)

we've missed one of the big ones i think ?

during the BoB Hurricanes were intentionally vectored onto the bombers whilst Spitfires vectored onto the fighter escort !

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

rochie said:


> we've missed one of the big ones i think ?
> 
> during the BoB Hurricanes were intentionally vectored onto the bombers whilst Spitfires vectored onto the fighter escort !


Spitfire MkII pilots were court martialled for attacking bombers ... FACT

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Spitfire MkII pilots were court martialled for attacking bombers ... FACT


Say what? Wow. If it wasn’t you posting that I never would’ve believed it


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Say what? Wow. If it wasn’t you posting that I never would’ve believed it


On the internet anything with "FACT" after it, never is. Its a joke.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Sep 6, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> The B24 had a lower ceiling it was usually flown about 25,000ft on a bombing mission, the B17 usually about 28,000ft


You are correct. Thanks for pointing out my error.

Point taken the Davis wing good for speed and not lift, having read more.

The B17 was much easier to fly, too, but the B24 did more of the Pacific bombing and work against U boats.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

pbehn said:


> On the internet anything with "FACT" after it, never is. Its a joke.


D’OH!!


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2020)

The P-47 was called the "Jug" by it's pilots because it looked like a milk jug.
To understand what they meant by milk jug, you have to go back to the 30's and 40's, when milk was transported in fat metal cylinders and transferred to glass bottles. The P-47 looked like a big, fat metal cylinder.

So while some might think it was short for "Juggernaught", it wasn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-47 was called the "Jug" by it's pilots because it looked like a milk jug.
> To understand what they meant by milk jug, you have to go back to the 30's and 40's, when milk was transported in fat metal cylinders and transferred to glass bottles. The P-47 looked like a big, fat metal cylinder.
> 
> So while some might think it was short for "Juggernaught", it wasn't.


And that’s what I thought. Unlike some of the youngsters here I do remember milk jugs.


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> And that’s what I thought. Unlike some of the youngsters here I do remember milk jugs.


Well that would confuse the Brits who call them milk churns.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

Okay pbehn, I ain’t buying that. Fool me once....


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay pbehn, I ain’t buying that. Fool me once....


A milk churn was originally used to make butter from milk, when they started transporting milk by rail it was found that the "churn" was more stable than the "pail". So they started using churns to transport milk and the name stuck. They were common around the countryside when I was young, and we called them churns. Note I didn't use "FACT" so it is in fact, a fact. Milk churn - Wikipedia


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

I knew I should have added “Fact” to my post. I was going to write “the Churns taxied on the wrong side of the runway.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2020)

Late 30's era 10 gallon milk jug.

Lay it on it's side, slap a couple wings on it, stick a prop in it's nose and Voila! a P-47...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Late 30's era 10 gallon milk jug.
> 
> Lay it on it's side, slap a couple wings on it, stick a prop in it's nose and Voila! a P-47...
> 
> View attachment 594028


It would have better performance if you put a balkenkreuz on it. FACT!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 6, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> It would have better performance if you put a balkenkreuz on it. FACT!


Or stick a "meatball" on the side and call it a KI-87...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 6, 2020)

ODonovan said:


> I haven't been here in a few days and come back to find you guys have let me down. I saw the discussion about RR vs Packard and couldn't wait to find the TRUTH about the two versions of the Merlin.
> 
> 1) The US version used imperial measurements while the Brit version used metric.
> 2) The RR had all the bolts reverse threaded compared to the Packards, so they had to be turned the "wrong way" to be installed.
> ...


...actually,
1) Rolls-Royce didn't use machined screws and bolts; each was individually carved by a skilled craftsman. It was usually assigned as punishment duty, hence getting a "screw job."
2) Packard, because of union rules, couldn't assign workers to this punishment, so they had to use standard fasteners. The engineers at Rolls, finding this out, were astounded and redesigned the engine to use fasteners bought from a catalogue.
3) Because of different drawing standards, Packard's engine were actually running backward. Luckily, they weren't also flipped upside down, which would have made them German.
4) Airplanes don't drive, they taxi.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Late 30's era 10 gallon milk jug.
> 
> Lay it on it's side, slap a couple wings on it, stick a prop in it's nose and Voila! a P-47...
> 
> View attachment 594028


The actual production process was to fire an ironing board at it at 600MPH (crosses were applied later).

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## TheMadPenguin (Sep 6, 2020)

I'm trembling at the thought that you guys were actually involved in aircraft design & development for several nations for the last several decades! SO MUCH IS EXPLAINED! FACT!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

TheMadPenguin said:


> I'm trembling at the thought that you guys were actually involved in aircraft design & development for several nations for the last several decades! SO MUCH IS EXPLAINED! FACT!


Once you have mastered the basics of milk storage and transportation the rest is pretty much cruising downhill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2020)

The real trick was the 880fps ironing board cannon and keeping the ironing boards stable until impact

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 6, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The real trick was the 880fps ironing board cannon and keeping the ironing boards stable until impact


Nothing is ever as simple as you think it will be. Did you never think why an ironing board is pointed at one end? Well its nothing to do with shirts, I can tell you that fore certain.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 7, 2020)

Not "for certain"..."for a FACT!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 7, 2020)

pbehn said:


> A milk churn was originally used to make butter from milk, when they started transporting milk by rail it was found that the "churn" was more stable than the "pail". So they started using churns to transport milk and the name stuck.


In the small farming community where I grew up (before bulk tanks), the farmers shipped their milk in cans, or "churns", if you will, that looked like this:


GrauGeist said:


> Late 30's era 10 gallon milk jug.
> 
> View attachment 594028


When the collection truck had visited all of the eight dairy farms, it headed off with its load of butterfat rich Jersey milk over the twelve miles of rutted, potholed, boulder-strewn dirt road to the creamery. On arrival the milk inside might as well have been in a churn, unless the farmer had filled each can right to the tippy-top to prevent sloshing. There was no percentage in shipping partial cans, so the overage was sold to non-farming neighbors like us, and we made our own butter with an ancient, bulletproof Sunbeam electric mixer. When the cows hit pasture in the springtime after being penned up all winter, the butter changed from a bland tasting beige to a robust, mouth watering, brilliant yellow.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 7, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> In the small farming community where I grew up (before bulk tanks), the farmers shipped their milk in cans, or "churns", if you will, that looked like this:
> 
> When the collection truck had visited all of the eight dairy farms, it headed off with its load of butterfat rich Jersey milk over the twelve miles of rutted, potholed, boulder-strewn dirt road to the creamery. On arrival the milk inside might as well have been in a churn, unless the farmer had filled each can right to the tippy-top to prevent sloshing. There was no percentage in shipping partial cans, so the overage was sold to non-farming neighbors like us, and we made our own butter with an ancient, bulletproof Sunbeam electric mixer. When the cows hit pasture in the springtime after being penned up all winter, the butter changed from a bland tasting beige to a robust, mouth watering, brilliant yellow.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Churns used when I was a kid were very tall and narrow like gas cylinders, I presume to actually stop the milk churning inside, as you describe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2020)

I went ahead and moved the P-51D vs. Spitfire IX discussion to its own thread.

P-51D vs. Spitfire IX

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ODonovan (Sep 11, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> ...actually,
> 4) Airplanes don't drive, they taxi.



Don't be too sure about that. 







Nowdays, they don't taxi as much. It's cheaper to Uber, at least until they get enough Lyft.

-Irish

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Sep 11, 2020)

ODonovan said:


> Don't be too sure about that.
> 
> View attachment 594574
> 
> ...


I see what you did there...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2020)

you hold his coat, I'll get his hat

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 11, 2020)

Have you ever stepped into in the middle of a conversation and feel like you've missed a lot?

Thread Title: _"Greatest aviation myth this site "de-bunked"_
What I learned: How to make butter

God, I love this site!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 11, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> Thread Title: _"Greatest aviation myth this site "de-bunked"_
> What I learned: How to make butter
> 
> God, I love this site!


Learning is a ubiquitous experience.


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 12, 2020)

“Knowledge is good.”
Emil Faber

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Sep 12, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> Have you ever stepped into in the middle of a conversation and feel like you've missed a lot?
> 
> Thread Title: _"Greatest aviation myth this site "de-bunked"_
> What I learned: How to make butter
> ...


You also learned how not to make butter, after that building an airplane is a matter of slotting an ironing board though a milk jug and putting a fan somewhere.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

How not to make butter: Don't put Jersey milk in a bulk tanker truck. Vermont used to be Jersey country, but now it's all black-and-whites, except for organic raw milk dairies which don't ship their milk. Besides, since cholesterol became the boogyman, the butterfat premium has been eliminated from milk checks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

Have we forgotten the great Spam recipes? See post #75 on.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Have we forgotten the great Spam recipes? See post #75 on.



I was trying to forget them...thanks for the reminder, NOT!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I was trying to forget them...thanks for the reminder, NOT!!!


Sorry.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Have we forgotten the great Spam recipes? See post #75 on.





buffnut453 said:


> I was trying to forget them...thanks for the reminder, NOT!!!


My dad loved the stuff. I was force fed it to the extent of revulsion. Makes my stomach churn when I hear the word or get a whiff of it. Bleah!


----------



## SaparotRob (Sep 13, 2020)

I saw a cartoon from WW2 in which a starving Japanese soldier is surrendering. He asks the G.I.s to PLEASE NOT to be fed honorable American delicacy Spam. The cartoon itself might be inappropriate now.


----------



## Airframes (Sep 13, 2020)

I an hear Vikings approaching .....................

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 13, 2020)

Used to fry it up on hunting and fishing trips; yearly salt intake in one little can

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I saw a cartoon from WW2 in which a starving Japanese soldier is surrendering. He asks the G.I.s to PLEASE NOT to be fed honorable American delicacy Spam.


"Arigato goziamasu."


----------



## NevadaK (Sep 13, 2020)

I once toured the Slim Jim factory in the 1980s. I haven't touched one since. Makes the Spam production process look positively gourmet.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> I once toured the Slim Jim factory in the 1980s. I haven't touched one since. Makes the Spam production process look positively gourmet.


I've accompanied teams doing maintenance on chicken mcnugget machines and whole hog pork grinders. They were my corporate passengers. Homemade sausage and home processed chicken only for me now. Can't stomach the golden arches or KFC, or "hormhell" any more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 13, 2020)

Buddy worked in a brewery in Saskatchewan in the '70s. He said if you knew what went on there, you would never drink beer again. We never asked

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 13, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Buddy worked in a brewery in Saskatchewan in the '70s. He said if you knew what went on there, you would never drink beer again. We never asked


I know what goes on there. I've brewed plenty myself and lived next door to a brewery for a couple years. It can be a messy business. Ah, but the aroma of fermentation! Ambrosia! (And the spent grains make great compost.)


----------



## glennasher (Sep 13, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I've accompanied teams doing maintenance on chicken mcnugget machines and whole hog pork grinders. They were my corporate passengers. Homemade sausage and home processed chicken only for me now. Can't stomach the golden arches or KFC, or "hormhell" any more.


My late brother, early in his life, worked at a Banquet Frozen Foods factory, packaging those fried chicken TV dinners. He wouldn't touch them, and told me not to partake, either.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 13, 2020)

ODonovan said:


> I haven't been here in a few days and come back to find you guys have let me down. I saw the discussion about RR vs Packard and couldn't wait to find the TRUTH about the two versions of the Merlin.


Were there similar dissimilarities between the German, Italian and Japan versions of the Daimler-Benz DB 605?


----------



## RagTag (Sep 16, 2020)

Myth: Hitler's orders to change the Me-262 into a Schnellbomber changed the course of the War.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 16, 2020)

Willy's enthusiastic "Yes!" to Hitler asking if it could be a bomber did, in fact, change the war to a certain degree.
First, it needs to be said that the Germans had absolutely no chance of winning the war.
In regards to the Me262 being made a Schnell bomber: it delayed the Me262's introduction and thus, saved countless Allied aircrew lives.
The Me262 was introduced far to late to have a physical impact on the war - by 1944, the writing was on the wall.

*IF* the He280 went into production in 1941/42 followed by the Me262, it would have certainly changed the face of the airwar over Europe, but in the end, Germany would have still been defeated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 9, 2021)

The P-39 made its pilots impotent.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The P-39 made its pilots impotent.



Just thinking about the P-39 Groundhog Day thread makes me impotent...and I lose the will to live.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 9, 2021)

I thought it would have taken two posts to get to groundhogs.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 9, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I thought it would have taken two posts to get to groundhogs.



Is it possible to be both impotent and peak too soon...simultaneously?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Is it possible to be both impotent and peak too soon...simultaneously?


Ask my wife.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Is it possible to be both impotent and peak too soon...simultaneously?



It's known as "coming and going"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 9, 2021)

And been...all at the same time.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 9, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> It's known as "coming and going"


AKA, a "minuteman".


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 9, 2021)

You'll enjoy this...didn't you!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> You'll enjoy this...didn't you!



We all are...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2021)

rochie said:


> we've missed one of the big ones i think ?
> 
> during the BoB Hurricanes were intentionally vectored onto the bombers whilst Spitfires vectored onto the fighter escort !



It is actually true - this did happen. Both Park and Dowding ordered it on separate occasions. One instance was on 19 July 1940, Park ordered that of the squadrons sent up to intercept Stukas attacking a convoy off Dover the Spit ones, comprising aircraft from 65 and 610 Sqns were sent up high to deal with the escorting Bf 109s (of JG 51) and the Hurricanes of 32 and 615 Sqns to deal with the Stukas down low. Didn't quite work out that way, but the order was placed.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It is actually true - this did happen. Both Park and Dowding ordered it on separate occasions. One instance was on 19 July 1940, Park ordered that of the squadrons sent up to intercept Stukas attacking a convoy off Dover the Spit ones, comprising aircraft from 65 and 610 Sqns were sent up high to deal with the escorting Bf 109s (of JG 51) and the Hurricanes of 32 and 615 Sqns to deal with the Stukas down low. Didn't quite work out that way, but the order was placed.


It is equally true that on some occasions things were the other way around and on the vast majority of occasions squadrons or part squadrons were placed where they were regardless of aircraft type.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2021)

yulzari said:


> Thus the windows had rounded corners.



Correct and good assessment of the Comet pressurisation failures. One issue that isn't always regularly mentioned is that the Comets were pressurised at lower altitudes (don't know exactly what) and that this contributed to structural weakness because of greater pressure. Today, airliners' cabin altitudes are higher (depending on airline SOPs of course), around 8,000 ft.

This is the exact same window as the one that failed on G-ALYU, the airframe placed in the water filled test rig at Farnborough.





Comet window failure

Here is a rather small copy of the original image from 'YU at Farnborough illustrating the failure.

comet_p5a.jpg (280×196) (rafmuseum.org.uk) 

From here: Comet Failure | Comet - The World's First Jet Airliner | Comet - The World's First Jet Airliner | Archive Exhibitions | Exhibitions & Displays | Research | RAF Museum 

The pic above's from the Comet Ia fuselage F-BGNX at the DH Aviation Heritage Centre, London Colney, Herts. In this image, the window is the foremost passenger window and was the LH forward emergency exit.




Comet Ia fuselage

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It is equally true that on some occasions things were the other way around and on the vast majority of occasions squadrons or part squadrons were placed where they were regardless of aircraft type.



Of course, but the common belief is that the order to vector Spits to the escorts and Hurris to the bombers was a myth, but it wasn't, and, as I mentioned, it didn't always work out in practise that way.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 9, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Willy's enthusiastic "Yes!" to Hitler asking if it could be a bomber did, in fact, change the war to a certain degree.
> First, it needs to be said that the Germans had absolutely no chance of winning the war.
> In regards to the Me262 being made a Schnell bomber: it delayed the Me262's introduction and thus, saved countless Allied aircrew lives.
> The Me262 was introduced far to late to have a physical impact on the war - by 1944, the writing was on the wall.
> ...



Erhardt Milch reckoned that had the Me 262 gotten into service before 1943 was out it could win the war. Of course we know that it would end with a nuclear weapon in late 1945 rather than early 1945 but certainly in 1943 it would have completely disrupted American daylight operations and chased the mosquito pathfinders and recons out of the sky before the invasion.

The claim that Hitler delayed the me 262 seems to have originated with Adolf Galland who wanted to focus the Me 262 on air superiority.

The Me 262 moved along at its own pace. When presented to Hitler, probably in 1942, he enthusiastically supported the program which helped its progression considerably. He did ask 'can it be used as a bomber' and was told yes it could' and that sealed his support. Hitler from that took it would enter service as a JABO or fighter-bomber. He wanted to use it to attack the upcoming allied invasion and to strike back at Britain to take back the initiative. He didn't want it exclusively as a fighter-bomber just that some of them could just like the Me 109 and Fw 190 be used in that way.

When the invasion came and he asked about it he found out that pretty much nothing had been done in that regard. Of course no Me 262 was in service, neither fighter or fighter bomber mainly because the engines just weren't mature yet so it didn't matter much as far as preventing the invasion went Prototype Ar 234 did fly missions over Normandy straight from the test grounds and provided the Germans the first indication of the size of the landings over Cherbourg. I have no doubt attention would have turned to bombing from the Me 262 once the fighter version was up but that's not what Hitler wanted. He wanted them simultaneously and scheduled simultaneously.

Hitler, upset that his orders had been apparently ignored, suspended the program as a fighter (they could work on the bomber) and wouldn't talk on the topic until someone known for their congenial nature could talk to him. That may have delayed the airframe a little but certainly not much given the engine issues.

Had the Fuherers request for it to be a blitz bomber as well been acted upon even the Me 262 fighter may have had airbrakes when it did enter service and that would greatly have improved its performance as a fighter. Split flaps likely.

Bombing from the Me 262 required either the TSA 2D toss bombing sight (aimed in a shallow dive) or would need to be by a blind bombing system such as EGON, Zyklops or Neuling (installed at the end of the war). The Luftwaffe did delay the earlier TSA 2 bomb sight in order to get the TSA 2D and I wonder if that was a good move. Either way the sight was in service for opperational testing with KG51.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jan 9, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Erhardt Milch reckoned that had the Me 262 gotten into service before 1943 was out it could win the war. Of course we know that it would end with a nuclear weapon in late 1945 rather than early 1945 but certainly in 1943 it would have completely disrupted American daylight operations and chased the mosquito pathfinders and recons out of the sky.
> 
> The claim that Hitler delayed the me 262 seems to have originated with Adolf Galland who wanted to focus the Me 262 on air superiority.
> 
> ...


Which invasion? Was that the French invading France? The 262 started to be introduced in April 1944.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 9, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Which invasion? Was that the French invading France? The 262 started to be introduced in April 1944.



Check your facts. You are off by at least 7 months in the case of fully operational squadrons and 3 months in terms of test squadrons that formed in July and that was confident enough to try an semi successful intercept on a recon Mosquito on July 25th 1944. In reality the hollow bladed Jumo 004B4 that made reliability more tollerable wasn't reaching squadrons till November 1944. If you think about it wouldn't we be hearing of Me 262 over the beaches of Normandy if the Me 262 was operational in April 1944 and the Overlord landings were on June the 6th. (2 months latter).

Its not worth me engaging with you on non technical issues and only leads us to go off topic.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2021)

On 19 April 1944, _Erprobungskommando_ 262 was formed at Lechfeld just south of Augsburg, as a test unit (_Jäger Erprobungskommando Thierfelder_, commanded by _Hauptmann_ Werner Thierfelder) to introduce the 262 into service and train a corps of pilots to fly it.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 9, 2021)

Milosh said:


> On 19 April 1944, _Erprobungskommando_ 262 was formed at Lechfeld just south of Augsburg, as a test unit (_Jäger Erprobungskommando Thierfelder_, commanded by _Hauptmann_ Werner Thierfelder) to introduce the 262 into service and train a corps of pilots to fly it.



Indeed but EK210 formed to test the Me 210 were flying Me 110 during the BoB developing slide bombing tactics. Forming the squadron doesn't mean they are operational and seeking contact with the enemy hence the delays.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 10, 2021)

The Ar234 made high-speed recon passes over the Normandy landings.
The Me262's projected production in 1942 was hampered by the problems with the BMW003 and the switch to the Jumo004 proved to be no better BUT it was in 1943 when Hitler's insistence the 262 be a Schnell bomber threw a wrench into the works.
The original design was the Me262A-1a, a heavy fighter, not a bomber. Not a mixed use type and so on.
The Me262A-2a was a revision of the A-1a (obviously, by the variant designation) and the shift to the Schnell bomber production detracted from the original production window.

Uncle Adolph knew the Ar234 was coming close to production at the same time as the Me262, but he had to get into the middle of things (as usual) and as it was, the Ar234 saw action before the 262.
Add to that, the Hs132, which was a dedicated bomber from the start, saw delays because of the engine issues, would have been a bolster to the Ar234.
The engine issues can all point back to the RLM's mandate that jet engine development was not a priority (courtesy of the fat bastard Goering) and as a result, the He280 fell by the wayside, the Me262 and Ar234 struggled into being and the He132 never had a chance.
Which, to be 100% honest, is fine by me - had Germany taken advantage of the tremendous opportunity they had over the Allies early on, would have completely changed the face of the airwar over Europe - at the cost of more Allied lives.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 10, 2021)

That wrench was just a minor bump at least according what is written in the Smith/Creek tome on the Me262.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 10, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Check your facts. You are off by at least 7 months in the case of fully operational squadrons and 3 months in terms of test squadrons that formed in July and that was confident enough to try an semi successful intercept on a recon Mosquito on July 25th 1944. In reality the hollow bladed Jumo 004B4 that made reliability more tollerable wasn't reaching squadrons till November 1944. If you think about it wouldn't we be hearing of Me 262 over the beaches of Normandy if the Me 262 was operational in April 1944 and the Overlord landings were on June the 6th. (2 months latter).
> 
> Its not worth me engaging with you on non technical issues and only leads us to go off topic.


The LW had many aircraft in service in June 1944, very few were seen in Normandy above the landing sites, the 262 would just be another. Any airfield in France where they were stationed would immediately become the number one target for allied bombers. It is easy to construct fantasy scenarios about what thousands of 262s or others would do but you cant stop thousands of tanks with cannon armed aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 14, 2021)

pbehn said:


> The LW had many aircraft in service in June 1944, very few were seen in Normandy above the landing sites, the 262 would just be another. Any airfield in France where they were stationed would immediately become the number one target for allied bombers. It is easy to construct fantasy scenarios about what thousands of 262s or others would do but you cant stop thousands of tanks with cannon armed aircraft.



As it was the Luftwaffe didn't feel comfortable engaging an enemy aircraft till July 25 1944, 6 weeks after the invasion, and that was an unarmed PRU Mosquito over German territory where the 262 might not be captured. It ended inclusively with possibly 1 hit by the Me 262 though the bomb bay door that had blown of the Mosquito may just as likely have done so due to manoeuvring. Since he saw parts flying of the Me 262 its pilot claimed a kill.

Lets consider what might have been achieved had Adolph Hitler expectation been carried out:

1 Bomb racks would be fitted to the Me 262. These would latter become useful as drop tank positions greatly increasing the Me 262's range as an escort or reconnaissance aircraft.
That would have avoided Hitler's ire and he would be forced to accept the aircraft was not yet ready.
It could bomb using electronic blind bombing systems. (Fw 190F did use these) but that doesn't attack an invasion fleet.
2 If fitted with a fighter bomber REVI reflector sight it might use the same technique the Me 109 used which is to set a second reticule on the REVI and then at the correct range or altitude pull up until the second reticule crossed the target and release the bomb. The pilot would either set an alarm in the altimeter or use the stedometric range finder in the sight to estimate range.
3 This didn't work well in an Me 262 which tended to get in trouble with Dr Mach forcing the aircraft to slow down to attempt to bomb. The Me 262 bomber would thus need air brakes.
4 Alternatively a toss bombing sight like the TSA 2D might be fitted. This used a precision barometric altimeter or alternatively FuG 101a radio altimeter) in combination with an accelerometer to automatically release the bombs in the pullup at the correct time. All the pilot need to is line up his gun sight and pull up and the bomb sight released at the correct point.

In my view both the TSA 2D and the air brakes would be needed.

So if Hitler orders had of been carried out we might have seen an Me 262 with fittings for a bomb and drop tank.
We might even have seen it with air brakes, as a separate line.

Both would improve it as a fighter and a long range reconnaissance aircraft.

The reality is however the aircraft wouldn't have been ready on June 6 1944 either way and the important TSA 2D bomb sight probably not.

However if the Me 262 had of been in the operational state it was in November 1944 only in May 1944.

1 Reconnaissance Me 262 would have a dramatic effect on the conduct of German campaign even before the Allies landed.
2 Me 262 fighters might have strafed ground targets or assisted Fw 190 and Me 109 in attacking. 100 Me 262 would make little difference.
3 The few JABO Me 262 would have limited capability since without the TSA 2D bomb sight and air brakes they needed to slow down to attack. (TSA assigned to KG51 about Jan 1945)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Lets consider what might have been achieved had Adolph Hitler expectation been carried out:
> 
> 1 Bomb racks would be fitted to the Me 262. These would latter become useful as drop tank positions greatly increasing the Me 262's range as an escort or reconnaissance aircraft.
> That would have avoided Hitler's ire and he would be forced to accept the aircraft was not yet ready.
> It could bomb using electronic blind bombing systems. (Fw 190F did use these) but that doesn't attack an invasion fleet.


I thought the Me-262's already had some bomb-rack carrying capability, and that he merely wanted more. The fact that the pylons couldn't be plumbed for drop-tank carriage is strange (you said later fitted), as the Luftwaffe were among the first to use drop-tanks.

As for blind-bombing systems, I never knew the LW used them.


> 3 This didn't work well in an Me 262 which tended to get in trouble with Dr Mach forcing the aircraft to slow down to attempt to bomb. The Me 262 bomber would thus need air brakes.


I thought all operational variants had brakes fitted already? It seems like it would have been hard to control in combat with engines that responded somewhat slowly.


> 4 Alternatively a toss bombing sight like the TSA 2D might be fitted. This used a precision barometric altimeter or alternatively FuG 101a radio altimeter) in combination with an accelerometer to automatically release the bombs in the pullup at the correct time. All the pilot need to is line up his gun sight and pull up and the bomb sight released at the correct point.


I always thought toss-bombing produced poor accuracy. I remember reading in the Cold War that the accuracy positively sucked and it was difficult to plunk bombs within 1500' of the intended target.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought all operational variants had brakes fitted already? It seems like it would have been hard to control in combat with engines that responded somewhat slowly.


You thought *very* wrongly.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 14, 2021)

I posted a hit chart for the TSA 2D somewhere here.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought the Me-262's already had some bomb-rack carrying capability, and that he merely wanted more.


No, the Me262's original design and pre-production design was for a heavy fighter/interceptor.
With the change to the Me262A-2a variant, a suitable location for the two bomb hardpoints had to be determined, the frame reinforced for the mounting and then two of the four MK108 cannon removed to compensate for the weight of the bombs.

And tthe Me262 never had dive/speed brakes.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2021)

Milosh said:


> You thought *very* wrongly.


When did they fit speed-brakes to the aircraft? Also, how long did it take for the Jumo 004 to spool up. I've heard numbers from 25-45 seconds.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> When did they fit speed-brakes to the aircraft?



You might be thinking of the Gloster Meteor. That had airbrakes from the beginning iirc.


----------



## K5083 (Jan 14, 2021)

I'm just wondering about a 262 vs Mosquito encounter at high altitude. Just how much thrust did the 262 have up there? It seems to me it would be very much straight and level only whereas the Mosquito, especially with a two-stage Merlin, would be more able to turn and avoid the attack. A Mosquito which saw the 262 coming might stand a fair chance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 14, 2021)

If a Mossie saw a 262 coming in time and had altitude it would be a lucky 262 that got close before it ran short of fuel. The Mossies best tactic was to run hard in a shallow dive.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2021)

K5083 said:


> I'm just wondering about a 262 vs Mosquito encounter at high altitude. Just how much thrust did the 262 have up there?


Now that's actually a good observation. Service ceiling is set by lift and by power. The 262 actually probably had enough lift to fly above 37000 feet, but the engines seemed to run into cooling trouble up there.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Now that's actually a good observation. Service ceiling is set by lift and by power. The 262 actually probably had enough lift to fly above 37000 feet, but the engines seemed to run into cooling trouble up there.


The Jumo004s did fine at higher altitudes and it was actually faster the higher it flew.
At 30,000 feet, it was rated at 550mph, with a service ceiling of 37,500 feet and a RoC of 3,900 f/m, a Mossie would be in trouble unless they knew to out-maneuver it until the 262 had to break off due to bingo fuel.

The 262 had roughly 90 minutes of fuel radius but that drops to 30 minutes if in a combat situation.

Also, unless your aircraft can exceed .86 mach, do NOT try and out-dive it...


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 14, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> You might be thinking of the Gloster Meteor. That had airbrakes from the beginning iirc.


Only Meteor III had air brakes. Meteor I did not. The Me 262 could have been fitted with something, split flap type similar to Me 410 maybe.


----------



## Ascent (Jan 14, 2021)

I have mentioned this before but I heard a mosquito pilot say in an interview that if they knew a 262 nightfighter was hunting them they would head for the deck as they knew the jet fuel burn was much higher causing them to break off much earlier. Would that be a viable tactical option during daylight?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 15, 2021)

Ascent said:


> I have mentioned this before but I heard a mosquito pilot say in an interview that if they knew a 262 nightfighter was hunting them they would head for the deck as they knew the jet fuel burn was much higher causing them to break off much earlier. Would that be a viable tactical option during daylight?


Back in '44, one of the first Allied encounters with a Me262, was a PRU Mossie.
They spotted an enemy aircraft closing on them (at 30,000 feet) and they opened the throttle, getting up to 400mph and the enemy was still closing. The enemy A/C was the unknown Me262, so they had no way of knowing what they were up against and when it opened fire, landing hits, they took violent evasive maneuvers.
One tactic they did, was a descending spiral which caused the Me262 to bleed off speed (the Mossie's saving grace) and then it would close again and they continued every trick in the book to shake it and this went on for nearly 15 minutes and then suddenly, the Me262 broke off.

So I would surmise that the Mosquito's pilot, by an astounding stroke of luck, found the 262's shortcomings in the first encounter: force the Me262 to slow down and run it out of fuel.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Back in '44, one of the first Allied encounters with a Me262, was a PRU Mossie.
> They spotted an enemy aircraft closing on them (at 30,000 feet) and they opened the throttle, getting up to 400mph and the enemy was still closing. The enemy A/C was the unknown Me262, so they had no way of knowing what they were up against and when it opened fire, landing hits, they took violent evasive maneuvers.
> One tactic they did, was a descending spiral which caused the Me262 to bleed off speed (the Mossie's saving grace) and then it would close again and they continued every trick in the book to shake it and this went on for nearly 15 minutes and then suddenly, the Me262 broke off.
> 
> So I would surmise that the Mosquito's pilot, by an astounding stroke of luck, found the 262's shortcomings in the first encounter: force the Me262 to slow down and run it out of fuel.


Bits fell of the mossie either from a hit or the intense manoeuvring and it disappeared into the clouds. That's why the engagement was broken of.

The mossie survives still in the RAF museum.
Under the RADAR: Mosquito versus Me 262 - YouTube

The Me 262 carried a huge amount of fuel, 650 miles worth, so it was short ranged only compared to a P-51


----------



## Ascent (Jan 15, 2021)

The Me 262 carried a huge amount of fuel, 650 miles worth, so it was short ranged only compared to a P-51[/QUOTE]

650 miles at what speed and what altitude?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 15, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The mossie survives still in the RAF museum.



Not the one the guy talks about in the clip. The RAF Museum only has two Mosquitoes and none of those saw action during the war. The aircraft in the background of the guy talking is a TT.35 and never saw combat, being delivered straight to storage in April 1945 as a B.35 but was later converted to a target tug. It wears the markings of the aircraft that Guy Gibson was killed in during a sortie in September 1944.





TA639

Here's the '262 from the clip, both across from each other at RAFM Cosford.




Me 262

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 15, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Bits fell of the mossie either from a hit or the intense manoeuvring and it disappeared into the clouds. That's why the engagement was broken of.
> 
> The mossie survives still in the RAF museum.
> Under the RADAR: Mosquito versus Me 262 - YouTube
> ...


90 minutes cruise or 30 minutes of combat - having two turbojets consumed the 475 gallons of fuel quickly if it had to go into combat.
Hardly a comparison to any inline type...


----------



## Milosh (Jan 15, 2021)

A couple of Mossie/Me262 encounters, German Jet Encounters (mossie.org) 

25 July 1944, a PRXVI Mosquito from No. 544 Squadron RAF was intercepted in the Munich area and attacked by Leutnant Alfred Schreiber, flying an Me 262 A-1a. The German fighter made six passes at the Mosquito MM 273, crewed by F/L A.E. Wall and F/O A.S. Lobban, but they managed to escape into cloud after violent evasive manoeuvers, making an emergency landing at Fermo airfield in Italy. British airmen’s first encounter with a jet aircraft – 26 July 1944 | Abroad in the Yard Yes I know the dates are different.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 15, 2021)

Ascent said:


> I have mentioned this before but I heard a mosquito pilot say in an interview that if they knew a 262 nightfighter was hunting them they would head for the deck as they knew the jet fuel burn was much higher causing them to break off much earlier. Would that be a viable tactical option during daylight?


I’ve read the same thing somewhere about diving down low and get the 262 to burn up fuel. I wondered how the Allied pilots would know this. 
After all, the initial encounters must have been a bit of a shock.


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 15, 2021)

Ascent said:


> The Me 262 carried a huge amount of fuel, 650 miles worth, so it was short ranged only compared to a P-51



650 miles at what speed and what altitude?[/QUOTE]

The Me 262 had 2000L of internal fuel. Weight of this fuel is just under 1600kg or 3500lbs. (My rough conversions)

Specific fuel consumption of the engines is 1.39kg fuel per kg of thrust per hour. So with 2 x 900kg = 1800kg thrust the fuel burn would be 2520 kg fuel and hour which would last 0.63 of an hour, about 38 minutes at full thrust at sea level. This produced a speed of 520mph or so.

However at 20000 ft fuel burn would almost halve due to thinner air and even less at 10000m. Of course no one fly's WEP continuous rich in a piston fighter.

Me 262 pilots were under strict orders never to fly below 440mph. This is 80% speed and would need 64% thrust which would be about 45% thrust at about 25000ft.

So yes jets like to fly high.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I’ve read the same thing somewhere about diving down low and get the 262 to burn up fuel. I wondered how the Allied pilots would know this.
> After all, the initial encounters must have been a bit of a shock.



Diving while manoeuvering in 3 dimensions was an accepted evasive technique during WW2, as per the famed Lancaster "corkscrew". I suspect the Mossie crew in this initial engagement simply tried what had worked before (diving to increase own speed, and manoeuvering to present a harder engagement target) and, luckily for them, it worked.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 15, 2021)

I wonder how certain other aircraft may have performed doing that. 
Not changing the timeline nor tactics. Heavy bombers flying daylight missions in tight formations suddenly doing the Lancaster corkscrew is ridiculous. But, as individual airplanes, doing these maneuvers, was the B-17 a joy to fly? Are their anecdotes about Liberators, Halifaxes, and maybe Sunderlands?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I wonder how certain other aircraft may have performed doing that.
> Not changing the timeline nor tactics. Heavy bombers flying daylight missions in tight formations suddenly doing the Lancaster corkscrew is ridiculous. But, as individual airplanes, doing these maneuvers, was the B-17 a joy to fly? Are their anecdotes about Liberators, Halifaxes, and maybe Sunderlands?


The Sunderland was much more agile and heavily armed than it looked, quite a few stories about them getting the better of Ju 88s. The Stirling was too. One Lancaster crew developed their own method of dealing with attacks. When the tail gunner warned the pilot a night fighter was approaching on a given signal the pilot throttled back, this gave the tail gunner a shot at the fighter as it overshot, the tail gunner opening fire was the signal to the pilot to open the throttles full and dive into a "corkscrew", they claimed 3 x Bf110s destroyed and a Bf109 damaged in a single action over France.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zippythehog (Jan 15, 2021)

I can't read anymore-everything I know is wrong-especially the "Greg" thing.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 15, 2021)

Zippythehog said:


> I can't read anymore-everything I know is wrong-especially the "Greg" thing.



I heard a scientist (biologist I think) on a radio programme say that half of what he was taught at university 20 years ago is now wrong. He says by the time he retires he will have seen virtually everything he was taught be superceded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 15, 2021)

I showed them all. I never learned anything!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> ... as individual airplanes, doing these maneuvers, was the B-17 a joy to fly?



I'm no B-17 expert but I've never heard of its manoeuvring capabilities described with superlatives -- though never noting any real downsides either. The A&AEE noted that the Fortress I (B-17C) had very nice handling, and though this was lost somewhat in the later models it never was a real drawback.

The B-17's strong suit always appears to be it's steadiness. If you wanted to fly in tight formations and bomb accurately -- the Fort was your girl.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 15, 2021)

I picked the B-17 but I was wondering if any of the larger aircraft of the Second World War were surprisingly pleasant to fly and perhaps more maneuverable than one might think.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> I heard a scientist (biologist I think) on a radio programme say that half of what he was taught at university 20 years ago is now wrong. He says by the time he retires he will have seen virtually everything he was taught be superceded.


I used to have a book on welding produced by the British Welding Institute. When I worked on a 13% Chromium pipeline it told me "13% Chromium steel is not weldable", when I worked on a super duplex stainless steel pipeline using Electron Beam welding it told me "this process is only used in academic research". When I worked on a bi metallic catenary riser pipeline which used Electro Slag welding it told me "the electro slag process is used to join rail lines". I threw the book away.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jan 15, 2021)

I have read in many places that the Halifax and Wellington also used the 'corkscrew' maneuver. I do not know if the Stirling did, but I do not think there is any reason it could not. Same for the B-17 and Lancaster, although the US bombers might have to watch the G load a bit more than the UK bombers.

Some ultimate load factors from official UK documents:

Mosquito___8.0 at 18,500 lbs
Wellington__4.2 at 36,500 or 11 at 24,500
Lancaster__ 4.5 at 63,000
Halifax_____4.5 at 60,000
Stirling_____4.0 at 70,000 or 4.5 at 62,500
Sunderland_4.2 at 58,000

B-17C_____ 4.2 at 53,200
B-24D_____ 4.0 at 56,000

UK 2-engine bombers were required to meet a 6.0 G ultimate load at design weights, with 4-engine bombers meeting a 4.5 G load at design weight. I do not know what the design specification G load limits were for the B-17 or B-24, but I have read that the original specification G limit was the same for both.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jan 15, 2021)

The ball turret was the safest position in a B-17 or B-24. Casualty records show more or less the same number for ball turret gunners as for other positions. That thread is from about 2010, but I can dig up the link if anybody's interested.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jan 16, 2021)

It would be interesting to see the thread -- all I have is a small table from 'Gunner: an Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions'
1,117 air-battle casualties tabulated.​8th Air Force B-17 and B-24 Bomb Groups.​
*Crew Position* -- *Killed/Wounded*
Bombardiers -- 196: 17.6%
Waist gunners -- 233: 20.9%
Tail gunners -- 140: 12.5%
Navigators -- 136: 12.2%
Radio operators -- 95: 8.5%
Top gunners -- 94: 8.4%
Pilots -- 83: 7.4%
Co-pilots -- 74: 6.6% 
Ball turret gunners -- 6: 5.9%

Dates/source unknown

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 16, 2021)

Greyman said:


> It would be interesting to see the thread -- all I have is a small table from 'Gunner: an Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions'
> 1,117 air-battle casualties tabulated.​8th Air Force B-17 and B-24 Bomb Groups.​
> *Crew Position* -- *Killed/Wounded*
> Bombardiers -- 196: 17.6%
> ...



Is this related to the amount of armour the crew members were provided with?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 16, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Is this related to the amount of armour the crew members were provided with?


Partly, but there are many "dynamics" at play. For example the loss of two waist gunners doesn't affect anyone elses chance of survival, the loss of pilot and co pilot almost guarantees no one goes home unless they can successfully bail out. The statistics don't state whether they are for all servicemen involved in raids or just those who landed back where they came from.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha3 (Jan 17, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Back in '44, one of the first Allied encounters with a Me262, was a PRU Mossie.
> They spotted an enemy aircraft closing on them (at 30,000 feet) and they opened the throttle, getting up to 400mph and the enemy was still closing. The enemy A/C was the unknown Me262, so they had no way of knowing what they were up against and when it opened fire, landing hits, they took violent evasive maneuvers.
> One tactic they did, was a descending spiral which caused the Me262 to bleed off speed (the Mossie's saving grace) and then it would close again and they continued every trick in the book to shake it and this went on for nearly 15 minutes and then suddenly, the Me262 broke off.
> 
> So I would surmise that the Mosquito's pilot, by an astounding stroke of luck, found the 262's shortcomings in the first encounter: force the Me262 to slow down and run it out of fuel.



Mossie was a PR XVI, MM273, it was attacked by an Me262 which made some six firing passes. Eventually the Mosquito was able to escape into the clouds at 16,000 feet over the Tyrol. It landed at Fermo in Italy. No hits, outer part of a hatch was torn away by intense maneuverings. The crew flew the plane back to RAF Benson on the next day. After the war MM273 was passed to the Royal Navy and was lost when it crashed onto the sea off Malta in October 1950.

Very probably it's end was on October 31st 1950
CORDWELL, Victor H M, Lieutenant, killed
JOPLIN, Arthur, Commissioned Pilot, killed
728 Sqn FAA, HMS Falcon (Hal Far), landing back and turned steeply to port on one engine, crashed

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ClayO (Jan 17, 2021)

Greyman said:


> It would be interesting to see the thread -- all I have is a small table from 'Gunner: an Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions'
> 1,117 air-battle casualties tabulated.​8th Air Force B-17 and B-24 Bomb Groups.​
> *Crew Position* -- *Killed/Wounded*
> Bombardiers -- 196: 17.6%
> ...



So you don't have to go through the whole thing, here's a chart posted by fubar57 on that thread:
Most Dangerous Position on a WW2 Allied bomber?

The chart is from this page.

Also, sorting the casualty list of the 449th BG (H), by position, ball turret gunners account for 41 out of the 458 listed, which is about 1/10th of the total.

I wonder if the data showing fewer ball turret casualties included units that removed the B-24 ball turret, like Topper of the 467th BG (H)?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jan 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Tuskegee airmen never lost a bomber under their escort.


I tracked that myth when writing "Forgotten Fifteenth." Turned out that it was published in the black press around the time the 99th FS had flown numerous missions. The notion was repeated in perpetuity assuming that the same record applied to the 332nd FG. Of course, other TA myths included the "Nazi destroyer," one or two aces, and much-much exaggerated claims ref. 262s. My conclusion: the TAs showed up when they didn't have to and they did a good job. But by actual Google count they (as RTs, 332nd, etc) have more google hits than the other groups in the 15th AF combined.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> but I was wondering if any of the larger aircraft of the Second World War were surprisingly pleasant to fly and perhaps more maneuverable than one might think.



The Short Stirling. Pilots liked it and said for such a large aircraft it was easy to throw about the sky.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

A thing I wanna add about aviation myths on this site being debunked, well, I'm certainly not claiming to debunk anything, but I would like to pour cold water on the statement that the Fw 187 was a multi-role aircraft that would have been capable of doing everything, such as a Zerstorer, dive bomber, night fighter, high altitude fighter all in one airframe. Becos, folks, THAT AIN'T TRUE (most of you probably knew that anyways).

All one needs to do is look at the Fw drawings of the different variants of the Fw 187 that are supplied in the Hermann and Petrick book to see that each different incarnation had entirely different fuselage and engine combinations to each other. Not only that, but the airframe is simply too small to be able to carry all the equipment necessary to do so many things in one aircraft. For example, the night fighter variant was a single-seater with no provision for radar visible. German radar aerials were mounted in the nose of their aircraft, the Fw 187 couldn't do that for two reasons, 1, lack of space and 2, the propeller arc's proximity to the nose prevents it. It also had a different fuselage to the Fw 187C that Fw was preparing for production when it was ceased in August 1942.

That aircraft would have been capable of a day fighter bomber role, but that's pretty much it. There is no provision for drop tanks in the drawings either. The book states that it could serve as a night fighter, bad weather fighter and armed reconnaissance aircraft, but there is no space at all for mounting cameras in the fuselage, nor is there any space for extra avionics or radar, needed in a night/bad weather fighter, not to mention the location of engine instrumentation OUTSIDE the aircraft and the confined space in the cockpit, which would have made IFR flying a nightmare.

So, overall, I feel that, based on the evidence in the book that the Fw 187 would have been very much a one-trick-pony; EITHER a night fighter, albeit a bad one, OR a Kampfzerstorer, albeit a faster, more manoeuvrable but less capable one than the Bf 110, OR a high altitude heavy fighter, again, a fast one, OR a dive bomber, but a totally different airframe to the others, BUT NOT a reconnaissance aircraft, because there is nowhere to put cameras, unless you remove the back seat and/or fuselage fuel tanks/rear mounted avionics in the proposed single-seat heavy fighter.

The problem is that Hermann and Petrick, for all their hard work and research have painted an uneven appraisal of the aircraft and have ignored some of the evidence that Tank produced and that they used for their book, thereby, leading the fanatics astray in painting their own view of the aircraft as being the best thing since Nazi Schokolade...




MoF 85

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2021)

The Fw187 was originally to be a single-seat, twin engine fighter (like the Grumman XF5F), but in typical RLM tradition, they wanted it to do everything except be a single-seat, twin engine fighter.

To be honest, I think the RLM was the Luftwaffe's greatest adversary...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 26, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, I think the RLM was the Luftwaffe's greatest adversary...



Agree and Funny!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jan 26, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> A thing I wanna add about aviation myths on this site being debunked, well, I'm certainly not claiming to debunk anything, but I would like to pour cold water on the statement that the Fw 187 was a multi-role aircraft that would have been capable of doing everything, such as a Zerstorer, dive bomber, night fighter, high altitude fighter all in one airframe. Becos, folks, THAT AIN'T TRUE (most of you probably knew that anyways).
> 
> All one needs to do is look at the Fw drawings of the different variants of the Fw 187 that are supplied in the Hermann and Petrick book to see that each different incarnation had entirely different fuselage and engine combinations to each other. Not only that, but the airframe is simply too small to be able to carry all the equipment necessary to do so many things in one aircraft. For example, the night fighter variant was a single-seater with no provision for radar visible. German radar aerials were mounted in the nose of their aircraft, the Fw 187 couldn't do that for two reasons, 1, lack of space and 2, the propeller arc's proximity to the nose prevents it. It also had a different fuselage to the Fw 187C that Fw was preparing for production when it was ceased in August 1942.
> 
> ...




No one has painted the Fw 187 as anything but a lost opportunity to produce a twin engine high speed long range fighter that would have been excellent and provided the Luftwaffe an capability it lacked, in that role if produced with DB601/DB605. The subsequent attempts, described by Hermann/Petrick to reengineer it into a dive bomber and zerstoerer are seen universally by Fw "proponents" as waste of time and worth reviewing to understand why Luftwaffe procurement policy had lost its way.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 26, 2021)

But everything the RLM wanted the Fw187 to do (besides being a pure fighter), they already had.
Dive-Bomber: Hs123, Ju87
Photo recon: so many to choose from - where to start?
Fighter/bomber: Bf109, He112, Fw190

And this doesn't include the bombers that ALSO had to do everything on the list.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But everything the RLM wanted the Fw187 to do (besides being a pure fighter), they already had.
> Dive-Bomber: Hs123, Ju87
> Photo recon: so many to choose from - where to start?
> Fighter/bomber: Bf109, He112, Fw190
> ...


Bombers also had to be troop transports, cargo planes and medical evacuation vehicles. To be fair the allies did the same, most fighters were used for ground attack, with the Typhoon that was its main role. The Mustang Mk I was fitted with cameras for its main RAF role and there were dedicated PR versions of the P-51 too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Bombers also had to be troop transports, cargo planes and medical evacuation vehicles. To be fair the allies did the same, most fighters were used for ground attack, with the Typhoon that was its main role. The Mustang Mk I was fitted with cameras for its main RAF role and there were dedicated PR versions of the P-51 too.


But the USAAF and RAF didn't hamstring production of the type to make changes, they pulled an airframe off the assembly line and spun the variant from that...the RLM demanded changes beforehand, causing delays and in several cases, atrophy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> No one has painted the Fw 187 as anything but a lost opportunity to produce a twin engine high speed long range fighter that would have been excellent and provided the Luftwaffe an capability it lacked, in that role if produced with DB601/DB605.



Actually that's not true. Enter "Fw 187" into the forum search engine and you'll see that every mention of it in a thread talks about how awesome it would have been as a multi-role machine capable of doing everything and being a Mosquito Killer and, and, and. Even you have expressed how it would have been a long range fighter/night fighter/recon machine, yet the evidence says it wouldn't have been capable of all those things in one airframe, which is why I have placed this here.

Was it a lost opportunity? Again, I'm on the fence about this. It kind'a made sense for the RLM to not continue with it bearing in mind the fact that one airframe could not have done all that was (and is) being said of it. The Bf 110 was slower and less manoeuvrable (that's one thing about the Fw 187 that I agree with you on, its excellent performance), but the Bf 110 was far more versatile, and that's what the RLM was asking for. Also the production side of things - what's not being produced? It made more sense to concentrate on the Fw 190/Ta 152 airframe as a fighter interceptor, or ground attack aeroplane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> ...
> 
> Was it a lost opportunity? Again, I'm on the fence about this. It kind'a made sense for the RLM to not continue with it bearing in mind the fact that one airframe could not have done all that was (and is) being said of it. The Bf 110 was slower and less manoeuvrable (that's one thing about the Fw 187 that I agree with you on, its excellent performance), but the Bf 110 was far more versatile, and that's what the RLM was asking for. Also the production side of things - what's not being produced? It made more sense to concentrate on the Fw 190/Ta 152 airframe as a fighter interceptor, or ground attack aeroplane.



RLM was wrong (certainly not the last time they will be wrong until VE day). Should've picked Fw 187, that is being build instead of Bf 110, Me 210 and Me 410. Probably no Fw 190 either, better have Focke Wulf whip up a 1-engined jet fighter for 1943.
Fw 190, good as it was, played no part in air war of 1939, 1940, and in 1941 it was present only in ETO.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Should've picked Fw 187, that is being build instead of Bf 110, Me 210 and Me 410.



Would'a could'a should'a. The RLM chose the Bf 110 instead of the Fw 187 is for the same reasons I keep bringing it up - there was no versatility in the airframe. The Zerstorer wasn't just a heavy fighter. That was probably, although I have no evidence for it, the reason why the RLM chose to discontinue the Fw 187C in August 1942. That the RLM went for the Me 410 is evidence of this.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Would'a could'a should'a. The RLM chose the Bf 110 instead of the Fw 187 is for the same reasons I keep bringing it up - there was no versatility in the airframe. The Zerstorer wasn't just a heavy fighter. That was probably, although I have no evidence for it, the reason why the RLM chose to discontinue the Fw 187C in August 1942. That the RLM went for the Me 410 is evidence of this.



They made a mistake never the less. It was not their lat mistake, and the RLM didn't had a monopoly on making mistakes (faulty torpedoes anyone, or turret fighters perhaps; how about 40 ton tanks firing a 1kg shell, or floatplanes galore, or the bomber will always get through, ot to mention startegic choices Germany did, etc). Zerstorer was a heavy fighter in anything but in name. Bf 110 became versatile once people started hanging bombs on it.

So yes, the RLM should've procured Fw 187 and cancel the Bf 110/Me-210/-410 lot.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 27, 2021)

Let's go back to the late 30's, when the Fw187 was conceived:
a single-seat, long range fighter.

This is what Germany needed. As I mentioned already, they already had dedicated types for dive-bombing, recon, fighter/bomber and so on.

What they did NOT have, was a pure fighter with any range.

With it's first flight in '37, being left alone by the RLM and going into production shortly after, it would have been available for when Germany really needed it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Bf 110 became versatile once people started hanging bombs on it.
> 
> So yes, the RLM should've procured Fw 187 and cancel the Bf 110/Me-210/-410 lot.



Again with stacks of hindsight, see below.



GrauGeist said:


> This is what Germany needed.



But not what it wanted. The RLM, like the British Air Ministry didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't foresee that they needed a long range fighter in 1937. The entire Zerstorer concept was flawed, like the turret fighter, but both respective Air departments went with those decisions because they thought they were right, despite evidence to the contrary in some cases.

You are both right, the Fw 187 would have made a terrific twin-engined fighter, but rightly or wrongly, the RLM didn't want it. Also, the Bf 110 was a versatile airframe, far more versatile than the Fw 187, so in hindsight the RLM did the Luftwaffe a favour, because, the Bf 110 saw service right to the end of the war, in a role that the Fw 187 couldn't have fulfilled, that of specialised night fighter. Or, perhaps it could have, but it would have had to have undergone redesign from the basic design of 1937, that's for sure...


----------



## special ed (Jan 27, 2021)

The stuff of the aviation pulp magazines of the 30s & 40s. Fw 187s twisting and diving against P-38s high over Europe.


----------



## D3801 (Jan 27, 2021)

The Bf 110 was used in the desert, with the bellypack Mauser Mk 101 30x184b, percussion primed ammo, as an effective tank buster.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Again with stacks of hindsight, see below.
> 
> But not what it wanted. The RLM, like the British Air Ministry didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't foresee that they needed a long range fighter in 1937. The entire Zerstorer concept was flawed, like the turret fighter, but both respective Air departments went with those decisions because they thought they were right, despite evidence to the contrary in some cases.



Turret fighter concept was flawed.
Zerstrorer - probably not flawed, but certainly badly executed with Bf 110 being chosen, at least for the BoB and on. Bf 110 was a long range fighter already with Jumo 210 powered 110B version from late 1938, carrying 1100+ L of fuel - obvoiusly 550+L of fuel per engine. That is almost twice the fuel per engine that the Jumo-powered Bf 109B/C/D carried. The Bf 110C carried 1270L of fuel for the DB 601A engines, and it could do 1040 km range at max continuous power at 6 km, vs. Bf 109E making exactly half of that on same altitude and power setting.
The RLM certainly foresaw the need for a long range fighter well before ww2 started, thankfully the aircraft chosen wasn't stellar on other things that separate good fighters from great fighters.



> You are both right, the Fw 187 would have made a terrific twin-engined fighter, but rightly or wrongly, the RLM didn't want it. Also, the Bf 110 was a versatile airframe, far more versatile than the Fw 187, so in hindsight the RLM did the Luftwaffe a favour, because, the Bf 110 saw service right to the end of the war, in a role that the Fw 187 couldn't have fulfilled, that of specialised night fighter. Or, perhaps it could have, but it would have had to have undergone redesign from the basic design of 1937, that's for sure...



BoB predates the effective RAF BC night attacks, thus BoB is more important by the order of magnitude. LW didn't needed versatile airframes for the BoB, they needed a long range performer to protect their bombers.
Luftwaffe night fighters carried no radar until late 1941 on regular basis? The Do 215 and Ju 88 can do the night fighting job anyway.
RLM preference of Bf 110 was the self-inflicted wound.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 27, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> But the USAAF and RAF didn't hamstring production of the type to make changes, they pulled an airframe off the assembly line and spun the variant from that...the RLM demanded changes beforehand, causing delays and in several cases, atrophy.


Well mid 30s peace time designs for the RAF sometimes were required to fulfil a few roles and didn't do any particularly well, the Stirlings need to carry people badly affected its performance as a bomber. The obsession with putting turrets on everything maybe made sense with bombers but not the float plane version of the Blackburn Roc. Sometimes it was inadvertent or accidental. The RAF sometimes specified that a bomber should be able to carry a certain size of bomb or torpedo but this mean some were designed in such a way they couldn't carry anything much bigger, like a cookie or Tallboy. The Lancaster was just designed with a huge bay with two curved doors, others had compartments and complicated folding doors that meant a Wellington or Stirling needed more mods to carry a cookie than the Mosquito did.

In my opinion the Mosquito and P-51 benefitted from not following or having much of a design brief. Conventional wisdom in the RAF demanded at least a 3 man crew for a bomber, the Hampden had 4. The Mosquito forced a higher level of training, all roles had to be done by two people, it also forced "tech" like radar and navigation systems to be smaller and easier to use.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Zerstrorer - probably not flawed, but certainly badly executed with Bf 110 being chosen, at least for the BoB and on.



Actually, not really - out of those competing, the Bf 110 fits the bill the best. The Zerstorer concept was definitely flawed - the technical requirements for the Aircraft Destroyer called for a three seat multi-purpose fighter bomber with an internal bay for stores. The very nature of a three seat fighter bomber means that it was going to be a terrible bomber escort. This is yet another means of getting as much as possible out of a single airframe. On paper it looks great, but in reality, not so. 

And yes, the Turret fighter was a flawed concept, but so was a three seat escort fighter, fighter-bomber, recon aircraft in one airframe, in the early to mid-1930s. 

Perhaps Fw could have proposed an entirely different specification and requirement for the Fw 187 that could have it being put into production, but the Zerstorer concept was very much the domain of a multi-role type, which the Fw 187 in its first incarnation definitely wasn't.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2021)

Apparently we have several different FW 187s

The original ones single and two seat with Jumo engines substituting for the DB 600 series in engines in 1937-39,
Yes performance with DB 601s would have been much enhanced but these were in no way in competition with the Me 210 Me 410 series of aircraft.

Then we have the 1942 and later(?) Fw 187s with DB 605 engines and/or BMW 801 radials. 
The Fw 187 with two DB 605 engines is listed at a 5660kg empty equipped weight and a gross weight of 8200kg while carrying 1000kg of bombs.

The FW 187V4 only weighed 4900kg when loaded and 3402kg empty (but not equipped?) a 66% increase in empty weight? or bit less? 

Some of the ammo loadouts for the later paper versions are rather incredible. 
Like the single seat dive bomber design with BMW 801 engines (which added 6 sq meters of wing area, almost 65 sq fr) the 1200 rpg for the MG 17s isn't too bad but 600rpg for the MG 151s


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Apparently we have several different FW 187s



We do. Try telling that to others. The first incarnation was not suitable for anything except a single-seat fighter powered by Junkers Jumos, but it was cancelled. The next incarnation, which was essentially a redesigned early one hardware wise, the V4, and was to be a two-seat fighter powered by the Jumos. One prototype was fitted with DB 601s. This two-seater was to be the basis of the Fw 187C, a two-seat fighter bomber powered by the DB 605, which was awaiting confirmation for production, but was cancelled in August 1942. Anything else mentioned were paper projects that never got past the drawing stage. No Fw 187 was actually fitted with BMW 801s, although it was planned for different variants.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> BoB predates the effective RAF BC night attacks, thus BoB is more important by the order of magnitude. LW didn't needed versatile airframes for the BoB, they needed a long range performer to protect their bombers.



The Luftwaffe did not know that there would be a BoB when decisions about the Fw 187 were being made. 

The Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical air force, rather than a strategic one. Long range bombing attacks, except, maybe, against the Soviets, were not expected.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

wuzak said:


> The Luftwaffe did not know that there would be a BoB when decisions about the Fw 187 were being made.
> The Luftwaffe was designed as a tactical air force, rather than a strategic one. Long range bombing attacks, except, maybe, against the Soviets, were not expected.



If the LW was really a tactical air force, then some companies didn't get the memo. The 1939's He 111 being good for 2800 km range. Ditto for Dornier, the Do-17Z with 1680-2680 km range, or the aforementioned Bf 110C with 1000+ km range fighter. Ju-88A-1 with 3580L (946 us gals) of possible internal fuel + drop tanks in 1940 also does not lend credit to the stipulation that Luftwaffe was a tactical airforce, either.
LW inventory counted more than 1000 of He 111s + Do 17s + Ju 86s combined by the end of 1938.

That Luftwaffe dared to actually have a tactical branch, and that tactical branch was actually working, certainly painted them as 'tactical airforce only' in the eyes of the RAF brass, that scoffed at the idea that a 'proper' airforce is supposed to do the tactical job until well into ww2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> We do. Try telling that to others. The first incarnation was not suitable for anything except a single-seat fighter powered by Junkers Jumos, but it was cancelled.



A wee bit harsh?



> The next incarnation, which was essentially a redesigned early one hardware wise, the V4, and was to be a two-seat fighter powered by the Jumos. One prototype was fitted with DB 601s.



The Fw 187 might have always been _designed _for the DB 600/1). The Bf 110 was _designed_ for the DB 600 engines but due to reliability problems in the early BF 110 prototypes the engine choice was switched to the DB 601 engine but late deliveries forced about 45 (or more?) Bf 110s to be built with the Jumo 210 engines. A number of other prototypes were flown with Jumo 210s due to the unavailability of standard DB 600/601 engines at this time. 
It would fit in that the FW 187 didn't enjoy the priority for the DB 601 engines for even semi production versions. 
The single FW 187 fitted with the DB 601 got the 'evaporative' cooling experimental version and was a much of a test bed for the engine as it was a serious proposal for a combat aircraft. 

It is the test flights of this plane that bring the glow to the eyes of the FW 187 fans. However if fitted with the standard production 601s of the time and conventional radiators/cooling systems speed (and range) would have been somewhat less than the estimates. 



> This two-seater was to be the basis of the Fw 187C,


Yep, at least it had about the same wing area and not a 20% increase


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> The Fw 187 might have always been _designed _for the DB 600/1). The Bf 110 was _designed_ for the DB 600 engines but due to reliability problems in the early BF 110 prototypes the engine choice was switched to the DB 601 engine but late deliveries forced about 45 (or more?) Bf 110s to be built with the Jumo 210 engines. A number of other prototypes were flown with Jumo 210s due to the unavailability of standard DB 600/601 engines at this time.
> It would fit in that the FW 187 didn't enjoy the priority for the DB 601 engines for even semi production versions.
> The single FW 187 fitted with the DB 601 got the 'evaporative' cooling experimental version and was a much of a test bed for the engine as it was a serious proposal for a combat aircraft.
> 
> It is the test flights of this plane that bring the glow to the eyes of the FW 187 fans. However if fitted with the standard production 601s of the time and conventional radiators/cooling systems speed (and range) would have been somewhat less than the estimates.



FWIW; I don't think that a Fw 187powered by two DB 601A with 'normal' cooling would've been doing anything beyond 600 km/h. At least when looking at the Ro.58, that was probably the closest equivalent.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> A wee bit harsh?



Yes and no. Yes, I'm pretty blunt because of the misunderstanding that comes with the very mention of this aircraft. No, that there is a _lot _of evidence of exaggeration of the aircraft's potential without understanding what Tank had actually done or intended. Examining the drawings demonstrates a preclusion of the whole multi-role capabilities that are commonly bestowed on the type.



Shortround6 said:


> The Fw 187 might have always been _designed _for the DB 600/1). The Bf 110 was _designed_ for the DB 600 engines but due to reliability problems in the early BF 110 prototypes the engine choice was switched to the DB 601 engine but late deliveries forced about 45 (or more?) Bf 110s to be built with the Jumo 210 engines. A number of other prototypes were flown with Jumo 210s due to the unavailability of standard DB 600/601 engines at this time.
> It would fit in that the FW 187 didn't enjoy the priority for the DB 601 engines for even semi production versions.
> The single FW 187 fitted with the DB 601 got the 'evaporative' cooling experimental version and was a much of a test bed for the engine as it was a serious proposal for a combat aircraft.
> 
> It is the test flights of this plane that bring the glow to the eyes of the FW 187 fans. However if fitted with the standard production 601s of the time and conventional radiators/cooling systems speed (and range) would have been somewhat less than the estimates.



Most of that is found without looking too hard into the type's history and development. That the aircraft only went through a prolonged experimentation makes it difficult to cement actual intent beyond estimation based on evidence. As far as performance is concerned, it is inevitable that prototype and pre-production aircraft perform much better than production variants - that's a given, as you know. The difficulty is establishing by how much, but since we know that aircraft definitely gain weight on entry into production and service, and that the aircraft lacks in space, and therefore adaptability and the ability to house further increases of equipment, we have to take _estimates _of its in-service performance with a grain of salt. Given that however, it's fair to say it would have been quite a performer.



Shortround6 said:


> Yep, at least it had about the same wing area and not a 20% increase



And a change of fuselage, which characterises virtually every other incarnation Tank had drawn up of the type. Had the Fw 187 gone into production in its two-seat Zerstorer guise as it was about to, pretty much all the activity we see regarding the aircraft would have been regarded as pre-production and research and development prior to a cementing of the design for production and service, yet we tend to examine this evidence and bestow upon it as evidence of how much of a multi-role wunderkind the type was going to be.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> If the LW was really a tactical air force, then some companies didn't get the memo.



"Tactical" describes how the weapons the force has are used and their general sphere of operation within the context of the conflict, not specifically what the individual weapons are capable of.

This can be applied to the Fw 187 versus the Bf 110. The 1937 and even 1939/40 Luftwaffe didn't _need_ a long range escort fighter. It had Bf 109s for bomber escorting duties and up until the attack on Norway and Britain, these sufficed in every theatre the Luftwaffe engaged, from Poland, through France, Denmark and Benelux. The Bf 110 was designed as a multi role aircraft that could undertake traditional single roles carried out by other types in one airframe - fighter, light attack, reconnaissance - was "long range bomber escort" even written into the Aircraft Destroyer specification? It made sense that it be used as such, as that became part of the role of a fighter, of course, possibly by consequence.

The Fw 187 in its first incarnation as Tank built it couldn't have carried out any of those roles apart from the fighter one and when the two-seater was developed, that would have expanded on the type's repertoire, but not by very much, there was still no internal storage bay, space for a third crewmember and its camera carrying abilities were effectively nil.

There haven't been that many cases where aircraft have been built that are outside of official requirements that get accepted for an extraneous role because of their capabilities. It does happen, but not often. The Fw 187 was an aircraft that could have done so, but the RLM didn't take that risk with it. Had the RLM had the foresight to have predicted the course the war actually took (a virtual impossibility in 1937 through early 1940), it might have stood a chance at a production order, but it didn't, and so the Fw 187 is relegated to the Also Ran pile because of its very limited appeal within that time period.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> "Tactical" describes how the weapons the force has are used and their general sphere of operation within the context of the conflict, not specifically what the individual weapons are capable of.



If it runs like a dog, and it barks like a dog, it is probably a dog.
He 111 was a strategic bomber in the vein of Wellington. Tactical bombers were Ju 87 and Hs 123.



nuuumannn said:


> This can be applied to the Fw 187 versus the Bf 110. The 1937 and even 1939/40 Luftwaffe didn't _need_ a long range escort fighter.



In 1940, Luftwaffe certainly needed a long range escort fighter.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> He 111 was a strategic bomber in the vein of Wellington.



It's not that simple. You are presuming a use based on its capabilities and what you know about how it was used from history, which is exactly the opposite to what was said above.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> It's not that simple. You are presuming a use based on its capabilities and what you know about how it was used from history, which is exactly the opposite to what was said above.



So what is the He 111 then?
How much should I value the 'what was said above' part?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

Hindsight, again is tainting your view. You are not reading what is being said because you are allowing the aircraft's capabilities to determine the outcome. Yes, the He 111 was used as a strategic bomber, but that doesn't mean the Luftwaffe was not a "tactical air force". Almost all historians and researchers on the subject agrees with the synopsis that the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> How much should I value the 'what was said above' part?



Evidence and research.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Evidence and research.



I've posted the numbers and did the reserach to back my story. 
That my story does not follow the post-1945 matra coming from USA and UK that Luftwaffe was a tactical force is really not my problem.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

You can lead a horse to water, you can't make it think...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

You can post the numbers to back you story, too.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

Tomo, if you think that the Luftwaffe was not specifically a tactically oriented air force, then put your evidence into an article or paper and get it published. It's good to read different appraisals of a known subject and personally I do like seeing common myths being debunked. With regard to this particular subject, good luck, you've got work to do in changing perceptions.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> Hindsight, again is tainting your view. You are not reading what is being said because you are allowing the aircraft's capabilities to determine the outcome. Yes, the He 111 was used as a strategic bomber, but that doesn't mean the Luftwaffe was not a "tactical air force". Almost all historians and researchers on the subject agrees with the synopsis that the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force.


Adolf and Hermans words would lead anyone to believe the LW was a strategic bombing force in 1939/40, the fact that they didn't know what was required to do what they boasted they could do is another issue. o one had the capacity to conduct an effective strategic bombing campaign of any sort until 1942 and it didn't become effective until 1944 when the USA did what the LW tried to do in 1940.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2021)

I don't have a task or a duty to change people's perceptions, but will always add my opinion on the stuff I've comfortable with. Reading & research - yes, then see how something passes (or does not pass) the smell test. If I think there is something worth commenting or coming out with information that can be a contribution, I post it, mostly here. 

FWIW, here is a bunch of translated data sheets for the German bombers: link.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> and it didn't become effective until 1944 when the USA did what the LW tried to do in 1940.



With a little help from Bomber Command... 



tomo pauk said:


> I don't have a task or a duty to change people's perceptions, but will always add my opinion on the stuff I've comfortable with.



Don't we all. Writers and researchers don't do it out of duty or obligation (unless it's their primary source of income, that is), it's done because of interest in the subject matter. I've been writing and publishing articles for more than 15 years, as a freelancer as a second job, and I do it because people are interested in the subject matter and I do find that it is not always a bad thing to challenge perceptions.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 28, 2021)

The He111 was an outlier amongst German bombers. It was long ranged relatively slow, couldn't dive bomb, a good load carrier and didn't cram it's crew into a glasshouse.

Take away the He111 and you do have a tactical force that could be crowbarred into the strategic role for which it wasn't best suited.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> didn't cram it's crew into a glasshouse.



It did actually. It's not very big in the cockpit of an He 111 and visibility wasn't very good, particularly on a strong sunny day, when that multi-faceted glass tended to cause light refraction, which interfered with the view. Not to mention the fact that on the ground, the pilot could only really see out by sliding the panel above his head open and raising his seat so his eyeline was above the sill of the canopy top. There was a pop-up windscreen though...


----------



## pbehn (Jan 28, 2021)

nuuumannn said:


> With a little help from Bomber Command...
> .


Well yes, but if the strategy is to wipe out the enemies defences it is hard to do that by night bombing. However long before that it was decided who would bomb by day and whom by night. It wasn't just bomber command that gave the US bombing effort assistance it was the whole thing, massive recon efforts, intelligence, feints and protection. No one knew what was involved until they tried it, it was much harder to do than anyone thought in the 1930s and they all thought there was no defence and just a few bombs would bring victory.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 28, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The He111 was an outlier amongst German bombers. It was long ranged relatively slow, couldn't dive bomb, a good load carrier and didn't cram it's crew into a glasshouse


Speaking of smell tests, doesn't this description have the aroma of "Lufthansa" all over it? Wasn't the design started as an airliner with possible bomber conversion in mind? Long ranged, good load carrier, (not so) relatively slow when it first came out. Smells like a DC3 era airliner to me.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 28, 2021)

pbehn said:


> No one knew what was involved until they tried it, it was much harder to do than anyone thought in the 1930s and they all thought there was no defence and just a few bombs would bring victory.



This is true, and it took the USAAF and Bomber Command time to implement a strong unified strategy to do it, once it had the resources. Arguably however, the Luftwaffe at the outbreak of the war was better positioned to do such a thing than any other air force in the world. By 1940 the Germans had far more reconnaissance assets and the ability to process the raw data than its contemporaries, it had a reasonably effective and sophisticated bomb sight, better than the British Mk.IX Course Correcting sight, it had radio navigation aids to enable its bombers to find their way to the target and drop their bombs within a reasonable CEP for the time - in fact it was very accurate for the time - evidence from deducing where bombs fell during the Coventry raid gave the British scientists a bit of a fright because of the potential that kind of accuracy had, and it had reasonably well performing bombers, and a lot of them.

The odds were stacked against their enemies. Never before in the history of warfare had as many bombers been launched against one country so technologically prepared and laden with potential to succeed as during the Luftwaffe assault against Britain in mid 1940 to mid 1941. That the campaign failed was not specifically due to the Luftwaffe's resources, but how they were managed and applied, not to mention the defences they were ranged against.

That the German raids pale in comparison to future RAF night and USAAF daylight raids is no poor reflection of the abilities of the Luftwaffe at the time.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2021)

I tend to look at the "battle of the Beams" in 1940.

Those systems were not developed in a matter of weeks and those systems only make sense for a "strategic" air force. 

While the Luftwaffe was used to support the army (tactical) during army campaigns it did not sit idle on the ground at other times. 

We can tend to confuse ideas in translation, The RAF wanted to fight the war in the air _without_ the army.
The Luftwaffe had as ONE of it's missions the bombing of sources of production/supply to help the army out. They had a number of other missions/tasks. 

We can argue for a long long time as to whether that made the Luftwaffe a strategic force or a tactical one or we can accept that the Luftwaffe, while predominantly tactical could and did plan for, equipe for and execute strategic missions. 

The RAF was the reverse, it planned for, equipped for and executed long range strategic missions and in 1939-40 not very well, In 1940 it's tactical performance was much worse as it was trying to use those early strategic bombers (being replaced by the Wellington, Whitley and Hamden) as general purpose tactical bombers but without training/experience. 

German tactical aircraft of 1939/40 were not burdened with 1000 mile ranges. 
The Germans did have, as pointed out, a fair number of bombers that could reach strategic targets, they had the training/doctrine to do so, they had equipement coming on line that would help them do so. The British strategic bombers, even the new large twins, depended on a clear night, a starry sky and luck. 

Please look at the number of defence plants the Germans bombed over the summer and fall of 1940. Yes they screwed up with insufficient force size, (everybody did at that point) and truly terrible damage assessment post strike for alloting 2nd and 3rd strikes. They didn't hit those plants/factories by missing beachfront pill boxes. 

For the British do not confuse the term "light bomber" with tactical bomber in the 1930s. Once the biplanes started going away (the single engine ones) the "light bombers" like the Battle and Blenheim were intended to perform in the strategic strike role. Sanity did prevail and they were not used on such missions by 1939/40 or at least not after the Wellington with it's two power gun mounts proved incapable of defending itself in 1939. 

Things changed very quickly in the 1930s and the capabilities of aircraft also changed.

Old William Green book (correction welcome) says the He 111B-2 in mid 1937 could carry 1653lb(750kg) bomb load 1030 miles and 3307 (1500kg) 565 miles, while the latter could certainly be considered tactical the first was??????
DB 600CG engines if 950hp for take-off and 910hp at 13,120 ft. 

Ju 86D with Diesel engines was listed as having a tactical radius of 354 miles with max bomb load but a max range of 932 miles, bomb load not given but with auxiliary fuel tanks range was stretched to 1240 miles. Late 1937/early 1938. 
600hp diesel engines?


Everybodies "strategic bombers" were in their infancy (or built in very small numbers) at this time. 
We also have to consider who was the enemy. We in the post war era tend to see Britain and Germany as the main opponents but for most of the 1930s France would have been the most important enemy facing Germany, few seeing it collapse so quickly. 
France was introducing these in the spring of 1937






They only built about 80 but it was listed as having a range of 1240miles with a 5510lb bomb load. More bombs over shorter distance. 
In 1940 they were starting to deliver a version with four Hispano V-12s. A single plane of the later type did bomb Berlin twice in 1940 but that is more along the line of the Doolittle raid than an example of French policy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Speaking of smell tests, doesn't this description have the aroma of "Lufthansa" all over it? Wasn't the design started as an airliner with possible bomber conversion in mind? Long ranged, good load carrier, (not so) relatively slow when it came out. Smells like a DC3 era airliner to me.



A number of companies either designed dual purpose aircraft or tried to use as many parts as possible between a bomber and an airliner during the mid 1930s,

The world was coming out of the great depression and money was tight. defence budgets were not anywhere near what they would be and airlines were only ordering in small numbers. 
Stretching design, development and production tooling over as many airframes as possible seemed to make good economic sense. 
A lot of european Airlines were subsidized by their governments (out right or mail contracts) so sometimes fast planes were ordered for prestige even if they weren't going to make money. 

Germany gets picked on a lot for the He 111 but a few years latter Lockheed hit ball out of the park with the converted Lockheed 14 airliner (Hudson bomber) and Lockheed 18 (longer fuselage) and Ventura. 

Of course the He 111 never got BMW 801s let alone R-2800s 
Amazing what a crap load of power can do  

Boeing did use a new fuselage on the 307 Stratoliner but the wings, tail, landing gear and engine nacelles (no turbos) were pretty close to the B-17C. (verticalstablizer and rudder were closer to the E)


----------



## Maromero (Jan 28, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...
> 
> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


😳

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 28, 2021)

You had to be there.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jan 30, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> A number of companies either designed dual purpose aircraft or tried to use as many parts as possible between a bomber and an airliner during the mid 1930s,
> 
> The world was coming out of the great depression and money was tight. defence budgets were not anywhere near what they would be and airlines were only ordering in small numbers.
> Stretching design, development and production tooling over as many airframes as possible seemed to make good economic sense.
> ...


The B-18 Bolo was derived from the DC-3 (or maybe the DC-2).


----------



## Acheron (Jan 31, 2021)

IIRC, conventional wisom is, that during the BoB, the Me-109 was too shortranged, while the Me-110 was to sluggish to duke it out with single-engined fighters. Now, the P-47 wasn't exactly a flying ballerina either, but gave a good track record of itself utilizing its speed in "boom-and-zoom" tactics, right? I think I read on wikipedia some time ago, that the Me-110 might have used similar tactics to give a better account of itself but got shackled to the bombers to provide close escort, thus unable to rely on its speed to offset its lack of agility. Is there truth in that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2021)

P-47 was faster than Fw 190 above 20000 ft by a large margin and probably cimbed better there, while it was not slower than Bf 109G, especially than 109G-6. The Bf 110 was probably not faster than Hurricane I above 17000 ft, and it was slower than Spitfire and Hurricane II. Granted, using bad tactics - as it seems to be the case with 110s - makes things even worse. 
The nimber of Bf 110s deployed was not big when compared to what the RAF FC was able to put in the air beyond the range of Bf 109s; the P-47s often fought with numerical superiority, or at least with numerical parity. German industry was ill able to replace the losses of Bf 110s vs. what UK coud do with fighters that used half of engines needed, while the Americans coud've churned P-47s in admirable fashion.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 31, 2021)

You have several P-47s in 1943, very early 1944.
Planes were equipped in the field with water injection, and also the paddle blade props. 
A P-47 with both has rather different combat capabilities than one without both.

Getting a P-47 off the ground with drop tanks and the early propeller might need a fair amount of runway. 
An early P-47 at 14,000lbs could need over 3900ft to clear the 50 ft trees on a 20 degree C day with zero wind.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jan 31, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> while the Americans coud've churned P-47s in admirable fashion


And did. The Tbolt was one of the most produced aircraft in the AAF inventory.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 11, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Jumo004s did fine at higher altitudes and it was actually faster the higher it flew.


I just figured, because the stall speed wasn't absurdly high (193.2 km/h or 104.3 kn) and, I remember hearing there were issues with cooling.



ThomasP said:


> Some ultimate load factors from official UK documents:
> 
> Mosquito___8.0 at 18,500 lbs
> Wellington__4.2 at 36,500 or 11 at 24,500
> ...


The Wellington figure for 11g at 24500 sounds a bit high, but otherwise, it's fascinating that the design-load for bombers were often near their full weights.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 11, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The He111 was an outlier amongst German bombers. It was long ranged relatively slow, couldn't dive bomb, a good load carrier and didn't cram it's crew into a glasshouse.
> 
> Take away the He111 and you do have a tactical force that could be crowbarred into the strategic role for which it wasn't best suited.




I happened to read a little of Fleischers absolutely essential "German Air Dropped Weapons" last night. It's clear that in the light of the Luftwaffe's experience in the Spanish Civil War that they began focusing on precision bombing to support Ground forces. To an extent the Dornier Do 17, He 111, Ju 86 and even Me 110 were legacy aircraft.

Apart from the Ju 87 Stuka just about every new German aircraft had dive bombing capability. I can think of no other air force that had focused on proper twin engine dive bombers with dive brakes capable of sustained 60 degree dives (as opposed to momentary ones)

Ju 88, Ju 288 and Me 210/410 all had the ability to be equipped with dive brakes and the He 177 was specified so. In fact if Ernst Heinkel had not undertaken to make the He 177 dive bombing capable his contract would have been cancelled.

Aircraft such as the Hawker Henley could carry out dive bombing but at shallower angles 70 degrees due to the lack of bomb swing arms (the henley was more of a light bomber) and I know of no other air force that developed twin engine dive bombers.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 11, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Aircraft such as the Hawker Henley could carry out dive bombing but at much shallower angles due to the lack of bomb swing arms (the henley was more of a light bomber) and I know of no other air force that developed twin engine dive bombers.


Why would you, it is a strategy for attacking people who don't defend themselves, if you meet people who do defend themselves you lose your whole force very quickly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 11, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> and I know of no other air force that *developed twin engine dive bombers*.


The Soviet's Pe-2

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Why would you, it is a strategy for attacking people who don't defend themselves, if you meet people who do defend themselves you lose your whole force very quickly.



Honestly, what are you talking about. You are trying to hijack this thread with your politics the same way you did with Barbarossa?

A dive bomber is a precision weapon that can usually hit within 20ft hence its use by the RN, USN and IJN against ships. 

It's of little use in killing civilians are causing broad damage to a factory because while its precision is good its lift is not high. StuKa's didn't kill civilians or cause collateral causalities except in two cases 1 the rare misidentified target or 2 in the lurid, fabricated imagination of British propaganda in the wake of the battle of France that sought to portray the Ju 87 StuKa as a weapon of terror rather than an highly effective piece of heavy artillery. They attacked pretty girls with picnic baskets or 'refugees'. Propaganda is used to manipulate people into anger and want to go to war.

If you want to "attack" & mass kill "defenceless" people (your language) civilians you have your majesties government issue an broad "Area Bombardment" directive to "Dehouse" and "Demoralise" civilians to your air force at the policy level. One of the reasons for the US attachment to the Norden was because they didn't have a stomach for this. One the the reasons for the StuKa terror propaganda is to justify the Area Bombardment *policy.*

The Ju 87 StuKa was vulnerable in 1939 without air superiority, so militaries weren't 'defenceless' or when used deep past the front line but not until 20mm and 40mm weapons with gyro and computing sights became available probably from 1942. Ju 88 twin engined “StuKa” was no more vulnerable than any other twin engined bomber.

When the Luftwaffe does get accused of "terror", usually falsely, it doesn't involve StuKa but level bombers. Rotterdam being the case of besieged city no commander was going to send young soldiers into for slaughter by machine gun fire without prior bombardment and also the case of the Dutch Commander milking a German 2 day ultimatum to the last minute and getting caught out by daylight saving time. In that case the requested StuKa were not available because they were still needed for the Battle of France and the ultimatum could not be extended because the army needed to keep moving.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Soviet's Pe-2


Did it have dive brakes? I can't find any photographs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 12, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Did it have dive brakes? I can't find any photographs.


Yes, they were located just outboard of each engine nacelle - they resembled shutters or Venetian Blinds when deployed.






_(Photo credit: Alex Ruchkovsky)_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The myth that I had always thought true was the P-51 was the only fighter capable of escorting the bomber streams deep into Germany.


THAT is the biggest myth of all related to WWII combat aircraft IMHO. That myth has been repeated by many respected historians like Richard Overy who wrote, "Why the Allies Won". In that book he makes that very claim. I've seen Richard Overy interviewed on many WWII related TV shows on the American Military Channel (AMC). Much of this myth's tenacity is because it was the narrative put out by Air Force leaders at the time. With tanks, the P-47 could have gone all the way to Berlin by mid 1943, before the Mustang started escorting bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 12, 2021)

fubar57 said:


> This is the one I was looking for...
> 
> View attachment 585810​


Well down FUBAR. I have a request in to AFHRA even as I type this, Korean War air combat related. Where did you get your data??


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> Well down FUBAR. I have a request in to AFHRA even as I type this, Korean War air combat related. Where did you get your data??



The British developed an version of the Spitfire called the Mk VIII which had the two stage Merlin engine and had fuel tanks in the leading edge of the wings plus an enlarged lower forward tank. This advanced aircraft which also featured a retraction mechanism for the tail wheel. Only 1600 or so were produced. The bulk of two stage Merlin were built into the Spitfire IX which was simply an Mk V with the Merlin 45 replaced with a Merlin 61/66. This Spitfire Mk IX lacked the enlarged lower forward tank or the wing tanks however eventually received a tail tank of up to 40 gallons referred to as a "ferry tank" to emphasise it was not to be used in combat as the centre of gravity was too far aft. It could be fought with the fuel half burned off. The ferry tanks were never installed in the Mk VIII.

However a Spitfire VIII with ferry tanks could have burned of half its tail tank fuselage during climb and take-off, switched to a drop tank when at altitude and switch back to the tail tank when the drop tank or tanks were jettisoned. This combination was never tried on a Merlin Spitfire but did make it on to the Griffon XIV (it needed the fuel). If given full retractable wheel doors it wouldnt have been much slower than a Mustang.

On interesting fact about the oft maligned P39 is that it had to carry all of its fuel in the wings since there was no space in the fuselage The P39 carried 120 gal (454 l) in its wings though this was reduced to 87 gal (329 l) in the P39N

This shows how much fuel could have been fitted in a P-40 or P47 wing.

I suspect that the "Bomber Mafia" having rejected the need for escort fighters, drop tanks and high capacity fuel tanks for those escort fighters found it convenient to promote the P-51 more of a technical breakthrough than it was. After all they could have developed a long range P-47 earlier by just developing wing tanks and drop tanks.


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 12, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The British developed an version of the Spitfire called the Mk VIII which had the two stage Merlin engine and had fuel tanks in the leading edge of the wings plus an enlarged lower forward tank. This advanced aircraft which also featured a retraction mechanism for the tail wheel. Only 1600 or so were produced. The bulk of two stage Merlin were built into the Spitfire IX which was simply an Mk V with the Merlin 45 replaced with a Merlin 61/66. This Spitfire Mk IX lacked the enlarged lower forward tank or the wing tanks however eventually received a tail tank of up to 40 gallons referred to as a "ferry tank" to emphasise it was not to be used in combat as the centre of gravity was too far aft. It could be fought with the fuel half burned off. The ferry tanks were never installed in the Mk VIII.
> 
> However a Spitfire VIII with ferry tanks could have burned of half its tail tank fuselage during climb and take-off, switched to a drop tank when at altitude and switch back to the tail tank when the drop tank or tanks were jettisoned. This combination was never tried on a Merlin Spitfire but did make it on to the Griffon XIV (it needed the fuel). If given full retractable wheel doors it wouldnt have been much slower than a Mustang.
> 
> ...



What is truly appalling is that the "Bomber Mafia" knew the P-47 had the range to escort the bombers and yet they didn't do the work to get it done all to "save face". Their egos got in the way and hundreds of airmen lost their lives because of it. Shame on them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> What is truly appalling is that the "Bomber Mafia" knew the P-47 had the range to escort the bombers and yet they didn't do the work to get it done all to "save face". Their egos got in the way and hundreds of airmen lost their lives because of it. Shame on them.


Ideology over reality. Good thing that isn't still happening today!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> .&AAAAAA A N Aa Nan
> Ideology over reality. Good thing that isn't still happening today!



Human nature, group think and the tendency to uphold the religion and fight the heretics that threaten the faith.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> What is truly appalling is that the "Bomber Mafia" knew the P-47 had the range to escort the bombers and yet they didn't do the work to get it done all to "save face". Their egos got in the way and hundreds of airmen lost their lives because of it. Shame on them.


It wasnt just the bomber mafia ideology that was the problem it was the "panacea target" ideology too. The idea that one raid could end or massively shorten the war led people to think huge losses would be justified. The RAF battle of Berlin, dambusters raid and Schweinfurt were all examples of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> THAT is the biggest myth of all related to WWII combat aircraft IMHO. That myth has been repeated by many respected historians like Richard Overy who wrote, "Why the Allies Won". In that book he makes that very claim. I've seen Richard Overy interviewed on many WWII related TV shows on the American Military Channel (AMC). Much of this myth's tenacity is because it was the narrative put out by Air Force leaders at the time. With tanks, the P-47 could have gone all the way to Berlin by mid 1943, before the Mustang started escorting bombers.



Any math to support the notion of P-47s with (drop?) tank successfully escorting the 8th AF bombers all the way to Berlin by mid 1943?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> What is truly appalling is that the "Bomber Mafia" knew the P-47 had the range to escort the bombers and yet they didn't do the work to get it done all to "save face". Their egos got in the way and hundreds of airmen lost their lives because of it. Shame on them.



Archive source + quotations and ORIGINAL data please: >

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> THAT is the biggest myth of all related to WWII combat aircraft IMHO. That myth has been repeated by many respected historians like Richard Overy who wrote, "Why the Allies Won". In that book he makes that very claim. I've seen Richard Overy interviewed on many WWII related TV shows on the American Military Channel (AMC). Much of this myth's tenacity is because it was the narrative put out by Air Force leaders at the time. With tanks, the P-47 could have gone all the way to Berlin by mid 1943, before the Mustang started escorting bombers.


Thunderbolts all the way to Berlin in June of 1943? Man I'd have to see some hard data/source material for that first.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Mar 12, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Thunderbolts all the way to Berlin in June of 1943? Man I'd have to see some hard data/source material for that first.



I`ve certainly never seen any.







SOURCE: US Air Force Historical Research Agency Microfilm. Reel A1128, Frame 269 of:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Mar 12, 2021)

That I actually build models? 🤔

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

Snowygrouch said:


> Archive source + quotations and ORIGINAL data please: >



In minute 4.06 of this video the document showing Happ Arnold banning drop tanks is reproduced 


Now you have to ask if they were obsessive enough to actually proactively ban drop tanks perhaps they were lackadaisical, indifferent and suppressive about developing wing tanks and enlarged fuselage tanks for the P47. With these men in charge of fighter development is it any surprise that their belief that fighters couldn’t intercept bombers became a self fulfilling prophecy eg P39,P40 being the main USAAF types posted of inadequate altitude performance. Moreover despite seeing the fate of the  
Luftwaffe over Britain and being given advice from the RAF they didn’t take that advice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Mar 12, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> In minute 4.06 of this video the document showing Happ Arnold banning drop tanks is reproduced
> 
> 
> Now you have to ask if they were obsessive enough to actually proactively ban drop tanks perhaps they were lackadaisical, indifferent and suppressive about developing wing tanks and enlarged fuselage tanks for the P47. With these men in charge of fighter development is it any surprise that their belief that fighters couldn’t intercept bombers became a self fulfilling prophecy eg P39,P40 being the main USAAF types posted of inadequate altitude performance. Moreover despite seeing the fate of the
> Luftwaffe over Britain and being given advice from the RAF they didn’t take that advice.




A pre-war document, dated May 1939, nearly half a decade before the strategic offensive, discussing a totally different aircraft (the P36).

Sorry but what exactly is that supposed to be evidence of with respect to a P-47 in 1943 and 1944 ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 12, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> Thunderbolts all the way to Berlin in June of 1943? Man I'd have to see some hard data/source material for that first.



No one said they had to fly back from Berlin

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 12, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> Well down FUBAR. I have a request in to AFHRA even as I type this, Korean War air combat related. Where did you get your data??


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 12, 2021)

I think the Thunderbolts to Berlin in 1943 may be backwards projection.

Thunderbolts to Berlin in mid to late 1944 was possible(?) so why not claim it was only stubbornness/stupidity that they couldn't have done it in mid 1943 by adding piping and enough drop tanks?

Simply ignore better props and possibly the water injection fitted to P-47s over the 1943/44 winter.
Might also ignore the length of runway needed?
P-47D with 370 gallon internal (1943 P-47s had 305) and pair of 150 gallon drop tanks was rated at 600 mile radius.
But that is at 16600lbs take-off weight. Trying that weight with the toothpick propeller might require an awful lot of runway.

edit, not sure if the later planes got little things like different tires to handle the increased weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 12, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> In minute 4.06 of this video the document showing Happ Arnold banning drop tanks is reproduced
> 
> 
> Now you have to ask if they were obsessive enough to actually proactively ban drop tanks perhaps they were lackadaisical, indifferent and suppressive about developing wing tanks and enlarged fuselage tanks for the P47. With these men in charge of fighter development is it any surprise that their belief that fighters couldn’t intercept bombers became a self fulfilling prophecy eg P39,P40 being the main USAAF types posted of inadequate altitude performance. Moreover despite seeing the fate of the
> Luftwaffe over Britain and being given advice from the RAF they didn’t take that advice.



Those pics dont look like 1943 P-47s, it only started to be introduced in late 1942, any thing new takes 3 months from factory in USA to flying in UK, if they all make it the Battle of the Atlantic was still going on in 1943. As others have suggested, a long range tank helps get you there, it is internal fuel gets you back after combat, that big ole engine had a thirst on her.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> It wasnt just the bomber mafia ideology that was the problem it was the "panacea target" ideology too. The idea that one raid could end or massively shorten the war led people to think huge losses would be justified. The RAF battle of Berlin, dambusters raid and Schweinfurt were all examples of it.



That was an example of prewar theory running up against real-world testing. It turned out that one raid was not enough knock out a target; rather, it had to be hit, repeatedly, to keep it out of action. Everyone pretty much underestimated the degree to which industrial facilities could be brought back into operation by a large, industrialized nation-state. And to keep hitting targets in that fashion required a larger bomber force than most anticipated. The Allies were also led astray by bomb damage assessment — recon photos from 30,000 feet looked impressive, showing a bomb-scarred landscape. Only at ground level, the damage was frequently far less than such high-altitude photos implied.

Nevertheless, the Oil and Transportation Plans proved highly detrimental to the Germany war economy — its armaments production index peaked in July 1944 and fell off rapidly after that. Bomber Command's effort against the Ruhr in 1943 also had a big impact, effectively flat-lining German production for about seven months. (Adam Tooze covers this in his book _The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy_.)

Moreover, there were critical target types not attacked, e.g. the German electrical supply. A sustained campaign against that could have had a huge impact. But for various reasons it was left off the target lists.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I think the Thunderbolts to Berlin in 1943 may be backwards projection.



The one criticism that may be warranted was that drop tank development was slow in the ETO.

Gen. Kenney in the South Pacific had a 200 gallon belly drop tank for his P-47s designed and into production by August of 1943; the ETO wouldn't see a 200 gallon belly tank for its P-47s until about a year later. Had European P-47s had a 200 gallon drop tank by late 1943, that would have meant about a 400 mile escort radius, allowing the bombers to be easily escorted as far as Ruhr.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 12, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> That was an example of prewar theory running up against real-world testing. It turned out that one raid was not enough knock out a target; rather, it had to be hit, repeatedly, to keep it out of action. Everyone pretty much underestimated the degree to which industrial facilities could be brought back into operation by a large, industrialized nation-state. And to keep hitting targets in that fashion required a larger bomber force than most anticipated. The Allies were also led astray by bomb damage assessment — recon photos from 30,000 feet looked impressive, showing a bomb-scarred landscape. Only at ground level, the damage was frequently far less than such high-altitude photos implied.
> 
> Nevertheless, the Oil and Transportation Plans proved highly detrimental to the Germany war economy — its armaments production index peaked in July 1944 and fell off rapidly after that. Bomber Command's effort against the Ruhr in 1943 also had a big impact, effectively flat-lining German production for about seven months. (Adam Tooze covers this in his book _The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy_.)
> 
> Moreover, there were critical target types not attacked, e.g. the German electrical supply. A sustained campaign against that could have had a huge impact. But for various reasons it was left off the target lists.


I remember reading about the Schweinfurt raid and "ball bearing theory". The theory was wiping out Schweinfurt and destroying ball bearing production would cripple Germany. In fact it wouldn't, there were of course stocks of ball bearings all over, some other made ball bearings and re starting would start immediately. As was proved by many sides, if people want to continue fighting they will and Germany had no real means to give up. The idea that someone would say to Adolf "we have no ball bearings" and Adolf says "hand out white flags then" takes no account of him being a madman. Same with the dambusters raid, if they had breached all the dams it may have justified the losses, but they had no hope of breaching the Sorpe dam, which was by far the biggest.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 12, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Honestly, what are you talking about. You are trying to hijack this thread with your politics the same way you did with Barbarossa?
> 
> A dive bomber is a precision weapon that can usually hit within 20ft hence its use by the RN, USN and IJN against ships.
> 
> It's of little use in killing civilians are causing broad damage to a factory because while its precision is good its lift is not high.


I think he was talking about their vulnerability to ground-fire, not for bombing cities.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I remember reading about the Schweinfurt raid and "ball bearing theory". The theory was wiping out Schweinfurt and destroying ball bearing production would cripple Germany. In fact it wouldn't, there were of course stocks of ball bearings all over, some other made ball bearings and re starting would start immediately.



It was key node, and the strikes had an impact, but there was two months between them, and there was no follow-up after October due to the lack of long-range fighter escort. Bomber Command didn't assist either due to Harris' insistence on area raids.




pbehn said:


> Same with the dambusters raid, if they had breached all the dams it may have justified the losses, but they had no hope of breaching the Sorpe dam, which was by far the biggest.



That illustrates the balance struck between technological and operational limitations. There was also a lack of follow-up there as well — raids against the dam repair efforts would have been beneficial.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 12, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I think he was talking about their vulnerability to ground-fire, not for bombing cities.





Koopernic said:


> Honestly, what are you talking about. You are trying to hijack this thread with your politics the same way you did with Barbarossa?
> 
> A dive bomber is a precision weapon that can usually hit within 20ft hence its use by the RN, USN and IJN against ships.
> 
> .


I am talking about using twin engine bombers in general and "developing twin engine dive bombers" in particular. The early RAF twin engine bombers suffered massive losses in daylight raids, some squadrons were wiped out in a day without dive bombing. German losses up to the fall of France in twin engine bombers were actually unsustainable but it was only a campaign lasting 5-6 weeks. Dive bombers cannot be escorted, you can escort them until they start the dive and when they have re formed after a dive but not in between. The Ju 87 was quickly removed from the battle of Britain because it was very vulnerable, you cannot make an argument for a twin engine aircraft ding the same thing being less vulnerable, it is much bigger and it is massively more expensive in men and material. The last month of the BoB was mainly Bf-109s dropping bombs from high altitude, the twins had been withdrawn and they hadn't even tried dive bombing. How were most German ships attacked from the air? Tirpitz was sunk by Lancasters, Bismarck was hit by a torpedo most others were hit in port by level bombing. The B-26 was a twin engined bomber fast, reasonable defensive armament, on a raid against a power station at IJmuiden in Netherlands all 11 unescorted B-26s were lost to AA and Fw-190s. Last pot a dive bomber is only a precision bomber when it can see the target, frequently they couldnt because of smoke haze or cloud but during a raid only the first few can see the target, once the first bombs drop the dust and smoke obscure the target for anyone coming in later.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 12, 2021)

Dive bombing ships works a lot better than dive bombing land targets.
Ships, aside from their own smoke or smoke from nearby ships are moving into a "clean" area in a matter of moments. Ships show up well against the sea most of the time (not always)




depending on sea state the wake could be several miles long. Plenty of aircraft bombed the wrong ship, now try to identify a factory building in an industrial zone? 
Smoke generators had been used in WW I? Dive bombing when you can't see the ground?

And as I have harped on for years, dive bombing works great against high value targets (like ships that take years to build) with poor anti aircraft. It doesn't work so well against low value targets with good AA. Trading dive bombers for trucks is a lousy trade even at several trucks per dive bomber.

Would British dive bombers of any type, fared any better in attacking the Bridges over the Meuse given the same concentration of German AA guns, German fighters and the lack of proper and timely escort by British fighters?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 12, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Would British dive bombers of any type, fared any better in attacking the Bridges over the Meuse given the same concentration of German AA guns, German fighters and the lack of proper and timely escort by British fighters?



Well, Ju 87s didn't fare too well over Britain during that battle. I wouldn't expect RAF dive bombers to fare much better in similar circumstances.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I remember reading about the Schweinfurt raid and "ball bearing theory". The theory was wiping out Schweinfurt and destroying ball bearing production would cripple Germany. In fact it wouldn't, there were of course stocks of ball bearings all over, some other made ball bearings and re starting would start immediately. As was proved by many sides, if people want to continue fighting they will and Germany had no real means to give up. The idea that someone would say to Adolf "we have no ball bearings" and Adolf says "hand out white flags then" takes no account of him being a madman. Same with the dambusters raid, if they had breached all the dams it may have justified the losses, but they had no hope of breaching the Sorpe dam, which was by far the biggest.



i have many books on various German war machines. It’s clear the Schweinfurt raid worked because the shortage of ball bearings is mentioned in most books on post 1943 weapons development. The Germans adjusted by re-engineering many designs to use sleeve or journal bearings. This re-engineering took a lot of resources that might have produced an improved weapon. On the Arado Ar 234 there could be a slight unpleasant stiction in the feel of the controls due to bearring stiction. It may not have observably reduced munitions production but it prevented or delayed an increase in production and quality.

Britain also suffered from bearing shortages to the extent that some meteor jets had oil coolers on the cockpit sides to cool the oil fed sleeve bearings.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Well, Ju 87s didn't fare too well over Britain during that battle. I wouldn't expect RAF dive bombers to fare much better in similar circumstances.



The Ju 87s losses in the BoB are a kind of received wisdom but I know little of what actually happened first hand. It appears they lost 20 Ju 87 (whose numbers?) in attacks on 3 radar stations. The usual story is they were lost when the Ju 87 were stripped of their escorts after they entered their dives. The iconic Ju 87 attack involved approaching the target with the viewing window between the pilots legs open. The aircraft was set up for a dive and often rolled inverted and pulled into a vertical dive. A contact altimeter (setable between 500m and 4600m) sounded a horn 250 meters before the release point, when it sounded it was time to release bombs. Bomb release initiated automatic pull up. The whole procedure must have taken no more than 50 seconds. If RAF fighters shot these aircraft down there must have been many of them and they must have been aggressive, perhaps overwhelming the escorts in such a short time. Radar effectively made these attacks deep penetration missions even though they were coastal and radar stations were extremely well defended. 

There is dive bombing and there is dive bombing. Perhaps tactics might have evolved to protect the Ju 87. Later the StuVi 5B bombsight was added which gave a moving crosshairs to make bombing more accurate at greater distances and particularly angles more than 10 degrees of centre.

The Hawker Henley could dive at 70 degrees, which is enough for good accuracy and more importantly was much faster than a ju 87 or a fairy battle which greatly facilitates escape and penetration.

During the Battle of Britain EK210 (Erprobungs Kommando or probe squadron) which was set up to combat test the Me 210 but flying Me 110 developed dive bombing attacks said to be as accurate as the Ju 87 at the time. I suspect they used a contact altimeter and a special revi gunsight that had a second set of preset cross hairs which have the release point during the pull-up. The Me 210/410 with dive brakes received a computing dive bombing sight.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 12, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Ju 87s losses in the BoB are a kind of received wisdom but I know little of what actually happened first hand. It appears they lost 20 Ju 87 (whose numbers?) in attacks on 3 radar stations. The usual story is they were lost when the Ju 87 were stripped of their escorts after they entered their dives.



The USAAF took the lesson as being dive bombers, however useful they might be in accurately hitting targets, were simply too vulnerable without local air superiority. Hence why several U.S. squadrons which were to have been equipped with A-24s instead deployed to the ETO equipped with the A-36, an aircraft far more able to defend itself after bombing than the Army version of the Dauntless. It was the rise of the fighter-bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 12, 2021)

I said the myth was the Mustang was the only fighter capable of escorting bombers to Berlin and back. I didn’t say when. 
I would like to see mid-‘43 P-47s with drop tanks too. I’d like to see them at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, the Planes of Fame Museum, Francis Gabreski Airport and at Floyd Bennett Field in Gateway National Park, New York.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 12, 2021)

The Hawker Henley was much faster than the Fairy Battle, it cruised faster than the Battle‘s top speed. It would have been far less vulnerable than the battle. It would also have supported the British Army better in France in 1039/40. Apart from external bombs it had a 500lb bomb bay so could maintain penetration speed. On only 1030hp it could maintain 272 mph while towing a target and in trials achieved 295 mph level speed. Imagine it with a Merlin 24 or even a Griffon (it was used as a Griffon test bed).

Hawker Henley target tug and dive-bomber.

Eventually variants of the Mk XIV bombsight would have made it accurate at both dive bombing and low level bombing.

The case of the A36 is interesting. It clearly was fast and agile enough to self defend. Had the aircraft had a radial engine it might have transformed the aircraft by reducing the aircrafts vulnerability to ground fire.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 12, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I said the myth was the Mustang was the only fighter capable of escorting bombers to Berlin and back. I didn’t say when.
> I would like to see mid-‘43 P-47s with drop tanks too. I’d like to see them at the Cradle of Aviation Museum, the Planes of Fame Museum, Francis Gabreski Airport and at Floyd Bennett Field in Gateway National Park, New York.



Gen. Kenney was doing so in the South Pacific with his P-47s. But, he didn't have much of a choice but to innovate and push things through, given the combat ranges required in the theater and the lack of resources devoted to the area. He had also figured out through experience that unescorted daylight bombing raids simply had too high a casualty rate to be sustainable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The case of the A36 is interesting. It clearly was fast and agile enough to self defend. Had the aircraft had a radial engine it might have transformed the aircraft by reducing the aircrafts vulnerability to ground fire.


You'd be better off building an entirely new aircraft than trying to convert an A-36 Mustang to a radial engine.

Granted, the A-36 had a high attrition rate, but it was a terror to the poor souls in it's sights.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 13, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The case of the A36 is interesting. It clearly was fast and agile enough to self defend. Had the aircraft had a radial engine it might have transformed the aircraft by reducing the aircrafts vulnerability to ground fire.



I doubt that would have made much of a difference. Light flak in the ETO and MTO was abundant and effective, so any low altitude flying stood a good chance of taking a beating.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2021)

The P-47s also based out of Italy took a beating in ground attack missions but had a better survival rate.
The A-36 was used to great effect, so much so, that the Germans, in certain areas, strung steel cables across valleys to deter them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 13, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I doubt that would have made much of a difference. Light flak in the ETO and MTO was abundant and effective, so any low altitude flying stood a good chance of taking a beating.



When the Luftwaffe started using the StuVi 5B computing bombsight on the Ju 87 I suspect release altitudes became much higher and thereby reduced losses to AAA. These dives were still vertical near verticals (60 degrees or so) . On the Ju 88 the StuVi was updated continuously fed data from a computer called a BZA which allowed it to bomb in shallow angles of around 22 degrees without dive brakes. Without the BZA the sights computations was only accurate within a narrow range of preset angles and altitudes.

What I’m saying is that dive bombing improved and allowed greater standoff distances and shallower dives. The USAAF and RAF weren’t very interested in dive bombing but the USN was and must have some fancy equipment (radar altimeters computing mechanisms) and like the Luftwaffe had toss bombing sights in combat trials. 

Some kind of computing sight might have raised the release height of the A36. The RAFs Mk 14 could carry out the far more difficult shallow dive bombing calculations.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 13, 2021)

The A-36's dive angle was shallower - if I recall, it was up to 60° max., far less than the Ju87 or SBD's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Mar 13, 2021)

The prescribed dive bomb attack of 60 degrees was for the normal Mustang.

For the A-36 _"... the essential element in a successful dive bomb attack is a vertical dive. Accuracy of the bombing varies directly with the steepness of the dive and any dive of less than 72 degrees is considered as glide bombing."_ - NWAAF HQ report (Jul '43)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Spitlead (Mar 13, 2021)

Snowygrouch said:


> Archive source + quotations and ORIGINAL data please: >



Here you go. He uses archival documents from test flight reports and shows more charts than you want to see.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 13, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The USAAF and RAF weren’t very interested in dive bombing but the USN was and must have some fancy equipment (radar altimeters computing mechanisms) and like the Luftwaffe had toss bombing sights in combat trials.



The 382nd, 383rd, 384th, and 385th Bombardment Squadrons were all activated on 27 July 1942 as dive bomber units of the 311th Bombardment Group (Dive), training on the V-72. The latter three served overseas as the 528th, 529th, and 530th Fighter-Bomber squadrons of the redesignated 311th Fighter-Bomber Group flying the A-36 in the CBI theater.

There may well have been other groups that transitioned to the A-36, I haven't checked the entirely of the USAAF's squadron/group histories. But the 311th Group definitely did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 13, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-47s also based out of Italy took a beating in ground attack missions but had a better survival rate.
> The A-36 was used to great effect, so much so, that the Germans, in certain areas, strung steel cables across valleys to deter them.



Do you have any specific stats handy? It would be interesting to see the differences between the different types of aircraft used in the ground attack role.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 13, 2021)

Rhetorical statements that the early 320 gallons P47 with the commercially available but not supplied Republic 200 gallon drop tank couldn't escort to Berlin is overstated.

At the time of the August 1943 Regensburg Schweinfurt raids the P47 had no drop tanks provisioned at all despite being plumbed for them.

With this 200 gallon tank the P47 could have escorted all the way to Regensburg-Schweinfurt and back albeit with significant compromises to reserve standards. Probably only 3 minutes WEP, 5 minutes Military Power and 20 minutes reserves. (My calcs but others have stated similar: This could be done.) Even if P47s that had contact with the Luftwaffe had to turn back at that point or reserve standards were fully applied it still meant that the B17 and B24 were escorted nearly twice as deep and that Luftwaffe fighters were busy with P47 rather than formatting to attack B17/B24. The B17 may have been left unescorted for only the last 30 minutes into target, when they were lighter and faster, and quite often some P47 would have made it all the way in. Certainly the Me 110 and Me 210 would have been rendered far less effective.

Just supplying drop tanks before August 43 surely makes a big difference. Would the drop tank have halved losses from 60 and 70 to say 30 and 35 on the two raids?

On the way out presumably the B17 could fly up to 30,000ft at speed to minimise their exposure. Perhaps it would become possible to have a second wave of escorts to meet up with the egressing bombers.

Either way the Bomber Mafia clutched on to straws to hang on to their faith. 

Now while the P47 fueselage fuel tankage increased from 305 US gallons to 370 gallons why couldn’t wing tanks also be developed? The spitfire managed 12 Imp gallons in each wing why couldn’t the big American be given say 2 x 18 US gallons or more. There is another 10% range. Why wait till the P47N and it’s new wing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 13, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> At the time of the August 1943 Regensburg Schweinfurt raids the P47 had no drop tanks provisioned at all despite being plumbed for them.





Koopernic said:


> Just supplying drop tanks before August 43 surely makes a big difference. Would the drop tank have halved losses from 60 and 70 to say 30 and 35 on the two raids?





Koopernic said:


> Now while the P47 fueselage fuel tankage increased from 320 US gallons to 370 gallons why couldn’t wing tanks also be developed? The spitfire managed 12 Imp gallons in each wing why couldn’t the big American be given say 2 x 18 US gallons or more. There is another 10% range. Why wait till the P47N and it’s new wing.


"Because we can't afford to divert any resources away from building more bombers!"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Mar 13, 2021)

Spitlead said:


> Here you go. He uses archival documents from test flight reports and shows more charts than you want to see.




This video and the validity of its points has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on this forum.... I particularly recommend the information dug up by "Drgondog" which come in
on "page" 5 onwards. (see in particular the documents dug up on Hap Arnold, and the stuff on tank pressurisation)

P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Mar 13, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Gen. Kenney was doing so in the South Pacific with his P-47s. But, he didn't have much of a choice but to innovate and push things through, given the combat ranges required in the theater and the lack of resources devoted to the area. He had also figured out through experience that unescorted daylight bombing raids simply had too high a casualty rate to be sustainable.











The development of drop tanks in the Pacific took place at the same time there were solving the same problems in Europe.
I have previously posted extensive excerpts from a USAAF history showing the time line for drop tank deployment in Europe. Both efforts started in summer of 1943.
P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 13, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The 382nd, 383rd, 384th, and 385th Bombardment Squadrons were all activated on 27 July 1942 as dive bomber units of the 311th Bombardment Group (Dive), training on the V-72. The latter three served overseas as the 528th, 529th, and 530th Fighter-Bomber squadrons of the redesignated 311th Fighter-Bomber Group flying the A-36 in the CBI theater.
> 
> There may well have been other groups that transitioned to the A-36, I haven't checked the entirely of the USAAF's squadron/group histories. But the 311th Group definitely did.



I forgot the USAAF used dive bombers in the Pacific, the A24 (army SBD) and Vultee Vengence both used by the RAAF).

I’m extremely surprised that not more single engine fighters were given A36 style dive brakes. One would think Fw 190, spitfire, p47, p40 were all candidates.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 13, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> I forgot the USAAF used dive bombers in the Pacific, the A24 (army SBD) and Vultee Vengence both used by the RAAF).


And Brazil, France, RAF and India used the A-31.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 13, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The development of drop tanks in the Pacific took place at the same time there were solving the same problems in Europe.
> I have previously posted extensive excerpts from a USAAF history showing the time line for drop tank deployment in Europe. Both efforts started in summer of 1943.



Yes, but the point is Gen. Kenney obtained results faster than was the case in Europe. Although to be fair there were issues in Britain which contributed to the delay.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 13, 2021)

Greyman said:


> For the A-36 _"... the essential element in a successful dive bomb attack is a vertical dive. Accuracy of the bombing varies directly with the steepness of the dive and any dive of less than 72 degrees is considered as glide bombing."_ - NWAAF HQ report (Jul '43)


I thought 60-degrees was the cut-off between dive and glide-bombing? Did the USAAF & USN have the same criteria?


----------



## Greyman (Mar 13, 2021)

It sounds like in this case it was aircraft-dependent, not service-dependent.

ie: when you're bombing in an A-36 over 72 degrees use this methodology, under 72 degrees use that methodology.

Determined more by the flying & vision characteristics of the A-36 and less by a textbook somewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## overbeck (Mar 13, 2021)

Snowygrouch said:


> This video and the validity of its points has already been thoroughly discussed elsewhere on this forum.... I particularly recommend the information dug up by "Drgondog" which come in
> on "page" 5 onwards. (see in particular the documents dug up on Hap Arnold, and the stuff on tank pressurisation)


At 18:41 Greg tries to address the pressurisation question by presenting a P-47 flight operation instruction chart. He asserts the tank was "fully tested" to 30,000 feet, apparently only because 'Empty 200-gal belly tank' and '30000' appeared in different places on the same piece of paper. Aside from the difficulty in testing fuel feed from an empty tank, the tank is listed apparently only because it affects performance. It was possible to carry an empty one up to 30,000 ft, but that would be of no help to escort pilots.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 13, 2021)

overbeck said:


> At 18:41 Greg tries to address the pressurisation question by presenting a P-47 flight operation instruction chart. He asserted the tank was "fully tested" to 30,000 feet, apparently only because 'Empty 200-gal belly tank' and '30000' appeared in different places on the same piece of paper. Aside from the difficulty in testing fuel feed from an empty tank, the tank is listed apparently only because it affects performance. It was possible to carry an empty one up to 30,000 ft, but that would be of no help to escort pilots.



Check out his video "B-17 vs Lancaster Payloads and Armor, the Truth!" in which, if I recall correctly, he tries to argue the only reason the B-17 didn't carry as large a bomb load as the Lancaster by using its external racks was due to the 'Bomber Mafia'. I pointed out in the comments that his calculation of range with those external bombs didn't factor in the time spent in formation assembly nor an operating reserve. I pointed out the drag and handling penalties associated with big external bombs, and quotes from some of Roger Freeman's books about the B-17's wing bomb rack usage.

It fell on deaf ears (er, blind eyes?).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought 60-degrees was the cut-off between dive and glide-bombing? Did the USAAF & USN have the same criteria?



My understanding is that glide bombing was generally from a shallow angle, about 30º or so.


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 13, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Check out his video "B-17 vs Lancaster Payloads and Armor, the Truth!" in which, if I recall correctly, he tries to argue the only reason the B-17 didn't carry as large a bomb load as the Lancaster by using its external racks was due to the 'Bomber Mafia'. I pointed out in the comments that his calculation of range with those external bombs didn't factor in the time spent in formation assembly nor an operating reserve. I pointed out the drag and handling penalties associated with big external bombs, and quotes from some of Roger Freeman's books about the B-17's wing bomb rack usage.
> 
> It fell on deaf ears (er, blind eyes?).


I was hoping someone would bring up this video. 
Full disclosure: the B-17 is my first love. 
Followed by Caroline Jones as Morticia Adams.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 13, 2021)

I was Eight.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 14, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I think the Thunderbolts to Berlin in 1943 may be backwards projection.
> 
> Thunderbolts to Berlin in mid to late 1944 was possible(?) so why not claim it was only stubbornness/stupidity that they couldn't have done it in mid 1943 by adding piping and enough drop tanks?
> 
> ...



I don’t think ADI (anti detonation injection) helped with increasing MTOW or hauling of extra fuel. Without ADI and at low altitude the prop was probably good enough. The paddle bladed prop combined with ADI was a way of overcoming the Fw 190 superiority at low medium altitudes.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 14, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I was hoping someone would bring up this video.
> Full disclosure: the B-17 is my first love.
> Followed by Caroline Jones as Morticia Adams.



I live in a inner city area, used to be a bit run down, but near a university. Lots of goth girls and women around. I grew to love their love of black lace bodices, long figure hugging dresses. They were romantics at heart and I always found these girls polite and kind. I suspect Caroline Jones portrayal of Morticia many decades ago was a seminal inspiration.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I thought 60-degrees was the cut-off between dive and glide-bombing? Did the USAAF & USN have the same criteria?





Greyman said:


> It sounds like in this case it was aircraft-dependent, not service-dependent.
> 
> ie: when you're bombing in an A-36 over 72 degrees use this methodology, under 72 degrees use that methodology.
> 
> Determined more by the flying & vision characteristics of the A-36 and less by a textbook somewhere.



In the dive bombing methods developed by the USN the pilot dived at a predetermined angle towards the target and released at a predetermined altitude at the estimated speed. The pilots sight was “foresighted” (USN term) to compensate for Bomb trail error and wind so he put the cross hairs direct on target and released. Ofcourse in a vertical dive this is unnecessary. Dives at a steep near verticals angle apparently made it easier to track a moving target than pure verticals.

I think in glide bombing the pilot put the cross hairs on target and then pulled up and counted of to release the bombs in the pull-up. It’s described how spitfires used a 45 degree dive and a countdown in the osprey book “spitfire versus the v weapons”. In other words the pilot probably couldn’t even see the target at release. The Luftwaffe developed a method of an adjustable second cross hairs on a ReVi reflector sight which the pilot aimed on to the target with the first cross hairs but then released upon a pull-up when it crossed the target.

If the Mk XIV or StuVi was used in glide bombing the bomb aimer or pilot could see a continuously computed impact point.

At angles below about 22 degrees trig functions are essentially linear and this probably simplified dive bombing a little.


----------



## AbitNutz (Mar 18, 2021)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...
> 
> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.



I fell for that one big time when I read a book by Martin Caidin. I think it was titled Fork-Tailed Devil. He was my favorite author till I went to college and learned how to do research. I still enjoyed his stories but sometimes the myth did override the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2021)

Yeap, good ole Caidin.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Mar 18, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Lots of goth girls and women around.


Really? I thought Goths didn’t exist anymore at all


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 18, 2021)

SpicyJuan11 said:


> Really? I thought Goths didn’t exist anymore at all


Their blood runs through us.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 18, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Their blood runs through us.


Try prune juice instead.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 18, 2021)

Reading through "Model Aircraft" magazine from Sept 1961, I saw this in the "letters" page. It concerned the quality of the British ETA .15 model engine, but brought up an interesting tidbit about the possibility of Mitsubishi and Kawasaki building RR merlins before WW2 began.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Their blood runs through us.


My veins are so full of the blood of Brigantes, Parisi and Iceni tribes there is no space for an Ostrogoth or a Visigoth let a lone a real live Goth.


----------



## ARTESH (Mar 18, 2021)

Some about LW and and other AF's tath are commonly said in Iran's cyberspace!!!

Luftwaffe was best in / at anything!

Luftwaffe never lost any planes to friendly fire!

Luftwaffe did not any war crimes!

Luftwaffe was not participated in death camps!

They never shot down damaged allied planes!

Gernany's allies had'nt any form of Airforce! 

Kamikaze was the name of Japanese Airforce!

Kamikaze was an airport / air base! 

Kamikaze was a japanese pilot with most victories!

And hundreds of other non sence things like these!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 18, 2021)

pbehn said:


> My veins are so full of the blood of Brigantes, Parisi and Iceni tribes there is no space for an Ostrogoth or a Visigoth let a lone a real live Goth.


Ever try a Goth Lite?


----------



## ARTESH (Mar 18, 2021)

Mods, please delete this post!


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 18, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Some about LW and and other AF's tath are commonly said in Iran's cyberspace!!!
> 
> Luftwaffe was best in / at anything!
> 
> ...


You should have put this post in the Greatest Myths This Site Busted thread. 
I really like Kamikaze Airport!


----------



## pbehn (Mar 18, 2021)

ARTESH said:


> Some about LW and and other AF's tath are commonly said in Iran's cyberspace!!!
> 
> Luftwaffe was best in / at anything!
> 
> ...


Well it took a genius to lose with a force like that on your side.


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 18, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> You should have put this post in the Greatest Myths This Site Busted thread.
> I really like Kamikaze Airport!


I thought this was a different thread.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 19, 2021)

tomo pauk said:


> Not exclusively by members of this site, but some of them might've been:
> - P-39 was used in ground support role by Soviets, including the role of tank busting
> - P-40 was conceived as Army support fighter
> - RR Peregrine was a bad engine
> ...



if you‘re going to pick on German fighter pilot claims then the myth that the claims of allied fighter pilots were to be taken as gospel should be there. The over claiming was 2:1 and as bad as any and we may find quite possibly the worst. The nadir was likely the Korean War when a 10:1 exchange ratio was claimed but the exchange ratio was less than 2:1 and possibly even.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> if you‘re going to pick on German fighter pilot claims then the myth that the claims of allied fighter pilots were to be taken as gospel should be there. The over claiming was 2:1 and as bad as any and we may find quite possibly the worst. The nadir was likely the Korean War when a 10:1 exchange ratio was claimed ad the exchange ratio was less than 2:1 and possibly even.



Over-claiming happened on every side, no matter how thorough the verification process. It was inevitable given the nature of air combat, where one aircraft might be attacked by three opposing aircraft, all of which might claim the kill, as well as pilots trying to recount dynamic events in detail hours afterward. Sometimes, it worked the other way, with aircraft claimed as only damaged which were in fact kills, but not known until after the war when cross-checking was done.

The quick rule-of-thumb is to take the total fighter kill claims and divide by three. That gets one fairly close to the actual total.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> if you‘re going to pick on German fighter pilot claims then the myth that the claims of allied fighter pilots were to be taken as gospel should be there. The over claiming was 2:1 and as bad as any and we may find quite possibly the worst. The nadir was likely the Korean War when a 10:1 exchange ratio was claimed ad the exchange ratio was less than 2:1 and possibly even.


Pilot claims are actually proportional to the number of pilots involved, on average it was 2 to 1 most of the time. up to 10 to 1 when air gunners are concerned. Claims about hits on the ground against tanks are generally fantasy because the pilot cant see and has no way of assessing damage.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Pilot claims are actually proportional to the number of pilots involved, on average it was 2 to 1 most of the time. up to 10 to 1 when air gunners are concerned. Claims about hits on the ground against tanks are generally fantasy because the pilot cant see and has no way of assessing damage.





33k in the air said:


> Over-claiming happened on every side, no matter how thorough the verification process. It was inevitable given the nature of air combat, where one aircraft might be attacked by three opposing aircraft, all of which might claim the kill, as well as pilots trying to recount dynamic events in detail hours afterward. Sometimes, it worked the other way, with aircraft claimed as only damaged which were in fact kills, but not known until after the war when cross-checking was done.
> 
> The quick rule-of-thumb is to take the total fighter kill claims and divide by three. That gets one fairly close to the actual total.



From what I’ve seen the claims versus actual ratio was about 2:1 on both sides. The Luftwaffe was certainly not the only air force that over claimed and hence I objected. American gunners initially over claimed by 100:1 during big week, which gives an idea of the problem of attributing kills in formation flying and the issues created by awarding a medal.

Some of the over claim myths come from the reinforcing myths propaganda exaggerating exchange ratios to buoy or delude the spirits of the population. I think Adler Tag cost the Luftwaffe 60 aircraft whereas the BBC claimed 180. Surely there weren’t 180 wrecks over Britain or 120 in the channel.

I recall Heinz Knock making a claim against a Mosquito over water in the fog (he had an instrument rating and radar guidance) that had just disrupted a Nazi rally in Berlin that can’t be reconciled with RAF losses. If that was indeed a false claim I don’t blame him as it kept Goering of the Luftwaffe back by being able to say the Mosquitoes didn’t get away. The pressure to get a result would have been immense since weather had grounded other Me 109 and Goering personally called the Geschwader commander to force them to scramble. 

Nevertheless Luftwaffe over claims were no worse than allied. I don’t think other pilots liked it.

Most “tank kills” would have been mobility kills likely soon repaired. A claim by a slow flying Ju 87 with a rear gunner likely more accurate than a fast moving single seat fighter.

To kill tanks on the Eastern from Luftwaffe used Fw 190 to fly over the tank and release a time delayed bomb (SC250 or 4 x SC50) when the tank disappeared under the nose which then slid into the tank. It was regarded as an accurate method and must have produced a true kill. The pilot would not see the hit.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> From what I’ve seen the claims versus actual ratio was about 2:1 on both sides. The Luftwaffe was certainly not the only air force that over claimed and hence I objected. American gunners initially over claimed by 100:1 during big week, which gives an idea of the problem of attributing kills in formation flying and the issues created by awarding a medal.
> 
> Some of the over claim myths come from the reinforcing myths propaganda exaggerating exchange ratios to buoy or delude the spirits of the population. I think Adler Tag cost the Luftwaffe 60 aircraft whereas the BBC claimed 180. Surely there weren’t 180 wrecks over Britain or 120 in the channel.
> 
> .


Sorry when I said pilots I should have said eyes. In a bomber formation there were hundreds firing at an enemy and if one goes down you cant say they didn't fire at it, they probably didn't hit it though. On the mass raids on London "Adler Tag" there were more RAF pilots than normal in the BoB so the claims reflect that. Some of the overclaiming myths also come from fame hungry pilots wanting and iron cross, then some oak leaves and some swords and then even diamonds, claiming kills when they hadn't even fired their guns.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 19, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Sorry when I said pilots I should have said eyes. In a bomber formation there were hundreds firing at an enemy and if one goes down you cant say they didn't fire at it, they probably didn't hit it though. On the mass raids on London "Adler Tag" there were more RAF pilots than normal in the BoB so the claims reflect that. Some of the overclaiming myths also come from fame hungry pilots wanting and iron cross, then some oak leaves and some swords and then even diamonds, claiming kills when they hadn't even fired their guns.



Erich Hartmann, who had oak leaves, swords and demands, probably the only fighter pilot who ever did, didn’t over claim. He never lost a wingman and those wingmen were mostly by his side. His claims have been intensely scrutinized and many involved close range precision shooting. He was known for blowing an oil cooler of an IL-2 with a single round.

The Luftwaffe didn’t have aces, it did have pilots declared as “Experten” which was about 10 claims and involved achieving some skill at mentoring. There certainly wasn’t a star shooter system. That’s just sour grapes.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Erich Hartmann, who had oak leaves, swords and demands, probably the only fighter pilot who ever did, didn’t over claim. He never lost a wingman and those wingmen were mostly by his side. His claims have been intensely scrutinized and many involved close range precision shooting. He was known for blowing an oil cooler of an IL-2 with a single round.
> 
> The Luftwaffe didn’t have aces, it did have pilots declared as “Experten” which was about 10 claims and involved achieving some skill at mentoring. There certainly wasn’t a star shooter system. That’s just sour grapes.


Are you kidding me, it was a system of propaganda, like Hollywood Oscars or the Ballon d'Or. Rudel had golden oak leaves (whatever that means). Here is a list, most are actually pilots, though Rommel gets in there, few other generals or admirals do let alone captains or soldiers. I was actually referring to Mr Marseille. List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients - Wikipedia


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 19, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Some of the over claim myths come from the reinforcing myths propaganda exaggerating exchange ratios to buoy or delude the spirits of the population. I think Adler Tag cost the Luftwaffe 60 aircraft whereas the BBC claimed 180. Surely there weren’t 180 wrecks over Britain or 120 in the channel.



After the March 6, 1944, attack on Berlin, the USAAF bomber gunners claimed 97 German fighters shot down, while the escorting fighters claimed 82 shot down, or a total of 179. Actual German fighters losses were 67. German fighters and flak together claimed 108 heavy bombers and 20 escort fighters shot down. Actual U.S. losses were 69 heavy bombers and 11 fighters.

These figures come from Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price's book _Target Berlin — Mission 250: 6 March 1944_, which tells the story of the first major USAAF daylight raid on Berlin.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 20, 2021)

In the case of the 8th Air Force over claiming, what could they do ?

Lets say you have a enemy fighter come through the bomber box, 8 or so gunners shoot at it. 
It's starts smoking, and then explodes.
At the end of the mission every crew member, of every aircraft gets debriefed .
Then the debriefers get together.
How can they decide who fired the decisive shots ?
They probably can't even determine who shot at it last, let alone if that person actually hit it. 

So they take the easy way out and award each gunner who fired at it a victory, not a partial, or a assist.
That way the gunners are encouraged, they're not freezing their butts off for nothing.
They report the total claims in a press release, it looks impressive in print.
But everybody up the chain of command knows it's BS, it's just propaganda.

The 8th AF knew at the end of the day on Mar. 6th, 44, the Luftwaffe didn't lose 97 fighters to their gunners.
Did the 8th factor those numbers down some way in their own internal records ?

Germany controlled the ground under which this fight took place, they would have a fairly good idea of how many enemy aircraft they brought down.
But they could never find them all.
So if their numbers are inflated they're engaging in the same propaganda BS for the home front readers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 20, 2021)

tyrodtom said:


> So they take the easy way out and award each gunner who fired at it a victory, not a partial, or a assist.
> That way the gunners are encouraged, they're not freezing their butts off for nothing.
> They report the total claims in a press release, it looks impressive in print.
> But everybody up the chain of command knows it's BS, it's just propaganda.



_Target Berlin_ has a section which looks at the press coverage of each side after the raid. While newspapers on both sides enthusiastically (and uncritically) reported their side's kill claims, U.S. newspapers accurately reported American losses, whereas German papers said nothing about their own losses nor remarked on any bomb damage done to the city other than to say there was minimal damage to industry. (In this instance the statement was correct, but apparently German press routinely made the same statement after every raid no matter the actual damage.) German media commentators also took time later to decry the American claims of the number of German aircraft shot down as ludicrous (while still offering no loss figures of their own).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Mar 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> Erich Hartmann, who had oak leaves, swords and demands, probably the only fighter pilot who ever did, didn’t over claim. He never lost a wingman and those wingmen were mostly by his side. His claims have been intensely scrutinized and many involved close range precision shooting. He was known for blowing an oil cooler of an IL-2 with a single round.
> 
> The Luftwaffe didn’t have aces, it did have pilots declared as “Experten” which was about 10 claims and involved achieving some skill at mentoring. There certainly wasn’t a star shooter system. That’s just sour grapes.


Hartmann mis claimed a lot. They checked his claims against loss or damage reports.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 20, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> _Target Berlin_ has a section which looks at the press coverage of each side after the raid. While newspapers on both sides enthusiastically (and uncritically) reported their side's kill claims, U.S. newspapers accurately reported American losses, whereas German papers said nothing about their own losses nor remarked on any bomb damage done to the city other than to say there was minimal damage to industry. (In this instance the statement was correct, but apparently German press routinely made the same statement after every raid no matter the actual damage.) German media commentators also took time later to decry the American claims of the number of German aircraft shot down as ludicrous (while still offering no loss figures of their own).



Why would you help the enemy by declaring your own accurate loss and damage data? You seem to be implying it’s a folksy oaki American virtue and the Germans the dishonest Nazi liars. The German press declared nothing which is a sensible policy. The Germans would know precise American losses by counting the exact number of wrecks they recovered to melt down and so US press statements gave away nothing when they declared US losses truthfully and merely preempted what might have been exploited by German propaganda in the vacuum of information. Had hundreds of Me 264/6m been bombing the US West and East coast from Japanese and European bases I doubt the US would be declaring its losses either nor confining the number of targets destoyed. 

Truth telling in western media had never been a matter of integrity. Telling the truth (often enough) is about maintaining credibility so big lies can be told and imposed by overwhelming repetition of a narrative when it is wanted. That’s how social and political influence works. I’ve seen the BBC in action from Falklands, the gulf wars and the Syrian conflict. Moreover and I saw the American media during the last elections, both gulf wars and I know the way this nonsense is managed.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 20, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> Hartmann mis claimed a lot. They checked his claims against loss or damage reports.


Hartmann: claims vs. victories - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum (12oclockhigh.net)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 20, 2021)

The Battle of Britain has to be the best known campaign of overclaiming. The RAF shot down every Bf109 in existence and the LW shot down every Spitfire in existence (no one claimed a Hurricane that would be so low class 😂)

The LW fanbois do get a bit of a girly hissy fit if you disparage the claims of their favourites but boy if you mention US overclaims expect the sky to fall in on you.

The only pilot I have ever read of that had all his victories confirmed was an Aussie P40 pilot who to my shame I have forgotten his name.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 20, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The Battle of Britain has to be the best known campaign of overclaiming. The RAF shot down every Bf109 in existence and the LW shot down every Spitfire in existence (no one claimed a Hurricane that would be so low class 😂)
> 
> The LW fanbois do get a bit of a girly hissy fit if you disparage the claims of their favourites but boy if you mention US overclaims expect the sky to fall in on you.
> 
> The only pilot I have ever read of that had all his victories confirmed was an Aussie P40 pilot who to my shame I have forgotten his name.


Perhaps because it was part of the battle itself. German strategy was based in part on what they believed the RAF strength to be. In fact the LW did shoot down Fighter Command in terms of numbers, but those losses were replaced.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The Germans would know precise American losses by counting the exact number of wrecks they recovered to melt down and so US press statements gave away nothing when they declared US losses truthfully[...]



I think the assumption that all American losses crashed in territory controlled by Germany is doubtful at best.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 20, 2021)

All the air forces (at least the ones not run by complete morons) would want an accurate count of enemy losses (presumably, they'd have one of their own). This was obviously easier for somebody who is fighting over their own territories, and most difficult for those fighting over someone else's territory or the ocean.

On the other hand, for both civilian and military morale, the air forces would want to play up their successes, and would tend to publicize a less accurate count.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 20, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> You seem to be implying it’s a folksy oaki American virtue and the Germans the dishonest Nazi liars.





Koopernic said:


> The German press declared nothing which is a sensible policy.



I'm recounting the book's mentioning of press coverage. Make of it what you will.

_Target Berlin, _p. 149 and 152:

_On the question of bomb damage to Berlin the _Lokal-Anzeiger_ gave little away. There was the usual banal statement that most bombs had fallen on residential districts on the outskirts and the attack caused minimal damage to industry or arms production. Now as it happened the statement was correct concerning the 6 March attack; but Germans interviewed said they had heard the same thing so often before that they did not believe it this time.

Target Berlin, _p. 152:

_To sum up the media reports: both sides claimed clear-cut victories for the action of 6 March and greatly exaggerated the numbers of enemy aircraft destroyed, the American exaggeration being somewhat greater than the German. But while American losses were honestly stated, those of the Luftwaffe were not mentioned by the German media. The German Propaganda Ministry issued an accurate account of the ineffectual bombing of Berlin but few seemed to have believed it._




Koopernic said:


> The Germans would know precise American losses by counting the exact number of wrecks they recovered to melt down ...



It was some 550 miles from U.S. airbases in England to Berlin. Bombers were lost all along the way. Some crashed in occupied Holland. A few made either made it to neutral Sweden or ditched in the North Sea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I think the assumption that all American losses crashed in territory controlled by Germany is doubtful at best.



There were also additional losses beyond those lost directly to enemy action. Total U.S. losses on the 6 March 1944 action were 74 heavy bombers and 13 fighters. Of the bombers, 69 were lost to enemy action, 4 were written off after returning, and 1 crashed on take-off at the start of the operation. Of the fighters, 11 were lost to enemy action and 2 which returned were written off.

Regarding crew losses:

_Of the 701 men on board the US aircraft lost in action 229 were killed or missing, 411 taken prisoner, 13 who came down in Holland evaded capture, 8 were picked up from the North Sea by the RAF rescue service and 40 landed in Sweden and were later repatriated. From the aircraft which returned, 3 crewmen were killed, 29 wounded and 4 were taken prisoner (those who bailed out of the 306th Bomb Group Fortress over Holland)._

— _Target Berlin_, p.142

The other side of the ledger:

_In the course of the action 66 German fighters were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. One fighter crashed soon after take-off and two training aircraft were shot down by escort fighters . . . Broken down into types those lost comprised 22 Me 109s, 19 FW 190s, 6 Me 410s, 11 Me 110 day fighters and 9 Me 110 night fighters. Including the pilot in the accident after take-off, 36 German aircrew were killed and 25 wounded; of these 25 of the dead and 21 of the wounded were fighter pilots, among them several experienced and successful ones whose services the Luftwaffe could ill afford to lose._

_— Target Berlin_, p.143:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 20, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> It was some 550 miles from U.S. airbases in England to Berlin. Bombers were lost all along the way. Some crashed in occupied Holland. A few made either made it to neutral Sweden or ditched in the North Sea.


For both the RAF and USAAF a bomber landing back at base or in UK didn't mean it wasn't a total write off with many crew dead or injured. Many never took to the air again.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 20, 2021)

That's right. Or Second Schweinfurt: 60 B-17s shot down (one ditched), 17 crash-landed or scrapped on return. If Germans only counted wrecks they could access they'd make a 22% error in their after-action assessment.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 20, 2021)

All pilots and aircrew are prone to over-claiming. Air gunners are going to over-claim simply because multiple gunners are likely to be claiming to have destroyed the same aircraft, and pilots are going to over-claim because they see an aircraft badly damaged and they _assume_ it's going to be lost; these are not "lies" in any meaningful sense. These factors are, incidentally, part of the reason eyewitness evidence is not considered particularly reliable (many of the inmates exonerated from death sentences had been put there by eyewitnesses who were certain and probably not actively lying). Add to the basic issues with human memory and perceptions the likelihood that plausible claims would get a positive reaction, either unofficially (from congratulations from colleagues to drinks at a bar to a nice evening with a person of the appropriate sex) or officially (say, a Knight's Cross) and there are even more reason to conclude that damaged aircraft must have crashed.

From a strictly practical position, I'd also think it would be unwise to instruct your pilots to chase an enemy plane to ensure that it was definitely destroyed if it's diving out of combat with some evident damage (like flames), as this could be both excessively risky for your pilots and prevent your pilot from combating a second threat. (this, not some sort of chivalry is why I'd tend to discourage shooting pilots* when they're parachuting to the ground: they are no longer an eminent threat, but the enemy force may have other aircraft that are current threats.)

Obviously, military planners need to know how many enemy aircraft were actually shot down, but they a) don't necessarily have a good value for this (it's easy to count wrecks on territory you control, but challenging to similarly verify claims resulting from actions enemy-controlled territory or, say, an ocean) or b) they may feel the need to overstate success for civilian morale (something far less fragile than most military planners assumed, especially in the democracies).


-----
* Discourage, not ban, at least over enemy territory. Over friendly territory, well, captured pilots could be useful sources of intelligence. I'll leave morality out of this, for now. Rather obviously, killing an enemy pilot when he's parachuting from a destroyed aircraft is distasteful, probably even immoral.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 21, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> killing an enemy pilot when he's parachuting from a destroyed aircraft is distasteful, probably even immoral.


Tankers bailing out and running away from their destroyed tank???


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Tankers bailing out and running away from their destroyed tank???



I think that's different. They can still operate as ground forces and present a danger, even though their tank is toast, using their small arms. This doesn't apply to aircrew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 21, 2021)

I tend to agree. We could explore the analogy of sailors in the water after their vessel is sunk. They represent no threat, and hence murdering them in cold blood would be seen by most as reprehensible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 21, 2021)

The pilot who is shot down learns and the next time up is a better pilot. Many of the aces were shot down and survived to be better combat pilots. I still would not shoot one in a chute as that is obvious murder.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 21, 2021)

It was perfectly normal for crews to abandon tanks, in heavy fighting they did so every few days in Normandy, then they got back in it when it was recovered and repaired or got in another one straight away.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 21, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> . . . killing an enemy pilot when he's parachuting from a destroyed aircraft is distasteful, probably even immoral.



It was implicitly understood that once one side started doing that sort of thing on a widespread basis, the other side would retaliate in the same way. Hence why it was better to not engage in such actions and open up Pandora's Box. Both the British and the Germans had large stockpiles of chemical weapons during WWII, but both refrained from using them for fear of the retaliation which would inevitably ensue.

I remember an interview with an Allied pilot who had seen one of his fellow pilots bale out and who was shot while parachuting down by an enemy fighter. The Allied pilot then chased after that enemy fighter and shot it up, and when its pilot took to his parachute, the Allied pilot shot him in retaliation.

If go down the merciless route, the other side will too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 21, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> It was implicitly understood that once one side started doing that sort of thing on a widespread basis, the other side would retaliate in the same way. Hence why it was better to not engage in such actions and open up Pandora's Box. Both the British and the Germans had large stockpiles of chemical weapons during WWII, but both refrained from using them for fear of the retaliation which would inevitably ensue.
> 
> I remember an interview with an Allied pilot who had seen one of his fellow pilots bale out and who was shot while parachuting down by an enemy fighter. The Allied pilot then chased after that enemy fighter and shot it up, and when its pilot took to his parachute, the Allied pilot shot him in retaliation.
> 
> If go down the merciless route, the other side will too.


Ive seen that interview too. As far as Dowding was concerned a German pilot on a parachute over UK could be considered to be surrendered while an RAF pilot was still a combatant.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 21, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> It was implicitly understood that once one side started doing that sort of thing on a widespread basis, the other side would retaliate in the same way. Hence why it was better to not engage in such actions and open up Pandora's Box. Both the British and the Germans had large stockpiles of chemical weapons during WWII, but both refrained from using them for fear of the retaliation which would inevitably ensue.
> 
> I remember an interview with an Allied pilot who had seen one of his fellow pilots bale out and who was shot while parachuting down by an enemy fighter. The Allied pilot then chased after that enemy fighter and shot it up, and when its pilot took to his parachute, the Allied pilot shot him in retaliation.
> 
> If go down the merciless route, the other side will too.



I've read that Allied pilots who gunned the sailors and troops of sunk vessels in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea did so because they'd heard of Japanese doing the same things to Allied sailors and downed airmen. I can't speak to the veracity of those claims, nor would I argue that that was adequate justification if true. 

There were also American soldiers who, after Malmedy, perpetrated atrocities in response. Again, I can't speak to the veracity of those claims.


----------



## Dimlee (Mar 21, 2021)

Koopernic said:


> The nadir was likely the Korean War when a 10:1 exchange ratio was claimed but the exchange ratio was less than 2:1 and possibly even.



It's hard to say since data from the other side is far from complete. I don't think we'll ever know the true losses of North Koreans and Chinese numbers need to be verified by researchers who are not under Bejing's control. Soviet losses were thoroughly investigated but it happened 50-60 years after the war and not all archives were opened yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Mar 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I've read that Allied pilots who gunned the sailors and troops of sunk vessels in the Battle of the Bismarck Sea did so because they'd heard of Japanese doing the same things to Allied sailors and downed airmen. I can't speak to the veracity of those claims, nor would I argue that that was adequate justification if true.
> 
> There were also American soldiers who, after Malmedy, perpetrated atrocities in response. Again, I can't speak to the veracity of those claims.


Bismark Sea battle involved Allies intercepting a convoy of troop transports from Rabaul. The survivors were strafed in the water because if they were rescued they would just be transported on to NG which was the whole reason for the interception in the first place. Grisly business for sure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 25, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Bismark Sea battle involved Allies intercepting a convoy of troop transports from Rabaul. The survivors were strafed in the water because if they were rescued they would just be transported on to NG which was the whole reason for the interception in the first place. Grisly business for sure.



True, but rescued soldiers bereft of equipment have little fighting strength, and as that battle itself showed, the ability to reconstitute them would have been mighty slim. I doubt those soldiers dove overboard with rifles slung, or weighed down by ammo, given their distance from any shoreline. Definitely grisly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> True, but rescued soldiers bereft of equipment have little fighting strength, and as that battle itself showed, the ability to reconstitute them would have been mighty slim. I doubt those soldiers dove overboard with rifles slung, or weighed down by ammo, given their distance from any shoreline. Definitely grisly.



It was already well-established by that time that Japanese military personnel rarely surrendered and would rather die fighting, however poorly equipped they might be.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 25, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> It was already well-established by that time that Japanese military personnel rarely surrendered and would rather die fighting, however poorly equipped they might be.



Or die drowning, or shark-bitten, or of starvation as they did on the 'Canal, and in NG too iirc.


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 25, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Or die drowning, or shark-bitten, or of starvation as they did on the 'Canal, and in NG too iirc.



I remember seeing military newsreel footage on YouTube of a downed Japanese aviator who refused to be picked up by a USN warship.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 25, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I remember seeing military newsreel footage on YouTube of a downed Japanese aviator who refused to be picked up by a USN warship.



I've read of such myself. I think the Pacific War only had its equal on the Eastern Front in terms of cutthroat.


----------



## MiTasol (Mar 26, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I tend to agree. We could explore the analogy of sailors in the water after their vessel is sunk. They represent no threat, and hence murdering them in cold blood would be seen by most as reprehensible.



Look for the video of the Battle of the Bismark Sea. Lots of Japanese being machine gunned by various RAAF and USAAF aircraft. When the Japanese or Germans or Italians did that it was a war crime but history is always written by the victors who always develop amnesia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Mar 26, 2021)

A friend who was on the Enterprise told of, after an air attack, a destroyer put out a boat to pick up a downed Japanese flyer who then shot a sailor at close range. There were no more rescue attempts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2021)

MiTasol said:


> Look for the video of the Battle of the Bismark Sea. Lots of Japanese being machine gunned by various RAAF and USAAF aircraft. When the Japanese or Germans or Italians did that it was a war crime but history is always written by the victors who always develop amnesia.


Unfortunately, when one side starts doing it, the other side will most often respond in kind.
The Imperial Japanese did not have the best track record for assisting shipwrecked people from the very start of the war.
Many examples of direct orders from high command to "totally eliminate" enemy assets: ship, cargo and crew can be found.
The IJN's I-37, was the leader in carrying out their orders and among their unfortunate tally, was the Australian Hospital ship Centaur.

The incident of strafing survivors at Bismark Sea was done by both sides, like the Japanese who, during the early days of the battle (3 March), strafed 7 survivors of a damaged USAAF B-17 (piloted by Lt. Moore) who were in the silk.

So in the end, no one was guilt-free.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Mar 26, 2021)

special ed said:


> A friend who was on the Enterprise told of, after an air attack, a destroyer put out a boat to pick up a downed Japanese flyer who then shot a sailor at close range. There were no more rescue attempts.



There are many accounts of Japanese soldiers feigning surrender only to throw grenades at U.S. troops or otherwise attack them.




GrauGeist said:


> Unfortunately, when one side starts doing it, the other side will most often respond in kind.
> The Imperial Japanese did not have the best track record for assisting shipwrecked people from the very start of the war..



The IJN executed three U.S. aviators it had captured during the Battle of Midway (although this did not come to light until after the war). There was also the Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners of war. While many are familiar with Dr. Mengele, fewer are aware of Unit 731.

Imperial Japan was frequently brutal, even to its own personnel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2021)

My Kid's Great Grandmother AND Grandfather were POWs Here's his book.

Surviving the Day

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My Kid's Great Grandmother AND Grandfather were POWs Here's his book.
> 
> Surviving the Day
> 
> View attachment 617413


Wow.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Mar 26, 2021)

The Japanese used a lot of slave labor to build the railway into Burma (Bridge on the River Kwai ring any bells?) Most of those were British POWS from the debacle at Singapore, but there were also Thais rounded up when they ran short of Commonwealth POWS to work to death. The Japanese were about as brutal as it gets in the wartime years. I think the bridge was finally dropped by B24s, not commandos, but either way...............


----------



## Greyman (Mar 26, 2021)

I often see something to the effect of; _'... the tipping of V1 flying bombs was done without actually contacting the V1's wing, but by using the airflow / turbulence of the fighter's wing ...'_

However, every time I read an anecdote from a pilot that tipped over a V1 -- they make it very clear contact was made.

I'm nowhere near ready to get into *myth busted!* territory ... but my suspicions are raised. Anyone have any actual anecdotes of the 'airflow upsetting' method?


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2021)

glennasher said:


> The Japanese used a lot of slave labor to build the railway into Burma (Bridge on the River Kwai ring any bells?) Most of those were British POWS from the debacle at Singapore, but there were also Thais rounded up when they ran short of Commonwealth POWS to work to death. The Japanese were about as brutal as it gets in the wartime years. I think the bridge was finally dropped by B24s, not commandos, but either way...............


Nope. Bridge still there. More concrete and steel than bamboo, unlike the movie.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> There are many accounts of Japanese soldiers feigning surrender only to throw grenades at U.S. troops or otherwise attack them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





SaparotRob said:


> Wow.


My father was in the Royal Navy for 3 years in WW2 1942-45, he didn't return to UK until 1948. His three years in peacetime in Singapore and elsewhere in the far east affected him much more than his three years of war.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Nope. Bridge still there. More concrete and steel than bamboo, unlike the movie.



The original bridge was a wooden trestle, finished in Feb 43. replaced or supplimented by a steel-concrete bridge in Jun. 43. 
The Japanese was in a hurry to get the Thai- Burma Railway into use, there were over 600 bridges on the line, most were wooden trestles. 
I think the bridge on the river Kwai was the longest.
Both bridges were damaged several times, but rebuilt, until finally put out of commission in early 45.

The bridges was repaired postwar by Thailand, and the Thai portion of the railway put back into service.
The Burma portion of the Thai- Burma Railway was took out of service and the rails used elsewhere.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2021)

Well how about that. The tourist literature from 30 years ago was wrong.


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 26, 2021)

Hey! Myth busted!


----------



## Milosh (Mar 26, 2021)

There is a series on PBS about railroads. One of the programs was about the "Burma RR" today with lots of history included.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2021)

Milosh said:


> There is a series on PBS about railroads. One of the programs was about the "Burma RR" today with lots of history included.


Saw that documentary - very sobering, especially the cuts through bedrock, hewn by hand.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Mar 27, 2021)

Bridge On The River Kwai | The Thailand-Burma Railway | Secrets of the Dead | PBS

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 27, 2021)

Love Secrets of the Dead.
One of the few history series that actually does research, hunts for facts and leaves the viewer well informed about each episode's subject.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Mar 27, 2021)

The narrator of Secrets of the Dead is great. I love hearing him emphasize the “h” in why, what, when, etc.


----------



## wrenchedmyspanner (Mar 28, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Both the British and the Germans had large stockpiles of chemical weapons during WWII, but both refrained from using them for fear of the retaliation which would inevitably ensue.



Technically, WP was a chemical weapon.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 28, 2021)

wrenchedmyspanner said:


> Technically, WP was a chemical weapon.


Not in the WWII sense.

Both the Axis and Allies had huge stockpiles of chemical/nerve agents, ready to use at the first twitch - which fortunately never happened.
The closest it came, was when the Luftwaffe attacked the port of Bari in '43, inadvertently hitting one such stockpile stowed aboard the SS John Harvey, releasing mustard gas into the water and air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Mar 29, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> So in the end, no one was guilt-free.



'Tis ever such in war.


----------



## SaparotRob (May 23, 2021)

Okay, not strictly an aviation myth but I recently read that the HIJMS Mogami had the most successful torpedo attack in history sinking five ships with one spread. Unfortunately for Mogami, those ships were on her side.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 23, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay, not strictly an aviation myth but I recently read that the HIJMS Mogami had the most successful torpedo attack in history sinking five ships with one spread. Unfortunately for Mogami, those ships were on her side.


Hey, you just can't trust cruiser captains with those long range weapons! Know your backdrop before you shoot. The high angle gunnery mindset can bite you in the butt.
At least they weren't Mark 48s!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 23, 2021)

My dad served in Burma in WW2.


----------



## SaparotRob (May 23, 2021)

Would you know if there was any truth to that story?

I'm not very familiar with the CBI. That does include Burma, right? Which branch did he serve in?


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 23, 2021)

CBI stands for China Burma India. He was a master Sgt. in the veterinary corps, they used a lot of mules in Burma.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
6 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (May 26, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> CBI stands for China Burma India. He was a master Sgt. in the veterinary corps, they used a lot of mules in Burma.


I was thinking about your post. Was he in Burma in the early days of that campaign? Was he there when the troops had to eat the mules? That had to be a brutal posting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (May 26, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I was thinking about your post. Was he in Burma in the early days of that campaign? Was he there when the troops had to eat the mules? That had to be a brutal posting.


No, I never heard about that. His outfit trained for years in the States and finally deployed to Burma in mid 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

w


DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Not sure if it is the greatest myth busted but one of my favorites...
> 
> The Germans called the P-38 the Fork Tailed Devil.


was it false or true?


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> The Me-262 was not produced because Hitler wanted a bomber.
> 
> The SBDs sank the IJN carriers at Midway because their escorting Wildcats dove on the Zeros and shot them down before they could stop the dive bombers.


was this false or true?


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> w
> was it false or true?


The Germans almost certainly did not call the P-38 the "Fork-tailed Devil." Similarly, the Japanese almost certainly did not call the F4U Corsair "The Whistling Death."

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The Germans almost certainly did not call the P-38 the "Fork-tailed Devil." Similarly, the Japanese almost certainly did not call the F4U Corsair "The Whistling Death."


oh


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> The Germans almost certainly did not call the P-38 the "Fork-tailed Devil." Similarly, the Japanese almost certainly did not call the F4U Corsair "The Whistling Death."


i looked it up and I already saw this guy had no idea what he was talking about


----------



## pbehn (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> oh


Would you call out gable schwanz teufel over a radio or just "lightning"?


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Would you call out gable schwanz teufel over a radio or just "lightning"?


lightning but idk


----------



## Dash119 (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i looked it up and I already saw this guy had no idea what he was talking about


The writer also states that the Corsair had a Turbo-Supercharger, a fact not widely known...


----------



## Snowygrouch (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> lightning but idk



I did an OCR search of nearly 100,000 pages of RLM (German Air Ministry) meeting records, between 1941 and 1945, and found absolutely
no matches for "teufel", "gabel" or "schwanz", in relation to any aircraft of any sort - let alone all three. "Lightning" and "P-38" were recorded several times. Its unquestionably
nonsense. Most of those are stenographic spoken word records too, so its not as if it was an official report and they felt silly using slang.

Its of course possible that somewhere "a german" of some description called the plane that in a one-off conversation, but the notion
that this name "is what the Germans regularly called it" - is definetly untrue. There was a whole thread about it, do a search. There
was a lot of document digging and the results are pretty incontravertable.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
5 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> i looked it up and I already saw this guy had no idea what he was talking about



The statement that the F4U "could out-run, out-climb and out-fight any propeller driven opponent" also rings a little boastfully. 
The Corsair was an outstanding fighter, but had its own limitations and weaknesses. To suggest that it could achieve all three of those claims, against ANY opposition is pure hyperbole

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2021)

*CAIDINISMS*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 2, 2021)

Some BoB pilots called enemy fighters "snappers", in conversation the may have said "I hate those yellow nosed Jerry snappers". But that doesnt mean they were known as that, the were known as 109s and 110s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The statement that the F4U "could out-run, out-climb and out-fight any propeller driven opponent" also rings a little boastfully.
> The Corsair was an outstanding fighter, but had its own limitations and weaknesses. To suggest that it could achieve all three of those claims, against ANY opposition is pure hyperbole


lamo sensationalist writer


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 2, 2021)

The Allied pilots did however, nickname the Zero the "Sky Demon".


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> The Allied pilots did however, nickname the Zero the "Sky Demon".


Never heard that term.
I do know they'd call out "Zeros", "Zekes" or (and my apologies for this term) "Japs". They were also known to use expletives (sometimes even on the radio) when referring to Japanese fighters.

My Uncle Jimmie was using the term "fork tail devil" before the alleged time the Germans were said to have started using it.
Also, the Germans typically used the aircraft's name: "Lightning", "Spitfire" or in the case of the B-17: "Boeing".

Rarely would an enemy glorify an adversary with glowing nicknames.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Never heard that term.
> I do know they'd call out "Zeros", "Zekes" or (and my apologies for this term) "Japs". They were also known to use expletives (sometimes even on the radio) when referring to Japanese fighters.
> 
> My Uncle Jimmie was using the term "fork tail devil" before the alleged time the Germans were said to have started using it.
> ...


also saying is so long like who would have a nick name that long "fork tail devil"


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> also saying is so long like who would have a nick name that long "fork tail devil"


Americans were good for elaborate nicknames for things (their own, of course), like the seven ton milk bottle aka "Jug".
But these nicknames were used during bar-room banter, discussions and the like, never in official reports.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 2, 2021)

If Caidin can make up stuff so can I.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 2, 2021)

I wa going to call it Devine Death but it sounded too much like a cabaret act.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 2, 2021)

Allied pilots described Zeros, Bf-109's, and FW-190's as "Fokkers." Or at least that is what it sounded like over the radio, I am told.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 2, 2021)

How many pilots had the time to radio with the exact model of aircraft that was attacking them. From what I have read a little black dot was all most pilots saw until it suddenly got much too close.

Why Forked Tail anyway the P38 hasn't got a forked tail.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> Why Forked Tail anyway the P38 hasn't got a forked tail.


Well, it sort of looks forkish, if you hold it up a certain way...besides, Caidin couldn't sell "Scheißkerl" as a glamorous name and had to go with something a bit more dramatic

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 2, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I wa going to call it Devine Death bit it sounded too much like a cabaret act.



Didn't they used to open for The Aristocrats?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 2, 2021)

For Japanese names, real or imagined, I spend 6 months in Japan and a year in China. Chinese characters are like synonyms in a thesaurus, their actual meaning is defined by inflections on the character and what goes before and after. I spent many a happy free hour trying to explain the difference with my Chinese translator between the words... attack, assault, fight, conflict, strike, invade, and so on. One character in Chinese can have a huge number of potential meanings. Chinee is not the same language as Japanese but one of the three alphabets the Japanese use is basically the same as Chinese and I know from my time in Japan it can be the same issue. "Whistling death" could also be "annoying danger"

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 2, 2021)

Supposedly, the Whistling Death designation came from the airflow going though the intercooler. But I can't recall hearing an F4U make that noise. An F-105 sure as hell, does, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

I've heard the F4U make a whistling sound on a hot pass.
As it was lining up, the sound of the engine momentarily gave way to a whistling as it was coming in my direction. He then lined up with the runway and the intensity of the sound faded out over the sound if the radial.
So my guess is that the poor bastards on the receiving end of the Corsair's attack pass most likely heard the same thing (or anyone else in a similar circumstance).


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Americans were good for elaborate nicknames for things (their own, of course), like the seven ton milk bottle aka "Jug".
> But these nicknames were used during bar-room banter, discussions and the like, never in official reports.



Nor radio chatter, where brevity was at a premium to avoid radio clutter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> w
> was it false or true?



100% false.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2021)

P-51s whistled too

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 2, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Never heard that term.
> I do know they'd call out "Zeros", "Zekes" or (and my apologies for this term) "Japs".



Was it Japs or Haps?

Hap being the Allied codeword for later model Zeroes, at least for a while.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Was it Japs or Haps?
> 
> Hap being the Allied codeword for later model Zeroes, at least for a while.


I recall they changed Hap to Hamp because "Hap" Arnold didn't like the former 

As far as the "Jap" phrase goes, they used that term more often than the assigned name of the type they were engaging.


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 2, 2021)

They say my Ercoupe whistles, or did until I took the venturi off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 2, 2021)

Didn't the Beaufighter have a nick of "whispering death"?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2021)

Milosh said:


> Didn't the Beaufighter have a nick of "whispering death"?


I beleive it did - which is far better than "Whistling Shitcan" (Douglas A3D)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 3, 2021)

But both are better than 'All Three Die'. (I was told this by a former Naval aviator, but I do not know if he was serious.)


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2021)

Yep, "All 3 Dead" was another nick for the Skywarrior.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> P-51s whistled too



I just finished reading drgondog's book, _P51B Mustang, _which has an extensive discussion of the development of the P51's Meredith effect radiator/oil cooler duct system. I couldn't help noticing it's resemblence to the business end of a wind instrument such as a penny whistle, recorder, or songflute (remember those from elementary school?). In this video the "whistle" seems to peak as the plane displays its belly turning away from the camera at the highest speed portion of the pass. I think Dutch and Ed and the boys may have created the ultimate winged pennywhistle.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> But both are better than 'All Three Die'. (I was told this by a former Naval aviator, but I do not know if he was serious.)


He was. Watch _Carrier Landing Mishaps._

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I just finished reading drgondog's book, _P51B, _which has an extensive discussion of the development of the P51's Meredith effect radiator/oil cooler duct system. I couldn't help noticing it's resemblence to the business end of a wind instrument such as a penny whistle, recorder, or songflute (remember those from elementary school?). In this video the "whistle" seems to peak as the plane displays its belly turning away from the camera at the highest speed portion of the pass. I think Dutch and Ed and the boys may have created the ultimate winged pennywhistle.



Wasn't the sound from the supercharger and/or the holes for the machine guns?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't the sound from the supercharger and/or the holes for the machine guns?


Could be. Don't most civil Mustangs have sealed gun ports around dummy muzzles? And if supercharger, why does the whistle peak while turning away from the microphone? The supercharger is tucked in behind the engine, surrounded by plumbing, and in close proximity to propeller and exhaust noise. Seems dubious to me. I vote for the radiator.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2021)

I suspect it's the air flowing around/through the cooling inlets on various aircraft when they reach a certain speed.

One of the reasons why I am so fond of the "Whistling Shitcan" nickname, is because an old friend of mine dubbed my '68 Chevelle the "Whistling Shitcan" back in the 80's. It had a Hillborn fuel injected 502 cid big-block and cruising around 30-40 miles an hour, it would develop a whistle.
He was air-ops aboard the Carl Vincent for many years, so he had stories...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 3, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> The statement that the F4U "could out-run, out-climb and out-fight any propeller driven opponent" also rings a little boastfully.
> The Corsair was an outstanding fighter, but had its own limitations and weaknesses. To suggest that it could achieve all three of those claims, against ANY opposition is pure hyperbole


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u-1-acp.pdf

Corsair was certainly one of the great fighters of WW2, but it's climb rate was very mediocre. As this chart shows, climb rate at 20000ft was only about 1700fpm if not using water injection which was not available until 1944. Combat ceiling (1000fpm) was a very respectable 28000ft, so it could get to an acceptable altitude. And it was certainly fast.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jun 3, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Wasn't the sound from the supercharger and/or the holes for the machine guns?


Pretty sure any whistle comes from the machine gun ports. I've never heard one with a clean wing whistle.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2021)

Dash119 said:


> Pretty sure any whistle comes from the machine gun ports. I've never heard one with a clean wing whistle.


Early Spitfires and Hurricanes whistled when the guns had been used.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 3, 2021)

So which plane wasn't "Whistling Death"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dash119 (Jun 3, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> So which plane wasn't "Whistling Death"?


I have no self control, and I just can't resist...

P-39

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> He was. Watch _Carrier Landing Mishaps._



I didn't see much of the A3D in there, but boy, that sure was a good recommendation you made here. What an informative vid.

Didn't look like anyone got out of the one A3D crash shown.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 3, 2021)

The was a P-400 on Guadalcanal named Whistling Britches, after the sound it made when an impeller blew.

.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 3, 2021)

Someone I knew, who flew P-3s also called the A3D "all three dead" and said it was almost impossible to for any of the crew to exit in flight. Once I was an observer on the USS Hancock for a week in 1960 and got to see A3Ds land. One pilot landed in a confident manner but another was obviously afraid and took two wave offs before ignoring a third an hooking up. Blew the tire on stbd main L/G and bent stbd wing tip but got it down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 3, 2021)

Isn't ignoring a wave off a Very bad thing?


----------



## special ed (Jun 3, 2021)

Yes. Possibly career ending. Definitely ending carrier flying.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> The was a P-400 on Guadalcanal named Whistling Britches, after the sound it made when an impeller blew.
> 
> .
> View attachment 625969


Apparently not the one in the picture, which was on New Caledonia.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jun 3, 2021)

New Caledonia was where the 67th Ftr Sqdrn assembled their airplanes before going to the 'Canal.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I didn't see much of the A3D in there, but boy, that sure was a good recommendation you made here. What an informative vid.
> 
> Didn't look like anyone got out of the one A3D crash shown.


Which version did you see? Back in the day we had four different versions in our Aviation Training Aids film library, dating from different time periods, but each had at least one A3, and a couple had more. The one most commonly seen on YT dates from 1966-68, as it still shows Crusaders, has B model Phantoms, and IIRC, only one A7.
Prior to 1966 you'd see Skyraiders and perhaps F3s, Furies, Skyrays, and sundry other antiques, but no A6s or A7s.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 3, 2021)

MIflyer said:


> Supposedly, the Whistling Death designation came from the airflow going though the intercooler. But I can't recall hearing an F4U make that noise. An F-105 sure as hell, does, though.



Try watching this video:

Listen To How The WW2 Corsair Got Its Nickname


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

special ed said:


> Someone I knew, who flew P-3s also called the A3D "all three dead" and said it was almost impossible to for any of the crew to exit in flight. Once I was an observer on the USS Hancock for a week in 1960 and got to see A3Ds land.


The emergency egress for the A3 was the cockpit access ladder/chute in the belly just behind the nose gear. IIRC, if opened from outside, the chute would drop down and the steps would flop out, but if opened from within, the chute would drop and the steps would remain stowed.
The Vigilante RAG had two "whales" which they used as hacks, and whenever they carried somebody who was not an assigned crew member they had to do egress drills, which I got to watch a couple times. Not confidence inspiring. They'd lay a mat on the tarmac under the access port, then the "designated victim", in full regalia, helmet, parachute, and all, would have to drop the ladder, climb up the narrow access trunk, retract the ladder/chute, find their seat and strap in/plug in. Then the instructor (usually a PR) would trigger the bailout bell, and the trainee would unbuckle/unplug, proceed to the egress port, drop the chute, and hurl themself down the trunk/chute onto the mat.
Alternate (ditching) egress was an impossibly small hatch in the aft portion of the canopy. Bumps and scrapes were the order of the day.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2021)

special ed said:


> Yes. Possibly career ending. Definitely ending carrier flying.





special ed said:


> Someone I knew, who flew P-3s also called the A3D "all three dead" and said it was almost impossible to for any of the crew to exit in flight. Once I was an observer on the USS Hancock for a week in 1960 and got to see A3Ds land. One pilot landed in a confident manner but another was obviously afraid and took two wave offs before ignoring a third an hooking up. Blew the tire on stbd main L/G and bent stbd wing tip but got it down.


If a pilot is having problems that the "bat man" doesnt know about, is he justified in ignoring a "wave off" because he knows thats as good as it will get? (just a thought, he didnt lose the plane and crew)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

pbehn said:


> If a pilot is having problems that the "bat man" doesnt know about, is he justified in ignoring a "wave off" because he knows thats as good as it will get? (just a thought, he didnt lose the plane and crew)


That's for the Squadron CO, the CAG, or the Performance Board to decide.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's for the Squadron CO, the CAG, or the Performance Board to decide.


Thats what I thought, not automatic that ignoring a wave off ends your career, I presume all pilots value their life above the cost of the plane they fly.


----------



## special ed (Jun 3, 2021)

What I saw on his first approach, was very jerky, non smooth corrections and he arrived too high, took the wave off.. Second approach was same lack of smooth corrections, almost over correcting while coming in. He was too low this time. The third approach was the same, and was also too high but he dropped it in and caught a wire. The Hancock's deck was small for an A3D.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Which version did you see? Back in the day we had four different versions in our Aviation Training Aids film library, dating from different time periods, but each had at least one A3, and a couple had more. The one most commonly seen on YT dates from 1966-68, as it still shows Crusaders, has B model Phantoms, and IIRC, only one A7.



I just watched the one you linked. I don't know which version it was, but I sure appreciate you putting it up.

In my own firefighting training, they had us watch _Ejection Decision_, which your link brought to mind for me, especially with its emphasis on PTFO of a bad corner. I don't know why they had us non-pilots watch that, but I think there's a lot to learn about many issues in life that can benefit from studying these sorts of snapshot decisions.

Aviation-specific, I learned a lot more about the complexities of a carrier landing, so thanks for the brainfood.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I just watched the one you linked. I don't know which version it was, but I sure appreciate you putting it up.


That's odd, I didn't put up a link, just named it. I know YT will find it for you by name.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's odd, I didn't put up a link, just named it. I know YT will find it for you by name.



You're right, I merely highlighted the title and hit the first vid in the search. I'm multitasking right now and clearly slipped a cog.

ETA: here's the one I watched:


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> You're right, I merely highlighted the title and hit the first vid in the search. I'm multitasking right now and clearly slipped a cog.


Uh oh, nose guns now unsynchronized! MASTER ARM - OFF!


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Uh oh, nose guns now unsynchronized! MASTER ARM - OFF!



My director-control was fixated.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> My director-control was fixated.


Which model DC, 1, 2, or 3? The manual should be around here somewhere.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Which model DC, 1, 2, or 3? The manual should be around here somewhere.



I'm not sure the model, but this is the sort of thing that grabs my brain:



Jalapeño popper at ten o'clock, fresh avocado at four, and sights filled with Q'dillas.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'm not sure the model, but this is the sort of thing that grabs my brain:
> 
> 
> 
> Jalapeño popper at ten o'clock, fresh avocado at four, and sights filled with Q'dillas.



And complete with a Shiner! Used to be able to get that up here, but since Covid and the administration change, methinks us Yankees have been shut off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And complete with a Shiner! Used to be able to get that up here, but since Covid and the administration change, methinks us Yankees have been shut off.



Y'all brew some good stuff up there anyway. I haven't had a Genny Cream Ale in about ten years -- oddly enough, out in SoCal -- but I'd be happy with that too. ETA: Not that I'm very picky.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 3, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I haven't had a Genny Cream Ale in about ten years --


GCA is SO last century. Rolling Rock with a fancy label. Try a Long Trail Double Bag.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 3, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> GCA is SO last century. Rolling Rock with a fancy label. Try a Long Trail Double Bag.



Never even heard of that, and I'm always on the lookout for a new label so long as it isn't IPA, which I can't stand. Reading their website, it sounds right in my corner -- I like malty stuff. Never hav seen it here or SoCal, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Never even heard of that, and I'm always on the lookout for a new label so long as it isn't IPA, which I can't stand. Reading their website, it sounds right in my corner -- I like malty stuff. Never hav seen it here or SoCal, though.


Well then, how about a Samuel Adams Summer Ale for a long shot second place? Or are you folks down there all hostages of Annhauser Busch, Miller, Coors, and similar forms of panther piss? I find it amusing that the same folks who would brand my Gold Wing a "rice burner" and "un-American" choose to drink beer fermented primarily from rice instead of barley by companies that sport red white and blue labels, but are foreign owned.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 4, 2021)

I read a long time ago that Stella Artois is the Schlitz of Europe. I have no idea how true that is.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 4, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I read a long time ago that Stella Artois is the Schlitz of Europe. I have no idea how true that is.



If you mean industrial bland watery beer made from the cheapest materials then yes. 
Stella is the stuff you take to a party because it's on special offer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 4, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> If you mean industrial bland watery beer made from the cheapest materials then yes.
> Stella is the stuff you take to a party because it's on special offer.


It is what you expect to get when a tennis organisation decides to make beer.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well then, how about a Samuel Adams Summer Ale for a long shot second place? Or are you folks down there all hostages of Annhauser Busch, Miller, Coors, and similar forms of panther piss? I find it amusing that the same folks who would brand my Gold Wing a "rice burner" and "un-American" choose to drink beer fermented primarily from rice instead of barley by companies that sport red white and blue labels, but are foreign owned.



Oh, we've got a healthy microbrew community down here, both locally and the state as a whole. We really don't need imports, with companies like Real Ale Brewing Co, 903 Brewing, Twisted X, and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Oh, we've got a healthy microbrew community down here, both locally and the state as a whole. We really don't need imports, with companies like Real Ale Brewing Co, 903 Brewing, Twisted X, and so on.


Well then, I guess you can paint us "microbrew snobs". I often visit "exotic beer boutiques" for a little variety, and have never seen any of those you mention. In fact almost nothing from south of Mason-Dixon is to be found. Even Shiner, which used to be frequently available, but since 2017, gone, gone, gone.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well then, I guess you can paint us "microbrew snobs". I often visit "exotic beer boutiques" for a little variety, and have never seen any of those you mention. In fact almost nothing from south of Mason-Dixon is to be found. Even Shiner, which used to be frequently available, but since 2017, gone, gone, gone.



No, not snobs at all. It's just a matter that a microbrewery must needs build both a distro network and a customer base in order to make cross-country sales economically viable. The first can be expensive, and the second can be very difficult. Be it noted that I could find Shiner in California 15 years ago, but only in Los Angeles and then only at select stores.

Living here in Tejas, one beer I miss is Steinlager, a New Zealand lager that would make a fantastic summer beer here. But because there's little demand here, and greater expense involved shipping domestically after import, it simply isn't found like it is in SoCal, in every store.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 4, 2021)

What, no Pabst Blue Ribbon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

vikingBerserker said:


> What, no Pabst Blue Ribbon?



We don't drink goat-piss either!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 4, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Living here in Tejas, one beer I miss is Steinlager, a New Zealand lager that would make a fantastic summer beer here.


Ever wonder why there are such similarities flavorwise between pseudo-pilsener light lagers worldwide? Most folks I know can't tell the difference in a blind test between Dos Equis, Tsingtao, Corona, Kirin, Carlsberg, Heineken, Harp, and a host of others. Most can recognize genuine Urquel, however, due to the distinctive flavor of Czech Sasz hops.
In the early/mid 19th century the Lager revolution overwhelmed Europe, pushing traditional ales aside and dominating the market. Many of the more innovative German breweries that jumped on this new phenomenon were Jewish family businesses, whose sudden prosperity triggered the latent anti-semitism that lurked below the surface in much of Europe. This led to a bit of an exodus and a diaspora of German lager brewers setting up in business and creating global demand for this cool new product. 
This required a lot of innovation, as the climates and soils around the world weren't necessarily friendly to the traditional varieties of hops they brought with them, and their traditional barley varieties didn't prosper everywhere either. Yet persevere they did, and eventually achieved the near uniformity of flavor we see today.
Gee, I tink I twa uh gwowndhaug!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 4, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ever wonder why there are such similarities flavorwise between pseudo-pilsener light lagers worldwide? Most folks I know can't tell the difference in a blind test between Dos Equis, Tsingtao, Corona, Kirin, Carlsberg, Heineken, Harp, and a host of others. Most can recognize genuine Urquel, however, due to the distinctive flavor of Czech Sasz hops.
> In the early/mid 19th century the Lager revolution overwhelmed Europe, pushing traditional ales aside and dominating the market. Many of the more innovative German breweries that jumped on this new phenomenon were Jewish family businesses, whose sudden prosperity triggered the latent anti-semitism that lurked below the surface in much of Europe. This led to a bit of an exodus and a diaspora of German lager brewers setting up in business and creating global demand for this cool new product.
> This required a lot of innovation, as the climates and soils around the world weren't necessarily friendly to the traditional varieties of hops they brought with them, and their traditional barley varieties didn't prosper everywhere either. Yet persevere they did, and eventually achieved the near uniformity of flavor we see today.
> Gee, I tink I twa uh gwowndhaug!



Steinlager is on of those that has a unique taste. It's definitely due to the hops. I'm normally no fan of hoppy beers, but a Steinie has a touch of sweetness that balances well against the bitters, to my taste.

The fact that it's light and has moderate ABV at 5.0% meant I enjoyed it in the short summers we had in coastal SoCal.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 4, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Ever wonder why there are such similarities flavorwise between pseudo-pilsener light lagers worldwide? Most folks I know can't tell the difference in a blind test between Dos Equis, Tsingtao, Corona, Kirin, Carlsberg, Heineken, Harp, and a host of others. Most can recognize genuine Urquel, however, due to the distinctive flavor of Czech Sasz hops.
> In the early/mid 19th century the Lager revolution overwhelmed Europe, pushing traditional ales aside and dominating the market. Many of the more innovative German breweries that jumped on this new phenomenon were Jewish family businesses, whose sudden prosperity triggered the latent anti-semitism that lurked below the surface in much of Europe. This led to a bit of an exodus and a diaspora of German lager brewers setting up in business and creating global demand for this cool new product.
> This required a lot of innovation, as the climates and soils around the world weren't necessarily friendly to the traditional varieties of hops they brought with them, and their traditional barley varieties didn't prosper everywhere either. Yet persevere they did, and eventually achieved the near uniformity of flavor we see today.
> Gee, I tink I twa uh gwowndhaug!


Having worked in China and Japan Kirin and Tsingtao were set up in the colonial era, Tsingtao was a German trading post and Kirin, like other Japanese beers were set up by importing German beer ideas and changing them. Japan is incredibly humid, you feel thirsty all the time so what you like to drink and eat reflects that. I obviously ate Japanese food and drank Japanese beer in Japan, I have done the same in London and Paris working for Japanese companies some were very high end restaurants, it just isnt the same because the climate and ambiance isnt, my colleagues said the same.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 4, 2021)

Loved Steinlager, but it's no longer available in California.
I also enjoy Zagorka, which is based on an 1800's Czech recipe and brewed in Bulgaria but virtually impossible to get here.

Fortunately, I can get Pilsner Urquel locally.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Fortunately, I can get Pilsner Urquel locally.



Official beer of the ThunderDelfins "Always Czech your 6"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 4, 2021)

From what I understand, both Zagorka and Kamonitsa recipes came from Czech brewmasters in Plzen, which explains why they're so dang good.

Now if we could just get them to sell that delightful ambrosia here in the states in those glass 2 liter bottles I saw when I was there...

*sigh*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> From what I understand, both Zagorka and Kamonitsa recipes came from Czech brewmasters in Plzen, which explains why they're so dang good.


You just can't beat Sasz hops from the Pilsen area. Add just a touch of Hallertauer and the possibilities are endless. It seems nowhere else in the world can grow that particular flavor combination.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 5, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You just can't beat Sasz hops from the Pilsen area. Add just a touch of Hallertauer and the possibilities are endless. It seems nowhere else in the world can grow that particular flavor combination.


I whole-heartedly agree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 5, 2021)

You guys need to go to Belgium. Cz pils is good, but there are better ones.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jun 5, 2021)

Snautzer01 said:


> You guys need to go to Belgium. Cz pils is good, but there are better ones.


I'm not a great fan of the Belgian "capture wild yeast" brewing technique. Personal taste, but the flavors just didn't turn me on.
Irish stouts on the other hand....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 5, 2021)

take your pick.
Lijst van Belgische bieren - Wikipedia


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 5, 2021)

One thing I do know, reading all these posts about beers, is that the more of those things that get consumed, the bigger the myths that get trotted out!

Did you see what I did there?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Jun 5, 2021)

Made me pour out the coffee and get a beer.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 6, 2021)

Given my normal opinion about American beer, some of the best beers I've had have been American, in Utah of all places. 
Again, it's these microbreweries doing the good stuff, the mass produced stuff is just piss quite frankly, but then again so is the mass produced stuff in the UK. 
And I'm more of a dark ale man then a lager man.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 6, 2021)

My favorite brown ale right now:







(not my pic)

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 6, 2021)

Gosh this is fascinating, you all like different beers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 6, 2021)

We all like different aircraft, too. I guess we're weird like that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 6, 2021)

P-39 Expert likes Labatt's 50.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 7, 2021)

*Regarding the Me-262*,

From what it appears,

1. The aircraft was intended to be a fighter/interceptor, and Hitler asked if it could be developed as a bomber and the A-2a variant was fitted with hardpoints, structural reinforcements, and the removal of 2 x 30mm cannon in order to deal with the weight-excess & possibly CG issues. Hitler expected the aircraft to be developed as a plane that would have variants for fighter/interception and fighter-bombing developed side-by-side, but the fighter variant got priority first, which ticked him off.

2. The design originally had a tail-dragger, and was redesigned with a nose-gear: How long did that take? I think that might have delayed the entry into service than the whole bomber issue.

3. How effective were the TSA-2D, EGON, Zyklops, and Neuling (CEP), and is there any data on how they worked?

*Regarding the Spitfire's Top Speed*,



> Spitfires were only capable of 369 mph, and thus completely incapable of intercepting V1's


I'm not sure where that figure came from. I do remember seeing 367 mph coming up in an early test with a twin-pitch prop (7/12/39).


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

re "Spitfires were only capable of 369 mph, and thus completely incapable of intercepting V1's"

Perhaps he is thinking of the Spitfire Mk V. It was generally considered that the Vmax of the average Mk V - in operations - was around 360 mph for the Mk Vc to 370 mph for the Mk Vb.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> re "Spitfires were only capable of 369 mph, and thus completely incapable of intercepting V1's"
> 
> Perhaps he is thinking of the Spitfire Mk V. It was generally considered that the Vmax of the average Mk V - in operations - was around 360 mph for the Mk Vc to 370 mph for the Mk Vb.



In theory neither could Mosquito fighters or fighter bombers, but they did. Sometimes by diving onto them, and some were fitted with nitrous oxide.

When the V-1s started coming over the main model Spitfire in the RAF was the IX and the XIV was in service.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 7, 2021)

Milosh said:


> P-39 Expert likes Labatt's 50.


Miller Lite.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 7, 2021)

wuzak said:


> In theory neither could Mosquito fighters or fighter bombers, but they did. Sometimes by diving onto them, and some were fitted with nitrous oxide.
> 
> When the V-1s started coming over the main model Spitfire in the RAF was the IX and the XIV was in service.


Didn't the V-1 fly at low altitude?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2021)

P-39 Expert said:


> Didn't the V-1 fly at low altitude?



And?


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

My understanding is that the majority of the V-1s only travelled at around 340-350 mph at an altitude of 3000-4000 ft.

The regular late-war Mk Vb (Merlin 45) was capable of ~370 mph at ~13,000 ft using +16 lbs boost.
The late-war Mk Vb (Merlin 45M) could do ~350 mph at ~5000 ft using +18 lbs boost.
So even the Mk V could have caught most V-1 if they had any altitude to trade for speed (VNE was over 450 mph IAS/500 mph TAS) at under 10,000 ft).


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 7, 2021)

There can't have been many Spitfire MkVs left in Fighter Command by 13th June 1944. Why would anyone use a MkV when there were Griffon engines Spitfires available.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2021)

A number of MK Vs were left, perhaps not many. No 234 squadron was still using MK vs through the summer of 1944 for ground attack. But as fighter bombers they would not normally have been used against V-1s. They did try to find V-2 launch sites around the Hague but weren't successful.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 7, 2021)

Regarding beer, not much of a fan to tell the truth, a light pale ale will do when something like this isn't around:






Unless of course you all want to chip for an anti-depression gift:






Last I checked it went for $120,000 a bottle...

Just sayin' if you guys REALLY liked me you'd prove it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## JMBIII (Jun 7, 2021)

Why not just ask for the moon, Pete.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 7, 2021)

Pretty please...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 7, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> A number of MK Vs were left, perhaps not many. No 234 squadron was still using MK vs through the summer of 1944 for ground attack. But as fighter bombers they would not normally have been used against V-1s. They did try to find V-2 launch sites around the Hague but weren't successful.


Spit Vs were also used as arty spotters and air/sea rescue searches.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 7, 2021)

Peter Gunn said:


> View attachment 626553
> 
> 
> Pretty please...


I am very relieved you chose a picture of this kind of moon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 7, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I am very relieved you chose a picture of this kind of moon.


I figured you've been traumatized enough from recent threads lately which is keeping you awake at night, so my conscience wouldn't allow me to do that to you my friend.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 7, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I am very relieved you chose a picture of this kind of moon.



That's no moon . . . it's a space station.

No, wait, it's a moon.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 7, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> So even the Mk V could have caught most V-1 if they had any altitude to trade for speed (VNE was over 500 mph IAS at under 10,000 ft).


I though the Spitfire was limited to around 450? Was that the VNE or the placard limit?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 7, 2021)

wuzak said:


> In theory neither could Mosquito fighters or fighter bombers, but they did. Sometimes by diving onto them, and some were fitted with nitrous oxide.
> 
> When the V-1s started coming over the main model Spitfire in the RAF was the IX and the XIV was in service.


They also used Spitfire XII (single stage Griffon 100 built)

Supermarine Spitfire Mk XII

quote "Only 100 were built, equipping two squadrons – No.41 received its Mk XIIs in February 1943, and No.91 in April 1943. The low level performance of the Mk XII was very useful when dealing with low level hit and run raids mounted by the Fw 190, and later helped against the V-1."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 7, 2021)

Hey Zipper730,

Oops. Thank you for pointing out my error.  I should have said 500 mph TAS rather than IAS. The Pilot's Notes says 450 mph IAS which comes out to ~523 mph TAS at 10,000 ft. I have corrected my earlier post.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 7, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Hey Zipper730,
> 
> Oops. Thank you for pointing out my error.  I should have said 500 mph TAS rather than IAS. The Pilot's Notes says 450 mph IAS which comes out to ~523 mph TAS at 10,000 ft. I have corrected my earlier post.



Which is still quite a bit faster than the V-1.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 8, 2021)

T
 ThomasP


Turns out, the VMo is 450 mph IAS, the VNe is 470 mph IAS.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jun 8, 2021)

Hey Zipper730,

Thanks for the info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## neilfergylee (Jun 8, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Where di they escort them to?


Calais?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 9, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> Thanks for the info.


I thought you'd like that


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 9, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Fortunately, I can get Pilsner Urquel locally.


I'm not a beer afficianado, but my mother's a huge fan of Pilsner Urquell (I gotta say the cans do have a cool texture to boot). How do Steinlager & Zagorka compare to Pilsner Urquell


----------



## MikeMeech (Jun 9, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> A number of MK Vs were left, perhaps not many. No 234 squadron was still using MK vs through the summer of 1944 for ground attack. But as fighter bombers they would not normally have been used against V-1s. They did try to find V-2 launch sites around the Hague but weren't successful.


Hi
Fighter and Fighter-Bomber Squadrons available on 1st July, 1944, with their equipment and bases, from 'Fighter Command War Diaries Part 5, July 1944 to May 1945' by John Foreman, are as follows:

















Mike

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 13, 2021)

Another myth debunked: the FAA operated F4U’s off of carriers before the USN... and a few other F4U myths as well. Thanks, Mr. Leonard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2021)

I don’t know if it’s a myth. The first book I ever read on the Battle of Midway stated that U.S.S. Yorktown was nicknamed “Waltzing Matilda”. It also has the line “Kaga (which means increased joy) was burning furiously.” So I kind of doubt some of the references. It had Fuchida’s full flight decks. 
This was almost 60 years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 21, 2021)

ThomasP said:


> re "Spitfires were only capable of 369 mph, and thus completely incapable of intercepting V1's"
> 
> Perhaps he is thinking of the Spitfire Mk V. It was generally considered that the Vmax of the average Mk V - in operations - was around 360 mph for the Mk Vc to 370 mph for the Mk Vb.


I think the original post regarding the 369mph figure was in relation to some social media 'pages' using that figure to debunk the idea that a Spitfire could ever hope to intercept a V-1. If you simply type into Google, "Spitfire top speed", the 594km/h or 369mph figure is prominently displayed, and that is the total amount of research the individuals running the 'page' use. They also trot out an infographic occasionally, much to the apparent delight of the mostly American's in the comment section, comparing the "TOP SPEEDS OF WORLD WAR II FAMOUS FIGHTER PLANES". The problem with the graphic, which ill try to attach below, is that all the numbers they use, seem to have all been derived by the same brief Google search. The comparison is total nonsense, unless you are curious as to how much faster a 1945 era F4U-4 is than a 1941 era Spitfire Mk.V. 









Infographic Shows Top Speeds Of WWII Planes


This Is Pretty Neat. So it's that time again. We've listened to you suggestions when we made one of our earlier infographics and came out with this one. After comparing the sizes of World War II bombers, some of you folks suggested we should make a chart about the top speeds of World War II figh




worldwarwings.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> They also trot out an infographic occasionally, much to the apparent delight of the mostly American's in the comment section, comparing the "TOP SPEEDS OF WORLD WAR II FAMOUS FIGHTER PLANES".



However, accompanying the infographic, is this caveat:
_"For the sake of clarity, we chose only the most known warbirds from all sides of the war. Also, as these planes had many variants, _*we picked the versions that were produced in the greatest numbers."*

unfortunately, the demographic uses the generic designation for each type, so it can be a bit misleading to the layman.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jun 21, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> However, accompanying the infographic, is this caveat:
> _"For the sake of clarity, we chose only the most known warbirds from all sides of the war. Also, as these planes had many variants, _*we picked the versions that were produced in the greatest numbers."*
> 
> unfortunately, the demographic uses the generic designation for each type, so it can be a bit misleading to the layman.


While that may serve as an explanation for the Spitfire Mk.V, it doesn't for the others. Was the F4U-4 (or whatever late-war variant they used to get 446mph) the most produced version? 
Either way, it seems to be deliberately misleading.


----------



## glennasher (Jun 21, 2021)

Clayton Magnet said:


> I think the original post regarding the 369mph figure was in relation to some social media 'pages' using that figure to debunk the idea that a Spitfire could ever hope to intercept a V-1. If you simply type into Google, "Spitfire top speed", the 594km/h or 369mph figure is prominently displayed, and that is the total amount of research the individuals running the 'page' use. They also trot out an infographic occasionally, much to the apparent delight of the mostly American's in the comment section, comparing the "TOP SPEEDS OF WORLD WAR II FAMOUS FIGHTER PLANES". The problem with the graphic, which ill try to attach below, is that all the numbers they use, seem to have all been derived by the same brief Google search. The comparison is total nonsense, unless you are curious as to how much faster a 1945 era F4U-4 is than a 1941 era Spitfire Mk.V.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn;t faze me a bit, I read (when I was a little kid, even) of Spitfires doing the "tip and run" on V-1s, probably the IX, but they DID get it done. And, I'm an American kid who was reading a lot more stuff from the RAF than anything from the USAAF, probably because the Brits were much better and more prolific writers.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 21, 2021)

"We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for them to go on with the war." Sir Arthur Harris's doctrine the War could be won by area bombing. 

If more of Bomber Command's resources had been redirected to tactical aircraft the War may have been shortened


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 21, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> "We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for them to go on with the war." Sir Arthur Harris's doctrine the War could be won by area bombing.
> 
> If more of Bomber Command's resources had been redirected to tactical aircraft the War may have been shortened



By tactical aircraft, do you mean types that couldn't reach Germany so that the Nazi industrial production could continue without the disruption caused by round-the-clock bombing? 
Or do you mean types that could face all the additional weapons produced by Nazi industry because the workers got lots of good sleep at night and factories could operate 24/7? 

Just wondering....😃

For the record, I don't think the bombing campaign won the war....but it definitely contributed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 21, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> "We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for them to go on with the war." Sir Arthur Harris's doctrine the War could be won by area bombing.
> 
> If more of Bomber Command's resources had been redirected to tactical aircraft the War may have been shortened



If Bomber Command had continued its Ruhr campaign in 1943, it might have shortened the war. (See Adam Tooze's _The Wages of Destruction_ which includes an examination of the effect on Germany war production.)

Also, the idea that all Bomber Command did was area bombing isn't accurate. Harris certainly preferred it over what he termed 'panacea' targets, but nevertheless plenty of more 'precision' targets were struck. (The peak year in terms of incendiary bombs dropped on urban areas by Bomber Command, in both actual tonnage and percentage of total tonnage dropped, was 1943.)


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 21, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I don’t know if it’s a myth. The first book I ever read on the Battle of Midway stated that U.S.S. Yorktown was nicknamed “Waltzing Matilda”. It also has the line “Kaga (which means increased joy) was burning furiously.” So I kind of doubt some of the references. It had Fuchida’s full flight decks.
> This was almost 60 years ago.



Full flight decks were almost certainly a myth, but I think that was -- pardon the pun -- exploded long ago. Wasn't it Lt Best who reported that _Akagi_ only had a few Zeros warming up, and one starting take-off run, when he was diving on it? 

From what I understand, Tully and Parshall put paid to that with _Shattered Sword_, though I seem to remember Best's "three Zeroes" report elsewhere, perhaps ADWS?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

I suspect that the translation from the IJN's action reports may be the root of that legend.
The carriers' hangar decks were packed with aircraft frantically being rearmed.

Photos taken by some of the SBDs during the action showed some decks with a few CAP A6Ms in various states (being recovered or lining up to take off, etc.).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 21, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Full flight decks were almost certainly a myth, but I think that was -- pardon the pun -- exploded long ago. Wasn't it Lt Best who reported that _Akagi_ only had a few Zeros warming up, and one starting take-off run, when he was diving on it?
> 
> From what I understand, Tully and Parshall put paid to that with _Shattered Sword_, though I seem to remember Best's "three Zeroes" report elsewhere, perhaps ADWS?


I know the myth of the full flight decks but I was wondering if CV 5 was ever nicknamed "Waltzing Matilda". The source of that was from a book with at least a few errors. I know that Kaga does not mean "increased joy". 
It also had a silhouette of a different plane that took part in the battle at the start of each chapter. No Buffalo!


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 21, 2021)

The Yorktown was nicknamed the "Waltzing Matilda of the Pacific Fleet", because she was all over the Pacific in 1942, but she was affectionately called the "Fighting Lady".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2021)

Thanks, GrauGeist. I thought that nickname was made up. I think author said CV 5 got it for all the time spent in Australia. Great book. I guess it was one of Mr. Caidin's sources.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Thanks, GrauGeist. I thought that nickname was made up. I think author said CV 5 got it for all the time spent in Australia. Great book. I guess it was one of Mr. Caidin's sources.


You're welcome.
The nickname is genuine, though, like I said.
In 1942, the "Fighting Lady" was all over the Pacific, delivering air groups, getting into scraps, refitting and more - this meant bouncing all over the Pacific right up to her fate off Midway Atoll.
And that is why the guys coined the term "Waltzing Matilda of the Pacific".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 22, 2021)

That has the ring of truth, unlike being in Oz so often. 
I realized that book wasn't quite up to snuff after reading Incredible Victory and Miracle at Midway decades ago. I'd love to find and reread it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> If Bomber Command had continued its Ruhr campaign in 1943, it might have shortened the war. (See Adam Tooze's _The Wages of Destruction_ which includes an examination of the effect on Germany war production.)
> 
> Also, the idea that all Bomber Command did was area bombing isn't accurate. Harris certainly preferred it over what he termed 'panacea' targets, but nevertheless plenty of more 'precision' targets were struck. (The peak year in terms of incendiary bombs dropped on urban areas by Bomber Command, in both actual tonnage and percentage of total tonnage dropped, was 1943.)



Quoting Patrick Blackett, the father of what we know call operational research, Taken from Blackett's War by Stephen Budiansky


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> Quoting Patrick Blackett, the father of what we know call operational research, Taken from Blackett's War by Stephen Budiansky
> 
> 
> View attachment 629938



And Col John A. Warden's "Five Rings" would suggest that Mr. Blackett's analysis is incorrect. Air power is uniquely qualified to attack the heart of a nation's ability to wage war, including the population and infrastructure. That's precisely what Bomber Command and the 8th AF were trying to do. Using strategic bombers to attack fielded military forces doesn't make much sense if you're leaving the national infrastructure intact so that the fielded forces continue to be reinforced without hindrance. That's just a giant game of whack-a-mole.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> Quoting Patrick Blackett, the father of what we know call operational research, Taken from Blackett's War by Stephen Budiansky
> 
> 
> View attachment 629938


Well he cant have studied many wars then. What was Napoleons Continental system, and the counter British blockade? What does "modern" have to do with the philosophy and what was the German blockade in WW1? It is all just confirmation bias, finding and concluding what it concluded before looking. How many more aircraft could be used in support of the landing in France above what were used, how could that landing in France be made a year earlier?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2021)

I'm wondering that their interpretation of "modern" is?
The Germans regularly bombed Paris and London via airship during WWI.

Last time I checked, both those cities are population centers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 26, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The Germans regularly bombed Paris and London via airship during WWI.


Not forgetting the airplane bombers like the Gothas and the Paris gun

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2021)

Or even the lobbing of plague-infested bodies into cities to break siege defences. These early biological weapons were definitely not targeted on the defending forces but on the population at large.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm wondering that their interpretation of "modern" is?
> The Germans regularly bombed Paris and London via airship during WWI.
> 
> Last time I checked, both those cities are population centers.


The Harrying of the north By William the Conqueror in 1069-70 wiped out 75% of the population of Northern England and that was basically the intent of Hitler in the east,

Bombing of UK started in 1915 and also included use of Gotha bombers, an embarrassment to the George Saxe Coburg Gotha, King of England! He became a Windsor shortly after.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

pinehilljoe said:


> Quoting Patrick Blackett, the father of what we know call operational research, Taken from Blackett's War by Stephen Budiansky



The Germans' own records show the effect the 1943 Ruhr campaign had on its war production. It stagnated for some nine months after the cessation of the campaign, and didn't increase again February 1944. (It peaked in July of that year and rapidly decreased thereafter.)

The figures for the tonnage dropped on each target system is reported in detail in the British Bombing Survey.

The difference in typical bomb load carried in 1944-45 as compared to 1943 is readily visible in the ORBs of the Bomber Command squadrons which recorded this data.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2021)

Slave raids -- obviously directed against civilian population centers -- were a major part of the military strategy of many groups. That civilians weren't the target is probably more an artifact of 18th Century warfare between European monarchies than any place or time before then.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> And Col John A. Warden's "Five Rings" would suggest that Mr. Blackett's analysis is incorrect. Air power is uniquely qualified to attack the heart of a nation's ability to wage war, including the population and infrastructure. That's precisely what Bomber Command and the 8th AF were trying to do. Using strategic bombers to attack fielded military forces doesn't make much sense if you're leaving the national infrastructure intact so that the fielded forces continue to be reinforced without hindrance. That's just a giant game of whack-a-mole.



We may have two correct answers to this question. 

It depends on the year/s being discussed. 

Yes, _Air power is uniquely qualified to attack the heart of a nation's ability to wage war,_

Unfortunately bomber command was totally incapable of executing such attacks for the first two to three years of the war. First two anyway with such ability coming on line in the 3rd year. 
The argument on the other side is that while BC was fruitlessly trying to bomb the German infrastructure in those first two to three years they were also denying the other RAF commands the needed resources to even play wack-a-mole. Which is sometimes called combine operations. 

Costal command was starved of suitable (or even partially suitable) aircraft for Anti-sub and maritime strike during those years. 
BC argued against providing Fighter Command with additional fighters for the defense of Britain because that would hinder Bomber Commands campaign to destroy German bomber factories and fuel reserves and thus end the air attacks on Britain.
Bomber Command only released the barest minimum of aircraft for army support and even then didn't allow them to train for the army support role leading to large losses of army personnel and the losses of many brave RAF crews trying to perform the support function with improper aircraft, improperly equipped and having been improperly trained. 

Whatever Command accomplished to shorten the war from May of 1942 on has to be balanced against what Bomber Command cost the British armed forces as a whole from Sept 1939 to the summer of 1942 and in some cases beyond. 

Lets remember that a large number of Bomber Commands "strategic" bombers in 1939/40 were Fairey Battles and Bristol Blenheim's. The ability to deliver devastating blows to the German infrastructure didn't exist. These bombers could not be used in daylight against strategic targets without horrendous losses and they couldn't find the right city at night let alone the right factory. That didn't stop BC from fighting tooth an nail to retain control over as many of these aircraft and squadrons as they could rather than give somebody the idea that, just perhaps, aircraft could take part in a tactical battle and affect the results. 

What is especially damning is that BC knew they couldn't navigate at night from training exercises done over England before the war started. They knew they had no way to aim the bombs at night. They knew the Fairey Battle was not well suited to flying at night (vision problems form the cockpit for the pilot and the "navigator" had even less vision. They figured out by Dec of 1939 that even the Wellington with power turrets could not penetrate German airspace by daylight. 
But instead of playing whack-a-mole in 1940-41 where they might have actual done some good or accomplished something, small as it might have been, They proceeded to loose hundreds of aircraft and aircrew without affecting the German war machine one bit or affecting the outcome of one land/sea battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 26, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> We may have two correct answers to this question.
> 
> It depends on the year/s being discussed.
> 
> ...



I'm not entirely sure what moles BC was in a position to whack from 1939-1942. If BC aircraft couldn't survive in daylight, then they aren't much use operating against defended airspace, which potentially would include North Africa and other nearby theatres....and if they can't hit a city at night, what chance of them hitting anything at the tactical end of the fight? 

I suspect the operational results from switching to support tactical operations in the first 2-3 years of the war wouldn't have done much, if anything, to shorten the war. Losses would likely have been just as bad and it's not entirely clear what operational benefits would have accrued.. 

The argument about diverting aircraft to CC has some validity but, again, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Would such a move have further delayed development of bombing aids to improve BC's performance from the summer of 1942 onwards? 

Even if BC couldn't hit a city, the simple fact of air raid sirens, bombs dropping and AAA being fired into the air would disrupt the population. I'm not saying the ends justified the means but there was still an operational impact even as BC was working out the technical means to improve its performance.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> Even if BC couldn't hit a city, the simple fact of air raid sirens, bombs dropping and AAA being fired into the air would disrupt the population. I'm not saying the means justified the ends but there was still an operational impact even as BC was working out the technical means to improve its performance.


It was impossible to know pre war what the value of messing with Adolfs head was. Hitler's annoyance at a raid on Berlin, itself caused by stray bombs on Croydon played a part in shifting LW attcks from airfields to London inn the Battle of Britain. Bombs falling on Berlin forcing Molotov to take to an air raid shelter completely undermined Hitler and Ribbentrop's rants about "the British being finished".

Most important Hitler was provoked into ordering the Baby Blitz, which threw away the last of his bomber force doing nothing, those bombers could have made a difference to the landings in Normandy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 26, 2021)

The einsatzgruppen work in Russia and the Ukraine sort of make all that "bombing of civilians" stuff moot, don'tcha think? The Germans certainly didn't spare any civilians during Barbarossa, so I don't think they have any room to squeal about it. Maybe the Allied efforts should have tried to spare civilians more, but hey, Germany started the whole war mess, and should have forseen that "what goes around, comes around".

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2021)

glennasher said:


> The einsatzgruppen work in Russia and the Ukraine sort of make all that "bombing of civilians" stuff moot, don'tcha think? The Germans certainly didn't spare any civilians during Barbarossa, so I don't think they have any room to squeal about it. Maybe the Allied efforts should have tried to spare civilians more, but hey, Germany started the whole war mess, and should have forseen that "what goes around, comes around".


Agreed!

To put things into perspective: more civilians died in Poland than in _all_ the Axis homelands, combined.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Hitler's annoyance at a raid on Berlin, itself caused by stray bombs on Croydon played a part in shifting LW attcks from airfields to London inn the Battle of Britain.



This is largely a myth. The shift from airfields to London was prompted by intelligence estimates that had the RAF down to its last hundred or so fighters. It was argued that the best way to force that small remaining remnant into the air where it could be destroyed was by attacking London. (Others argued for continuing the raids on airfields but were ultimately overruled.)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> This is largely a myth. The shift from airfields to London was prompted by intelligence estimates that had the RAF down to its last hundred or so fighters. It was argued that the best way to force that small remaining remnant into the air where it could be destroyed was by attacking London. (Others argued for continuing the raids on airfields but were ultimately overruled.)


Attacking London was a tactic that Adolf held to his domain. He had to give permission for London to be bombed specifically as a target. I posted "played a part" I didnt say it was 100% of the cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

Strategic bombing had some value. The simple fact that it tied up a few thousand 88s that would otherwise perhaps be on the frontlines was in itself useful. It also forced the dispersion of production, which in itself hampers production, and of course there's the civilian toll -- dead, wounded, sleepless and making mistakes on the production floors -- to account for.

That strategic bombing did not achieve its objectives is not arguable; it didn't. But I think the Oil Program and to a good extent the bombing of rail-junctions and disruption of strategic transport helped against both internal mobility as well as production.

The bomber barons were wrong in that era. They didn't have the power to destroy the life of a nation until nukes came about. But anywhere from 16-30,000 tons of bombs dropped on one target could neutralize it in a day or three, as shown in Hamburg and other examples.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> *The bomber barons were wrong in that era. They didn't have the power to destroy the life of a nation until nukes came about. *


We have only one example for that, Hitler had to be surrounded in his bunker before he killed himself, he didnt fight to the end as he demanded his subordinates should do. If Japan had a leader as nutty as the daft corporal was, then the USA could have been dropping nukes on all the Japanese cities and islands for years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

pbehn said:


> We have only one example for that, Hitler had to be surrounded in his bunker before he killed himself, he didnt fight to the end as he demanded his subordinates should do. If Japan had a leader as nutty as the daft corporal was, then the USA could have been dropping nukes on all the Japanese cities and islands for years.



Well, the Germans shrugged off Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, the RAF Ruhr program, and so on. -109 production rose in 1944 despite our specific targeting of that.

So I think we have more than one example of how the bomber barons underestimated the resilience of their enemies.

Heavy bombers helped win the war, but they did not win the war. And until nukes came about, they literally could not pound the life out of a nation. The only thing they could do is make a sane leader think twice, but neither the Japanese nor the Germans did until the former caught a shit-ton of rads in Aug 45. The latter had already surrendered to main force upon the ground, having been carved up.

Bombers helped, but didn't carry, the war effort.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Strategic bombing had some value. The simple fact that it tied up a few thousand 88s that would otherwise perhaps be on the frontlines was in itself useful. It also forced the dispersion of production, which in itself hampers production, and of course there's the civilian toll -- dead, wounded, sleepless and making mistakes on the production floors -- to account for.



Quoting from _The Crucible of War 1939-45_ (p.867):


> Of much greater significance . . . was the extent to which the bomber offensive against Germany constituted a 'Second Front' long before the Allied invasion of Northwest Europe, and even only when Bomber Command was heavily involved in it. In terms of manpower alone, the Germans used between 500,000 to 800,000 workers to repair bomb damage and organize the dispersal of vital industries, labourers who could otherwise have been involved in the direct production of war materiel, while the Flak arm required some 900,000 men in 1943 and was still 656,000 strong in April 1945 --- many of who might otherwise have played a significant part in the ground war.
> 
> The enemy was also forced to allocate considerable equipment to air defence. In March 1942, as the Germany army was fighting crucial battles in Russia and Bomber Command had not yet launched its first 'thousand' or its initial battle of the Ruhr, there were already 3970 heavy Flak guns deployed around German cities.which could have been made into mobile artillery or bolstered anti-tank defences in the east. By September 1944 that number had grown to 10,225. Indeed, according to Albert Speer, of the 19,713 88-millimetre and 128-millimetre dual-purpose Flak/anti-tank artillery pieces produced between 1942 and 1944, only 3172 could be allocated to the army for use in the anti-armour role because of the pressure of air attack. Similarly, the threat posed by Bomber Command's night raids meant that the German night-fighter force accounted for a consistently increasing percentage of Luftwaffe front-line strength --- more than 20 per cent of the total by December 1944. Several hundred of those on strength in late 1943 and 1944 were machines which could have been used to great advantage in other roles on other fronts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Quoting from _The Crucible of War 1939-45_ (p.867):
> 
> 
> > Of much greater significance . . . was the extent to which the bomber offensive against Germany constituted a 'Second Front' long before the Allied invasion of Northwest Europe, and even only when Bomber Command was heavily involved in it. In terms of manpower alone, the Germans used between 500,000 to 800,000 workers to repair bomb damage and organize the dispersal of vital industries, labourers who could otherwise have been involved in the direct production of war materiel, while the Flak arm required some 900,000 men in 1943 and was still 656,000 strong in April 1945 --- many of who might otherwise have played a significant part in the ground war.
> ...


It is dark comedy that talks of a second front, that is harking back to the days of Napoleon when battles were on land fronts, and even Napoleon had a massive battle at sea. Adolf had fronts in the east and the west and in Africa, in the air and in the Atlantic and many others like Greece and Crete, all of these battles drained his strength.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> I'm not entirely sure what moles BC was in a position to whack from 1939-1942. If BC aircraft couldn't survive in daylight, then they aren't much use operating against defended airspace, which potentially would include North Africa and other nearby theatres....and if they can't hit a city at night, what chance of them hitting anything at the tactical end of the fight?
> 
> I suspect the operational results from switching to support tactical operations in the first 2-3 years of the war wouldn't have done much, if anything, to shorten the war. Losses would likely have been just as bad and it's not entirely clear what operational benefits would have accrued..


Just got done reading this.






Which is some rather dismal reading. I may not agree with some peoples assessment of changes to the Battle (I doubt very much it could have been turned into the IL-2 of the west) but the Battle could not perform the strategic mission before the Germans attacked from British bases. Or rather it could but would have violated Dutch or Belgian air space to do so. 
SO the only way to use as a strategic bomber was to base it in France. BTW the range thing should have been known before the attack on Poland. Once the Wellingtons got shot up attacking the German anchorages the idea of flying either Battles or Blenheims over land in daylight on deep penetration raids should have been trashed quickly. 

Now somehow the BC idea that escort fighters weren't needed (or were technically impossible) for long distance raids was transferred to short range tactical raids. 
The idea that planes with a single fixed Browning out the front and flexible (or turret mounted) Vickers K gun out the back could take care of themselves with mass firepower from "formations" (of 12 planes at the most) when the Wellingtons couldn't take care of themselves with twin Brownings front and back in power mounts defies belief. 
There was quite a bit of arguing about using them for 'support' of the BEF which had only Lysanders as close support aircraft. 

Unfortunately in use the Battles were NOT used to bomb the leading elements of a column or the first enemy they saw ,thus limiting their exposure to both ground fire and fighters but were sent almost to the German border to try to interrupt "supply". The list of mistakes is rather long. 

At the time the RAFs idea of "escort" was that a squadron of Hurricanes would be assigned to "sweep" the sky in the area the bombers were headed to at around the same time. The Bombers never saw the "escorting" fighters. 

Now the damning part is that this was NOT the way the RAF had conducted trench strafing or interdiction missions in 1917-18. Escorts were provided, attacks were done either at the front or shortly behind. (granted the WW I planes had shorter range). The Sopwith Salamander trench strafer was built (but not in time) with a 605lb armored box as part of the forward fuselage in the hope of reducing losses. The Battles for some reason were at the bottom of the list to even get self sealing fuel tank material. With initial high losses some in the RAF high command used this as justification to say that tactical bombing did not work and was a waste of resources.

Hmm, wonder why they said that???? to justify their plan of strategic bombing in which the RAF would win the war without the aid of either the Navy or the Army? 

The RAF had a small selection of suitable bombs for ground attack (sound familiar?) and the Battle needed to be modified to carry the 40lb bombs. When bombing from low level the 250lb bombs had to be fitted with 11 second delay fuses to allow the bombers to get safely out of the blast area. 

The RAF was not going to save France (except in the most extraordinary circumstances) but more effective attacks might have slowed the Germans down a few days. 
Better tactics and doctrine about how to do ground attack/close support might have been worked out much sooner making a difference in North Africa.



buffnut453 said:


> The argument about diverting aircraft to CC has some validity but, again, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Would such a move have further delayed development of bombing aids to improve BC's performance from the summer of 1942 onwards?



It is not all or nothing. With over 1/2 of coastal command flying Ansons they didn't need to take a large number of bombers and squadrons away from BC. 6-8 squadrons of Blenheim's might have made a significant difference to CC while hardly affecting BC operations except in the number of bombers they could tell the newspapers they were sending to Germany. 

BC was vehemently opposed to any use of aircraft _except _the long range strategic bombing role. It seems they would rather have lost the war than share any credit with the other services or RAF commands. 

BC should have been working on bombing aids (both navigation and bomb aiming) back in the late 30s. A number of their exercises were not really successful. 
There was no real need for Whitley's or Wellingtons in CC in 1939 or much of 1940. The Germans didn't have that many U-boats and many of the ones they had were the small type IIs. Let BC keep big twins and figure out what they were doing wrong (practically everything) in their night bombing missions. 

Close air support requires different thinking. It at least requires planes on short standby on air fields waiting for recon reports or calls for support. In France many of the planes were on two hour standby ( few on 30 minute) and recon reports sometimes took several hours to get passed to the bomber squadrons. By the time the planes reached the target area 4-6 hours could have elapsed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> It seems nowhere else in the world can grow that particular flavor combination.



You need to get yourself down here to try our hops. The Moutere valley in the South Island is our country's biggest hops growing region and it all started with German settlers in the 1800s who brought hops, tobacco and grapes to the area. There's even a Lutheran church, which went against the strictly Anglican sensibilities of the nearest cathedral city of Nelson.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 26, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Now the damning part is that this was NOT the way the RAF had conducted trench strafing or interdiction missions in 1917-18.



Funny you should say that, air forces around the world forgot the lessons learned in the Great War, just like after WW2, many lessons were forgotten by the Korean and Vietnam wars... we never learn.

As for doctrinal and tactical mistakes, between-the-wars concepts at work in a modern combat environment makes for lots of egg-on-the-face errors...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Quoting from _The Crucible of War 1939-45_ (p.867):



Absolutely. For some reason folks seem to think I'm denigrating the efforts of the bomber crews; I'm not. After all, my grandfather lost his life in that effort.

What I'm saying is that strategic bombing did not win the war, and lacked the means to do so in that era.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Well, the Germans shrugged off Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, the RAF Ruhr program, and so on. -109 production rose in 1944 despite our specific targeting of that.



No, it didn't "shrug off" Hamburg. Again quoting from _The Crucible of War 1939-1945_:


> Such were the scale of suffering and the length of the casualty lists on this single night that it was known immediately as _Die Katastrophie_, and the psychological impact on all of Germany was enormous. Feldmarschall Wilhelm Keitel, Chef der Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, told his wife to 'leave Berlin as soon as possible' since Hamburg-like raids could be expected there once 'the nights are long enough. I am afraid of vast conflagrations consuming whole districts, streams of burning oil flowing into basements and shelters, phosphorous, and the like.'
> 
> The industrial damage, too, seemed spectacular. Production at several chemical works, engineering firms, and shipyards was halted altogether; 'the entire tram and Underground system was brought to a standstill'; all the large gas works were put out of action; electrical supplies were interrupted; and some 250,000 of the city's 450,000 flats and apartments had been 'completely destroyed.' Indeed, Albert Speer informed the Fuhrer that raids of similar intensity on six other cities 'would bring Germany's armaments production to a total halt.' Josef Kammhuber was profoundly disturbed by the thought that his crews would have to stand by 'helplessly' and 'watch the great cities of their country go up in flames one after the other' if the results of this raid could be replicated elsewhere.



Quoting from _Reap the Whirlwind_:


> In a few nights and days of intensive aerial operations, Europe's largest port and Germany's second largest city had suffered a catastrophe. Five hundred public buildings destroyed. More than two thousand commercial enterprises wrecked. Half the residences in the city eliminated; most of the rest damaged. Some 45,000 people dead. Nearly a million made homeless. Four big shipbuilding yards heavily damaged. Dock installations a shambles. Approximately 180,000 tons of shipping sunk in the harbour. General of the Air Force Erhard Milch, state secretary at the German Air Ministry, wailed: "If we get just five or six more attacks like these on Hamburg, the German people will just lay down their tools, however great their willpower . . . What the home front is suffering now cannot be suffered much longer." Albert Speer, Hitler's armaments minister, wrote that the Hamburg disaster put the "fear of God" in him; like Milch, he believed that the same treatment meted to half a dozen more cities would put an end to the war. Goebbels termed the firestorm a catastrophe that "staggers the imagination"; the city had been "destroyed in a manner unparalleled in history." He saw the problems of food shelter, and evacuation as "almost impossible" to solve. Worried about an immediate collapse of civilian morale, the Nazis sent truckloads of SS troops to patrol the streets of the shattered city and to put a speed stop to defeatist talk.



The July 1943 raid on Hamburg achieved results not unlike that of the atomic bomb, but done with conventional arms.

The problem was it was impossible to replicate those results on other German cities in short order. Firestorms were the result of rare conditions and could not be created on command. Indeed, there were perhaps only two more firestorms created during the rest of the war in Europe, at Kassel in October 1943 and at Dresden in February 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The problem was it was impossible to replicate those results on other German cities in short order. Firestorms were the result of rare conditions and could not be created on command.



That's quite my point: heavy bombers could hurt, but not kill, a nation, in that era. The war continued for 20 months after that raid.

It ended three weeks after Nagasaki. The doctrine was not wrong, but the means of execution simply wasn't there in 1943-44.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> What I'm saying is that strategic bombing did not win the war, and lacked the means to do so in that era.



Win it by itself? No. Boots on the ground, standing in the nation's capital, would always be necessary. But the effect of the Bomber Offensive made getting those troops into Germany a lot easier that it would have otherwise been.

The Oil and Transportation Plans were critical elements in crippling the German war economy. The Ruhr campaign, had it been continued, could have as well (assuming losses could be kept to an acceptable level, which might not be the case given the region's heavy defences).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 26, 2021)

If I recall right, the RAF sent in lead bombers with conventional HE bombs ahead of the bombers carrying incendiary bombs in order to knock the slate off the rooftops.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Win it by itself? No. Boots on the ground, standing in the nation's capital, would always be necessary. But the effect of the Bomber Offensive made getting those troops into Germany a lot easier that it would have otherwise been.
> 
> The Oil and Transportation Plans were critical elements in crippling the German war economy. The Ruhr campaign, had it been continued, could have as well (assuming losses could be kept to an acceptable level, which might not be the case given the region's heavy defences).



Agreed on all counts. I'm not saying the CBO was a wasted effort, only that it was not of itself a war-winner.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Well, the Germans shrugged off Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, the RAF Ruhr program, and so on. -109 production rose in 1944 despite our specific targeting of that.



German production, as measured by Speer's armaments index, stagnated for some nine months after the Ruhr campaign, as compared to the twelve months prior when it had been growing steadily.

Sustained growth did not resume until early 1944, and peaked in July, after which it began to fall rapidly. While Germany could produce aircraft, thanks to the attacks on synthetic oil plants, it could not produce pilots to man them.

Part of the problem for the Allies was bomb damage assessment. While recon photos from 30,000+ feet showed what looked like a wrecked landscape, the damage at ground level was often much less serious. It took time for the Allies to realize that a target would have to be hit repeatedly to knock it out and keep it out. There was also the fact that the number of bombers needed to hit all the targets necessary with the frequency needed required a much larger force than previously anticipated. The Allies didn't really get that size of bomber force until mid-1944.

If you grant the Allies in early to mid 1943 the benefit of 1944 electronic navigation and bombing aids and force size, and get Bomber Command and the USAAF to coordinate their efforts and focus on oil and transportation, the results would be quite different.

As it was, some important targets were never the subject of sustained attack. A concentrated effort against the German electrical supply could have been as decisive as the one against oil, but for various reasons that target system was mostly left off the target lists.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If I recall right, the RAF sent in lead bombers with conventional HE bombs ahead of the bombers carrying incendiary bombs in order to knock the slate off the rooftops.



Didn't they also carry the occasional Cookie to bust water mains while the incendiaries played their merry havoc? Or were those in the main force bombers?


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> If I recall right, the RAF sent in lead bombers with conventional HE bombs ahead of the bombers carrying incendiary bombs in order to knock the slate off the rooftops.



In 1943 it's mixed HE and incendiary bombs on nearly all raids. For a Lancaster it was a single 4,000-lb 'cookie' and along with varying numbers of 4-lb and/or 30-lb incendiaries. For the Halifax it was typically a 2,000-lb or two 1,000-lb HE along with incendiaries.

In 1944-45, even in raids on German cities, the loads became mostly or entirely HE. Load outs like those of 1943 occur far less frequently.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> If you grant the Allies in early to mid 1943 the benefit of 1944 electronic navigation and bombing aids and force size, and get Bomber Command and the USAAF to coordinate their efforts and focus on oil and transportation, the results would be quite different.



Sure. As it was, the oil plan was, in my opinion, as decisive in defeating the Luftwaffe as was the P-51 -- because they didn't have the fuel to train their pilots proper.

The Allied bombers turned in valuable service, and I'll say once again that I hope no one misunderstands me on this point. The Oil Plan actually was probably as good a defense against LW fighters as was Doolittle's turning the fighters loose, because the latter shot the hell out of everything around, and the former meant that the LW had a hard time replacing their losses.

It's a shame indeed that us Americans and the Brits couldn't co-ordinate more closely on a combined objective that we could probably just murder. I think we got as close as hopeful with the targeting of fuel and railway resources.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Didn't they also carry the occasional Cookie to bust water mains while the incendiaries played their merry havoc? Or were those in the main force bombers?



The 'cookie' and other HE bombs were intended to blow open roofs and knock down walls, allowing the incendiaries to spread fire more easily.

The main force carried similar loads. Only the Pathfinder force carried a different load out, with some of the HE and/or incendiaries replaced with target indicator bombs and/or flares.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> The 'cookie' and other HE bombs were intended to blow open roofs and knock down walls, allowing the incendiaries to spread fire more easily.
> 
> The main force carried similar loads. Only the Pathfinder force carried a different load out, with some of the HE and/or incendiaries replaced with target indicator bombs and/or flares.



I appreciate the pull-up. I'd always thought, for some reason, that the cookies were specifically to break underground water mains. It's good to have misconceptions removed.

I knw HE was used to break buildings and provide more burning surface, but I'd always thought the heavy bombs were specifically to break underground pipes.

I'll definitely be googling some more reading tomorrow, thanks!


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's a shame indeed that us Americans and the Brits couldn't co-ordinate more closely on a combined objective that we could probably just murder. I think we got as close as hopeful with the targeting of fuel and railway resources.



Most of the lack of cooperation can be laid at Harris' feet. While he was instrumental in forging Bomber Command into a potent weapon, he really should have been replaced by the fall of 1944, if not earlier. But by then his stature had grown to the point that the political will to do so wasn't there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> It took time for the Allies to realize that a target would have to be hit repeatedly to knock it out and keep it out.



Speer in his memoirs makes exactly this point, that had the Allies coordinated and practiced closer follow-up, their raids would have been more effective. If I remember he points out that Bomber Command attacked Peenemunde rather than following up on our useful -- but disastrous -- American raid on Schweinfurt.

I can imagine other possibilities where a pot-stirring Hamburg-style event could happen. The Brits were absolutely right to target the Ruhr, and we Americans should have supported. We Americans were right to target U-boat slips, and BC should have followed. But it seems our efforts were disjointed.

All this is just my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I appreciate the pull-up. I'd always thought, for some reason, that the cookies were specifically to break underground water mains. It's good to have misconceptions removed.
> 
> I knw HE was used to break buildings and provide more burning surface, but I'd always thought the heavy bombs were specifically to break underground pipes.
> 
> I'll definitely be googling some more reading tomorrow, thanks!



Well, given their large blast concussive effect, I'm sure it would damage lots of other things too.

(There was also 8,000-lb and 12,000-lb high capacity blast bombs, but these were dropped in far fewer numbers than the 4,000-lb 'cookie'.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Most of the lack of cooperation can be laid at Harris' feet. While he was instrumental in forging Bomber Command into a potent weapon, he really should have been replaced by the fall of 1944, if not earlier. But by then his stature had grown to the point that the political will to do so wasn't there.



Definitely agree; he had his own agenda and had the clout to protect it.

I must wonder if Arnold did not also, as well.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Speer in his memoirs makes exactly this point, that had the Allies coordinated and practiced closer follow-up, their raids would have been more effective. If I remember he points out that Bomber Command attacked Peenemunde rather than following up on our useful -- but disastrous -- American raid on Schweinfurt.



Yeah, I remember some of it as well.

He remarked on a number of critical nodes that were never subject to sustained attack. Chemical production, for example: certain chemicals were vital in the production of explosives. I recall also how he thought it odd the Americans went after airframes more than aircraft engine production, since if there aren't enough aircraft engines it doesn't matter how many more airframes are produced.

For the USAAF, airframes got priority because the aero engine plants were harder targets to locate and hit as compared to airframe production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 26, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Yeah, I remember some of it as well.
> 
> He remarked on a number of critical nodes that were never subject to sustained attack. Chemical production, for example: certain chemicals were vital in the production of explosives. I recall also how he thought it odd the Americans went after airframes more than aircraft engine production, since if there aren't enough aircraft engines it doesn't matter how many more airframes are produced.
> 
> For the USAAF, airframes got priority because the aero engine plants were harder targets to locate and hit as compared to airframe production.



For all our bluster about pickle-barrel bombing, we too had a hard time hitting a bull in the ass with a bass-fiddle. Burying the relevant city day-and-night for a few days would likely be much more useful, all humaneness set aside for another conversation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2021)

British bombs in WW II. The 4000lb cookie was essentially a metal can full of HE. This one has a drum tail attached to the left end. 




This is the nose. there were different noses. 
It had great blast effect but ability to penetrate hard surfaces was not great. Even bombs with thicker walls sometimes split open before detonating. 

However there were 3 different 4000lb bombs

the well known cookie as shown above. Over 93,000 were built/dropped during WW II.
There was a 4000lbs MC (medium case) bomb with a lower explosive weight and thicker walls, 21,000 were dropped by BC, 13,000 of them in 1944.
Perhaps it was this bomb that was used to break water mains?

There was also a 4000lb GP bomb with much thicker walls and a much lower explosive charge weight but only 245 were built and 217 dropped. 

data from http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....category&id=43:bombs&Itemid=60&layout=default


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 26, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> For all our bluster about pickle-barrel bombing, we too had a hard time hitting a bull in the ass with a bass-fiddle. Burying the relevant city day-and-night for a few days would likely be much more useful, all humaneness set aside for another conversation.



Well, in peacetime practice over Arizona it worked great. In wartime, with the enemy shooting at you and the clouds frequently getting in the way, it's a different story.

Hence why H2X becomes an important part of USAAF bomber operations in 1944, allowing bombing even in cloudy weather. (Oboe sees a lot of use in the medium bombers.) The introduction of the scouting forces ahead of the bomber force helped improve matters as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Well, the Germans shrugged off Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, the RAF Ruhr program, and so on. -109 production rose in 1944 despite our specific targeting of that.



The increase in German military production is often trotted out as proof that the strategic bombing campaign failed. However, that's an overly simplistic assessment. It ignores the challenging question of what German production COULD have been if it WASN'T affected by the Allied bombing effort. Clearly, that's almost impossible to quantify but, without doubt, strategic bombing hurt the German war effort and kept production levels in check.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 27, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> The increase in German military production is often trotted out as proof that the strategic bombing campaign failed. However, that's an overly simplistic assessment. It ignores the challenging question of what German production COULD have been if it WASN'T affected by the Allied bombing effort. Clearly, that's almost impossible to quantify but, without doubt, strategic bombing hurt the German war effort and kept production levels in check.



In such cases the annual German production figures are cited. But annual figures are too coarse; the monthly figures as tallied by Speer's ministry paint a clearer picture.

Tooze's book has the Speer ministry numbers for each production category as well as the overall armaments index figure. If I recall correctly it also has the figures for German steel production, showing the estimated total amount of production possible and then the amount of production lost to bombing damage, air raid alerts, shortages, and other causes.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I'll definitely be googling some more reading tomorrow, thanks!



_The Science of Bombing_ by Randall Wakelam examines the role of the Operational Research Section in making the bombing campaign more efficient. Might be worth a look. 

If I had access to my regular computer, I could suggest quite a few other books to consider. But just going to Google Books and searching will often turn up plenty of potentially interesting reads, and frequently with enough free preview pages to give a good idea of the content.

When the National Archives in the U.K. was offering free downloads of much of its digital collection, I took the opportunity to download a large number of Bomber Command squadron ORBs for those squadrons which regularly reported the bomb loadouts. Eventually I'm going to turn that data into a database of sorts.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> British bombs in WW II. The 4000lb cookie was essentially a metal can full of HE. This one has a drum tail attached to the left end.
> 
> This is the nose. there were different noses.
> It had great blast effect but ability to penetrate hard surfaces was not great. Even bombs with thicker walls sometimes split open before detonating.



I believe earlier versions had a conical nose.

The HC bombs were not designed to penetrate hard targets.

The 4,000lb MC was developed because the HC would break apart when dropped from low altitudes at high speed.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Speer in his memoirs makes exactly this point, that had the Allies coordinated and practiced closer follow-up, their raids would have been more effective. If I remember he points out that Bomber Command attacked Peenemunde rather than following up on our useful -- but disastrous -- American raid on Schweinfurt.



Peenemünde was an important target.

Still, a raid against Schweinfurt even a few weeks after the August 17 raid could have been very effective.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2021)

It is all very well quoting what Speer said post war. That in part was what the war was about. The British bombing efforts would have been better if he hadnt constructed dummy steel plants and other distractions. Scuttling the Tirpitz too when it was no longer able to be repaired would have saved some needless raids. LW raids on British airfields would have been much more effective if they had good recon and intel, which is precisely why recon planes were shot down and spies shot.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 27, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Peenemünde was an important target.
> 
> Still, a raid against Schweinfurt even a few weeks after the August 17 raid could have been very effective.



There are numerous possibilities that could have been pursued but weren't, for various reasons. The following passage from _The Crucible of War_ illustrates one, regarding the withdrawal of G-H from Bomber Command heavy bombers.

_That may have been a strategic error of considerable consequence. Perhaps heavy bombers equipped with G-H should have been directed against German aircraft factories within its range in the fall of 1943. For although they understood the significance of electronic counter-measures in evading night-fighters, a number of officials at the Air Ministry argued such devices were nevertheless an unsatisfactory method of dealing with Bomber Command's main opponent. If enemy fighter strength grew, cautioned Air Vice-Marshal N.H. Bottomley, Harris would be 'unable to maintain the night offensive' no matter what jamming took place; and the DCAS therefore called for a sustained effort against aircraft manufacturing and assembly plants in Brunswick, Stuttgart, Hanover, Kassel, and Leverkusen, for example.

The director of bomber operations, now Air Commodore S. Bufton, _vice_ Baker, concurred. Although he had not objected to the three operations against the German capital, hoping that Bomber Command could mount a successful repetition of the Hamburg raid 'on any industrial area, Berlin or anywhere else,' it was still essential that Harris 'start towards the specific targets [of Pointblank] eventually.' For if Bomber Command and the Americans did not between them destroy the Luftwaffe's capability to resist, he cautioned ominously, postwar analysts would regard the bombing offensive as a failure in their strategic employment of air power. Observing that it might be time to hold a conference with Harris and Eaker, Portal seemed to agree._

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Jun 27, 2021)

glennasher said:


> The einsatzgruppen work in Russia and the Ukraine sort of make all that "bombing of civilians" stuff moot, don'tcha think? The Germans certainly didn't spare any civilians during Barbarossa, so I don't think they have any room to squeal about it. Maybe the Allied efforts should have tried to spare civilians more, but hey, Germany started the whole war mess, and should have forseen that "what goes around, comes around".


I would not make an equivalency of bombing enemy civilians behind enemy lines to racially targeted mass murder in territory Germany had conquered and occupied

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2021)

wuzak said:


> Peenemünde was an important target.
> 
> Still, a raid against Schweinfurt even a few weeks after the August 17 raid could have been very effective.



Oh, I'm not saying Peenemunde wasn't important; the events of 1944 definitely show otherwise. And I'd agree that that particular mission was itself important as well. I just thinking the timing could have been better in order to garner knock-on effects.



buffnut453 said:


> The increase in German military production is often trotted out as proof that the strategic bombing campaign failed. However, that's an overly simplistic assessment. It ignores the challenging question of what German production COULD have been if it WASN'T affected by the Allied bombing effort. Clearly, that's almost impossible to quantify but, without doubt, strategic bombing hurt the German war effort and kept production levels in check.



I don't think the CBO failed. I do think it failed to fulfill the overly idealistic hopes of bombing winning the war, which some bomber advocates held. The CBO succeeded in several ways: hampering production, as you point out, both by direct destruction and also by production-dispersion that it forced; targeting fuel production, which reduced both fuel stocks for fighting units as well as training stocks for the LW; the targeting of transportation nodes introduced further frictions into German supply-chain management, and other effects as well.

Any topic as complicated as CBO demands a nuanced assessment, which is what I'm aiming at. It may be that I'm not relaying as well as possible those nuances, and for that I'm sorry.

I agree with your final words: the CBO most certainly dealt the German war economy serious blows, and made an important difference.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> _The Science of Bombing_ by Randall Wakelam examines the role of the Operational Research Section in making the bombing campaign more efficient. Might be worth a look.
> 
> If I had access to my regular computer, I could suggest quite a few other books to consider. But just going to Google Books and searching will often turn up plenty of potentially interesting reads, and frequently with enough free preview pages to give a good idea of the content.
> 
> When the National Archives in the U.K. was offering free downloads of much of its digital collection, I took the opportunity to download a large number of Bomber Command squadron ORBs for those squadrons which regularly reported the bomb loadouts. Eventually I'm going to turn that data into a database of sorts.



After I finish _Shattered Sword_ (I've yet to start it, but it's on deck as I'm about finished with my current reading), I'll check TSoB out. I certainly appreciate the recco, and have bookmarked your post for later reference. Thanks!


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> After I finish _Shattered Sword_ (I've yet to start it, but it's on deck as I'm about finished with my current reading), I'll check TSoB out. I certainly appreciate the recco, and have bookmarked your post for later reference. Thanks!



_The Science of Bombing_ has a good amount of preview pages available on Google Books (or at least it does in my area) so you should be able to get a good idea of its content and style.

Sooner or later I'm getting my old computer back and running. I've got way too many important files on there! I miss be able to directly cite stuff --- going by (sometimes uncertain) memory is nowhere near as good

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 27, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> _The Science of Bombing_ has a good amount of preview pages available on Google Books (or at least it does in my area) so you should be able to get a good idea of its content and style.
> 
> Sooner or later I'm getting my old computer back and running. I've got way too many important files on there! I miss be able to directly cite stuff --- going by (sometimes uncertain) memory is nowhere near as good



I couldn't find a preview, but I've ordered it based on your word-of-mouth. It better be good, dammit! It's coming from England, but free shipping sees it here in about a month. That should give me time to read SS too.


----------



## 33k in the air (Jun 27, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> I couldn't find a preview, but I've ordered it based on your word-of-mouth. It better be good, dammit! It's coming from England, but free shipping sees it here in about a month. That should give me time to read SS too.



Google Books has changed the way they show things compared to a few months ago, and perhaps it varies by browser. This link works for me; click the "preview" button to get a preview. (It's easier to use the old presentation in my opinion; click the "classic Google Books" link at the top of the page.)

The Science of Bombing

It's coming from England? Seems a bit odd, the book was originally published by University of Toronto press.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 28, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Google Books has changed the way they show things compared to a few months ago, and perhaps it varies by browser. This link works for me; click the "preview" button to get a preview. (It's easier to use the old presentation in my opinion; click the "classic Google Books" link at the top of the page.)
> 
> The Science of Bombing
> 
> It's coming from England? Seems a bit odd, the book was originally published by University of Toronto press.



I just ordered the cheapest offer with free shipping, which was about $26. I'm looking forward to reading it.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 28, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> Which is some rather dismal reading. I may not agree with some peoples assessment of changes to the Battle (I doubt very much it could have been turned into the IL-2 of the west) but the Battle could not perform the strategic mission before the Germans attacked from British bases. Or rather it could but would have violated Dutch or Belgian air space to do so.
> SO the only way to use as a strategic bomber was to base it in France. BTW the range thing should have been known before the attack on Poland. Once the Wellingtons got shot up attacking the German anchorages the idea of flying either Battles or Blenheims over land in daylight on deep penetration raids should have been trashed quickly.
> 
> Now somehow the BC idea that escort fighters weren't needed (or were technically impossible) for long distance raids was transferred to short range tactical raids.
> ...



I entirely agree that there was some rather muddled, or overly-wishful, thinking when it came to employment of the AASF. However, the problem goes much further than just how to use the Battles or Blenheims. The French and British prepared for a war that didn't happen. They expected a repeat of 1914-1917 with relatively static front-lines. What they got was more a repeat of 1918, which was far more maneouvrist in nature. A 4-6 hour delay in tasking is fine if you have a static front line but it's useless if the front line is moving rapidly. I sense that the defensive posture of the French (which effectively prevented the use of AASF against targets in Germany) relied entirely on a static battle. Unfortunately, it was entirely undone by the type of warfare Germany executed with such success.

As to BC-vs-CC, your comment about "it's not all or nothing" cuts both ways. The first u-boat sunk solely by an aircraft in WW2 was on 11 March 1940 when an 82 Sqn Blenheim sank U-31, and 82 Sqn was part of BC not CC. A large proportion of BC"s tasking in the middle of 1940 was directly targeting port facilities in Germany and occupied Europe. Thus BC could, with some justification, claim that they were affecting the maritime fight by hurting Germany's ability to resupply and repair vessels. The bang-per-buck in flying hours-vs-effects delivered was probably better than pushing Blenheims to CC to join in the needle-in-a-haystack hunt for u-boats when the best sensor available was a pair of binoculars (yes, ASV MkI was available but it had a rather long minimum range, so targets were lost at the critical point of attack initiation).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 25, 2021)

This myth was recently de-bunked. The Brewster Buffalo wasn't the worst of the "FirstGen" WW 2 fighters. It was outclassed but perhaps not hopelessly. It was further damned by obsolete tactics, inexperienced crews and poor build quality, as well has not having any technological edge. It never would have been a dominant force. Perhaps, as "what-iffed" by The Admiral, it had been able to intercept the bombers attacking Force Z? It might have had a better legacy. 
I wonder what the breakdown of its score against Western Allied fighters is? I'm most interested in the results against the P-36, P-39 and Hurricane. These were other Allied planes at the "starting gate" not known for stellar performance.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> For all our bluster about pickle-barrel bombing, we too had a hard time hitting a bull in the ass with a bass-fiddle.



"Precision Daylight Bombing" = "Area Bombing"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 28, 2021)

Conversely, after the Battle of Midway, the IJN mandated all Hinomarus (the rising sun insignia) be removed from all aircraft carriers, because the SBDs were using that as an aim-point and were either hitting it dead-in or missing by a few feet - the Hinomaru painted on the carrier's decks were just shy of 40 feet across...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2021)

Snowygrouch said:


> I think thats a particualry serious problem in academia (as it is these days anway), for a start nobody has time to do proper research as they`re all busy trying to get grants or publishing their quota of papers so they dont get sacked, so they just copy-paste stuff from the other "big names" each all hoping the others did their job properly (when none of them did).
> 
> Also history profs cant really say anything too contentious as they`ll now be deplatformed from twitter.
> 
> (disclaimer, I do rate Prof David Edgerton at Kings College London, he writes pretty good stuff like "Britains War Machine")


Absolutely correct. Having a treasure trove of source NAA documents and access to NARA/USFAHR enabled Lowell and me to state from a direct source rather than cut and paste from well known authors on our book. That said, when our sources on a particular Mustang 'fact' there were very, very few mistakes made by Bob Gruenhagen. My research on P-51B Mustang: NAA's Bastard Stepchild that saved 8th AF started a long time ago and one by one many facts extracted from Ethell, Freeman, etc. were simply 'cut and paste' from previous works and not footnoted- and incorrect.

Many authors that we hold in esteem do not footnote sources that are presented as fact in their works - and many errors of 'opinions based on facts' become whole irrefutable facts in the minds of those authors. 

That said we are all cursed with lens that have a film of 'point of view', including me. I, despite my charm, awesome intellect and grasp of several technical disciplines have made Many mistakes. Who knew?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Aug 9, 2021)

If a person doesn't make a mistake now and then, then he's not doing anything at all.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gruad (Aug 13, 2021)

One myth is that Bomber Command losses dropped dramatically in 1944 from about 10% to 1% as a result of the Americans destroying the Luftwaffe in the day.

This certainly was a contributing factor, but the main reason was that the RAF cottoned on that the Luftwaffe was tracking bombers from their emissions, Monica, IFF and H2S.


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 13, 2021)

gruad said:


> One myth is that Bomber Command losses dropped dramatically in 1944 from about 10% to 1% as a result of the Americans destroying the Luftwaffe in the day.



That myth doesn't even make sense. What would suppressing the Luftwaffe's daytime fighter force have to do with its night-fighter force? They're two different forces with two very different ways of fighting. (On occasion night-fighters were sent up to help intercept particularly heavy daytime USAAF raids, with the result usually being the night-fighters suffering heavy losses.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> That myth doesn't even make sense. What would suppressing the Luftwaffe's daytime fighter force have to do with its night-fighter force? They're two different forces with two very different ways of fighting. (On occasion night-fighters were sent up to help intercept particularly heavy daytime USAAF raids, with the result usually being the night-fighters suffering heavy losses.)


 Never let facts or logic get in the way of a good myth/legend

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 13, 2021)

gruad said:


> One myth is that Bomber Command losses dropped dramatically in 1944 from about 10% to 1% as a result of the Americans destroying the Luftwaffe in the day.
> 
> This certainly was a contributing factor, but the main reason was that the RAF cottoned on that the Luftwaffe was tracking bombers from their emissions, Monica, IFF and H2S.


I think bomber command suffering sustained losses of 10% in 1944 is a myth.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Aug 13, 2021)

Harris stated the notable improvement in 1944 was mainly due to the allied ground forces overruning the German early warning lines in Belgium and France.

Fidget, Mandrel, Jostle IV, new Window (MB), new radar/signals procedures, as well as Monica restriction all certainly contributed -- but the gains of all these are hard to quantify scientifically since they were thrown into the mix at about the same time.

The invasion forces robbing the Germans their setup in the west was a massive benefit to Bomber Command.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 14, 2021)

Greyman said:


> Harris stated the notable improvement in 1944 was mainly due to the allied ground forces overruning the German early warning lines in Belgium and France.
> 
> Fidget, Mandrel, Jostle IV, new Window (MB), new radar/signals procedures, as well as Monica restriction all certainly contributed -- but the gains of all these are hard to quantify scientifically since they were thrown into the mix at about the same time.
> 
> ...


----------



## gruad (Aug 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I think bomber command suffering sustained losses of 10% in 1944 is a myth.


Ok stand corrected

Nov 1943 to Mar 1944 was average of 5% with 12% the highest according to Wikipedia.









RAF Bomber Command - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 16, 2021)

gruad said:


> Ok stand corrected
> 
> Nov 1943 to Mar 1944 was average of 5% with 12% the highest according to Wikipedia.
> 
> ...


Percentages and chosen dates can deceive, the 12% loss was March 30 1944 against Nuremburg, 95 planes lost from 795.


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Percentages and chosen dates can deceive, the 12% loss was March 30 1944 against Frankfurt, 95 planes lost from 795.



I think you meant Nuremberg.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 16, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I think you meant Nuremberg.


lol I do, how can a person read an article on the raid to get the numbers right and then put Frankfurt instead of Nuremburg?


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> lol I do, how can a person read an article on the raid to get the numbers right and then put Frankfurt instead of Nuremburg?



Sometimes, on the journey from the brain to the fingers, the electrical impulses get . . . confused.

Blame it on some random cosmic ray knocking it off course!


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> lol I do, how can a person read an article on the raid to get the numbers right and then put Frankfurt instead of Nuremburg?



By thinking of sausages for dinner, perhaps?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 16, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Sometimes, on the journey from the brain to the fingers, the electrical impulses get . . . confused.
> 
> Blame it on some random cosmic ray knocking it off course!


I had my second jab two weeks ago, is the microchip kicking in?


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> I had my second jab two weeks ago, is the microchip kicking in?



Some people would say yes! I remain agnostic on that possibility.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 16, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Percentages and chosen dates can deceive, the 12% loss was March 30 1944 against Nuremburg, 95 planes lost from 795.



That's brutal.


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 17, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That's brutal.



The book "The Nuremberg Raid: 30-31 March 1944" by Martin Middlebrook might be worth a look if you're interested in reading more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 17, 2021)

The Nuremberg raid was a shining example of Murphy's Law. When you read about the raid in more detail you will be left wondering not how so many crews were lost but how so many made it home safely.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Aug 17, 2021)

buffnut453 said:


> By thinking of sausages for dinner, perhaps?


But Nuernberger Bratwurst mit Bratkartoffel und Speck is unforgetable.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 17, 2021)

Greg Boeser said:


> But Nuernberger Bratwurst mit Bratkartoffel und Speck is unforgetable.



No matter how hard we try!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 17, 2021)

I'd like to bust the myth that the Luftwaffe used Yak-18s as fighters in WW2. 

From a recent article on how Speer increased war production.







(PS - are the tank and sub silhouettes even valid?)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 17, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> The Nuremberg raid was a shining example of Murphy's Law. When you read about the raid in more detail you will be left wondering not how so many crews were lost but how so many made it home safely.


In the grim world of loss statistics the answer to that may be how many started the mission. It could be that the 95 planes lost represent what the LW could shoot down in ideal circumstances on a raid of that distance. So if 400 were used losses would be 25% and if 100 were used maybe a handful get home with losses close to 100%.

In another raid that went FUBAR for different reasons on Mailly le Camp (80 miles east of Paris) 43 planes were lost from 346 which is also 12% but is a much shorter distance.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 17, 2021)

Graeme said:


> I'd like to bust the myth that the Luftwaffe used Yak-18s as fighters in WW2.
> 
> From a recent article on how Speer increased war production.
> 
> ...


Looks like a Tiger II picture from wiki

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 17, 2021)

Graeme said:


> I'd like to bust the myth that the Luftwaffe used Yak-18s as fighters in WW2.
> 
> From a recent article on how Speer increased war production.
> 
> ...


The tank is definately a King Tiger, but that sub looks to be a miget sub.
I'm not a submarine expert, but that doesn't appear to be any type Germany used in WWI or WWII.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 20, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Speer in his memoirs makes exactly this point, that had the Allies coordinated and practiced closer follow-up, their raids would have been more effective. If I remember he points out that Bomber Command attacked Peenemunde rather than following up on our useful -- but disastrous -- American raid on Schweinfurt.
> 
> I can imagine other possibilities where a pot-stirring Hamburg-style event could happen. The Brits were absolutely right to target the Ruhr, and we Americans should have supported. We Americans were right to target U-boat slips, and BC should have followed. But it seems our efforts were disjointed.
> 
> All this is just my opinion.


The raids on the Uboat pens in France accomplished very little. Once the pens were constructed nothing short of a Tallboy could damage them. Later in the war the construction of Uboats was somewhat slowed by bombing, but the real problem was the switch to prefabricated production for uboats simply didn’t work. Nothing lined up in the yard requiring a lot of rework defeating the purpose of prefabricatio.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 20, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The raids on the Uboat pens in France accomplished very little. Once the pens were constructed nothing short of a Tallboy could damage them. Later in the war the construction of Uboats was somewhat slowed by bombing, but the real problem was the switch to prefabricated production for uboats simply didn’t work. Nothing lined up in the yard requiring a lot of rework defeating the purpose of prefabricatio[n].



Agreed, bombing the U-boat pens was a fool's quest without the RAF's special bombs (and even then was, pardon the pun, hit-and-miss). But bombing the shipyards building them was a much better use of the American bombers with their smaller load-outs of GP bombs, I think.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 20, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> There are numerous possibilities that could have been pursued but weren't, for various reasons. The following passage from _The Crucible of War_ illustrates one, regarding the withdrawal of G-H from Bomber Command heavy bombers.
> 
> _That may have been a strategic error of considerable consequence. Perhaps heavy bombers equipped with G-H should have been directed against German aircraft factories within its range in the fall of 1943. For although they understood the significance of electronic counter-measures in evading night-fighters, a number of officials at the Air Ministry argued such devices were nevertheless an unsatisfactory method of dealing with Bomber Command's main opponent. If enemy fighter strength grew, cautioned Air Vice-Marshal N.H. Bottomley, Harris would be 'unable to maintain the night offensive' no matter what jamming took place; and the DCAS therefore called for a sustained effort against aircraft manufacturing and assembly plants in Brunswick, Stuttgart, Hanover, Kassel, and Leverkusen, for example.
> 
> The director of bomber operations, now Air Commodore S. Bufton, _vice_ Baker, concurred. Although he had not objected to the three operations against the German capital, hoping that Bomber Command could mount a successful repetition of the Hamburg raid 'on any industrial area, Berlin or anywhere else,' it was still essential that Harris 'start towards the specific targets [of Pointblank] eventually.' For if Bomber Command and the Americans did not between them destroy the Luftwaffe's capability to resist, he cautioned ominously, postwar analysts would regard the bombing offensive as a failure in their strategic employment of air power. Observing that it might be time to hold a conference with Harris and Eaker, Portal seemed to agree._


Harris had the chance to make a real difference and likely shorten the war but he blew it with his quixotic Battle of Berlin. If he had kept his boot on Germany’s throat, the Ruhr, the war may have been shortened. So much of the German economy depended on the Ruhr. The bomb loads were greater, the accuracy much better, the losses lower. It is ironic that Harris, who disparaged panacea targets, was seduced by the ultimate panacea target, the enemies capital.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 20, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Harris had the chance to make a real difference and likely shorten the war but he blew it with his quixotic Battle of Berlin. If he had kept his boot on Germany’s throat, the Ruhr, the war may have been shortened. So much of the German economy depended on the Ruhr. The bomb loads were greater, the accuracy much better, the losses lower. It is ironic that Harris, who disparaged panacea targets, was seduced by the ultimate panacea target, the enemies capital.



The available evidence certainly suggests that is the case.

Harris, while indispensable in forging Bomber Command into a formidable striking force, was too much of an ideologue wedded to the prewar theories of air power.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2021)

I would offer the oft repeated fable that the LW was always outnumbered '10:1' by US escort fighters. Because of the 8th/15th AF relay escort system the actual escort until May was a maximum of two P-51 or two P-38FGs to cover an entire Bomb Division during target escort leg.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 21, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I would offer the oft repeated fable that the LW was always outnumbered '10:1' by US escort fighters. Because of the 8th/15th AF relay escort system the actual escort until May was a maximum of two P-51 or two P-38FGs to cover an entire Bomb Division during target escort leg.


I would add the American version of this fable that the P38 was facing odds of 10 to 1 before the P51 showed up. Both sides typically fought in similar size formations. And as I have pointed out before escorted deep penetrations of German airspace didn’t start until Big Week, with the exception of the January raid on Ludwigshafen. Incidentally the P51s flew the final leg over the target on that mission.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I would add the American version of this fable that the P38 was facing odds of 10 to 1 before the P51 showed up. Both sides typically fought in similar size formations. And as I have pointed out before escorted deep penetrations of German airspace didn’t start until Big Week, with the exception of the January raid on Ludwigshafen. Incidentally the P51s flew the final leg over the target on that mission.


I don't recall seeing 20th or 55th FG claiming odds of 1:10 vs LW. Source?

As to Ludwigshafen being only LR escort prior to Big Week? How about multiple strikes to Halberstadt, Hamburg, Ludwigshafen, Bordeaux in December 43; Bordeaux 1-5, Halberstadt/Oschersleben/Bruswick 1-11; Brunswick 1-30 & 2-10; Ludwigshafen 2-11?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 21, 2021)

drgondog said:


> As to Ludwigshafen being only LR escort prior to Big Week? How about multiple strikes to Halberstadt, Hamburg, Ludwigshafen, Bordeaux in December 43; Bordeaux 1-5, Halberstadt/Oschersleben/Bruswick 1-11; Brunswick 1-30 & 2-10; Ludwigshafen 2-11?



I guess one must first define what is meant by "long-range" escort in this context. Particularly since the range at which the fighters could provide escort improved over time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 21, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> I guess one must first define what is meant by "long-range" escort in this context. Particularly since the range at which the fighters could provide escort improved over time.


I agree. That said Friedrichshafen, Brunswick, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Wurzberg, etc were all beyond P-47D combat radius with 1x150 gal tank - but all in combat radius of P-51B w/o 85 gal tank and P-38H/J w/o leading edge 55 gal tank. During Big Week the only difference in the two LR escort types and early Dec, 1943 and mid Feb 1944 - was that the 20th FG came on line in late December and the 357th went operational in mid February - giving 8th AF planners four LR escort FG's capable of 450-475mi Combat Radius. That was about 75-100 miles beyond the P-47. In March the difference with internal fuse and LE tanks installed the CR extended to 600 (P-38J) and 700 (P-51B) 

Those targets above were only 'plannable' for P-47D when enough wing mod kits had been installed (April) t equip an entire FG. In same time frame December 1943 through March 1944, the target escort capability for P-47 was Bremen/Steinhuder Lake/NW Hannover. 

The quantity of 85 gal fuselage tank kits and 55 gal LE kits were just reaching full squadron ops status in mid-Feb.

During Big Week the 8th AF Could have gone to Berlin/Munich - but only with intact Fighter squadron level force.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 21, 2021)

From what I have seen posted here on the forum over the years, by carefully ignoring logic and reality a case can be made for both sides being outnumbered by ten to one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I don't recall seeing 20th or 55th FG claiming odds of 1:10 vs LW. Source?
> 
> As to Ludwigshafen being only LR escort prior to Big Week? How about multiple strikes to Halberstadt, Hamburg, Ludwigshafen, Bordeaux in December 43; Bordeaux 1-5, Halberstadt/Oschersleben/Bruswick 1-11; Brunswick 1-30 & 2-10; Ludwigshafen 2-11?


For the first question I was thinking of articles like this Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning
although it does only claim odds of 5 to 1.

As for the second question I must apologize for a very poor post (I'm blaming jet lag). I don't know why I stated Ludwigshafen which really isn't that far. I was actually thinking of the January 11 raid on Brunswick, Halberstatdt and Oscherleben, which you noted. As for Bordeaux, I discount that as it wasn't a deep penetration of German airspace. In fact the two pervious missions to Bordeaux in December were unescorted. You might disagree.
The point I was trying to make was that Big Week was a step change in mission distances, which were 100 miles deeper than previously attempted. I have updated the chart I shared a couple of years ago with more info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2021)

It's a shame that Ausairpower used Caidin as a reference, including this threadworn nugget:
"_It is not surprising that German pilots nicknamed the P-38 Der Gabelschwanz Teufel (the Fork-Tailed Devil)._"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> For the first question I was thinking of articles like this Der Gabelschwanz Teufel - Assessing the Lockheed P-38 Lightning
> although it does only claim odds of 5 to 1.


I have chastised my facebook friend Corey Jordan about many inaccuracies in that Austalian article. Not the least was understating P-47C/D Combat Radius as stated for Fall-Winter 1943. 

With the 108 gallon tank in September, its planning Combat Radius (with assumptions for combat and reserve after dropping external tanks) was ~ 275mi and then w/150 gal belly tank Jan-Feb 1944) ~ 375mi. In the same time envelope the P-38H w/75 gal tanks in Oct-Nov was 275mi, but in December with 2x150gal tanks ~ 375mi. The Combat Radius discussion greatly overstated late 1943 for P-38 as "500 NM CR was not achieved until the 55ga LE tanks combined with the 2x150 gal externals - March 1944

For clarity regarding the discussion of 'LR' escort missions in the posts above - only the 1943 December/Jan 1944 P-38 AND P-51B could range as far as Hildesheim/Brunswick/Hamburg line - but pretty close to making Schweinfurt had the gamble been necessary.

Ludwigshafen at 410mi, not (quite) an example of deeper strikes to Leipzig (525) and Regensburg (570), air miles from Cambridge - but a distance only the P-47D-16 with 2x150gal combat tanks could achieve in April 1944. By that time the P-4D had been relegated to Penetration/Withdrawal Escort

The "5:1" adverse ratio could easily occur when either side could gain the upper hand with local superiority - the problem with the Article is very poor sourcing and cited references. There were many instances when mechanical failures approached and exceeded 50% returns of the P-38 force that took off. So, for example, Section of P-38s attacking - or being attacked by a Gruppe or combined squadron of escort and ZG units could find itself in numerical trouble easily. 

Perhaps the most glaring example of goofy research was the unbelievable 'mislabeling' by the artist Kopp of the P-51B-5-NA (2 examples - tp and bottom) and P-51B-15-NA (middle) as P-51B-5, -10-"NT". NT denotes Dallas manufacture and if correct would have been *P-51C*

Now to the very confusing Map - which implies that the P-47 had a greater combat radius than the P-38. NO. The Only instance of near equal combat radius is when the P-47 carried a 108 gal belly tank and the P-38 (w/o LE 55 gal tanks) carried 2x75 externals... the 38 typically used 75 gallon until the flood of 150 gal combat tanks arrived in November (tear drop P-38 tank/not 'flat' belly tank for P-47. 

What is date and source of the map? Even 'official Maps' produced in 1944 and even post war were flawed with lack of precision regarding internal and external tankage as well as model. 



Reluctant Poster said:


> As for the second question I must apologize for a very poor post (I'm blaming jet lag). I don't know why I stated Ludwigshafen which really isn't that far. I was actually thinking of the January 11 raid on Brunswick, Halberstatdt and Oscherleben, which you noted. As for Bordeaux, I discount that as it wasn't a deep penetration of German airspace. In fact the two pervious missions to Bordeaux in December were unescorted. You might disagree.
> The point I was trying to make was that Big Week was a step change in mission distances, which were 100 miles deeper than previously attempted. I have updated the chart I shared a couple of years ago with more info.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I have chastised my facebook friend Corey Jordan about many inaccuracies in that Austalian article. Not the least was understating P-47C/D Combat Radius as stated for Fall-Winter 1943.
> 
> With the 108 gallon tank in September, its planning Combat Radius (with assumptions for combat and reserve after dropping external tanks) was ~ 275mi and then w/150 gal belly tank Jan-Feb 1944) ~ 375mi. In the same time envelope the P-38H w/75 gal tanks in Oct-Nov was 275mi, but in December with 2x150gal tanks ~ 375mi. The Combat Radius discussion greatly overstated late 1943 for P-38 as "500 NM CR was not achieved until the 55ga LE tanks combined with the 2x150 gal externals - March 1944
> 
> ...



This is what I based the 375 mile radius on. I do not remember where I found it. Its been on my computer for years.









The date maybe optimistic by a month according to this history:













This history is also the source of the chart I posted. I added the text boxes with specific missions and the P-47 combat radius.

I went back to the history to confirm the combat radius of a P-47 with a 108 tank and it indicates 325 miles not 375.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 22, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> This is what I based the 375 mile radius on. I do not remember where I found it. Its been on my computer for years.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 638809



Some time ago I did a Google search and found a variety of maps like the one above. They mostly had similar figures, but there were some differences. Unfortunately, these are all on my other computer which I cannot access at the moment.



Reluctant Poster said:


> View attachment 638812



I have a copy of that report on my other computer. Because the bars are not labeled with numerical values, determining the actual mileage involves some imprecision. I took an image of that graph and threw it into Photoshop, and compared the pixel length of each bar, and then converted that into miles based on the bars with a more confidently known distance.

Alas, that result too is on my other computer. 

I really need to get that fixed up so I can get access to all that source data again. . .

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> This is what I based the 375 mile radius on. I do not remember where I found it. Its been on my computer for years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dean reproduced AAF Planning docs for Combat Radius in "America's 100,000". 

Based on the bar chart above, the plotted values are a.) not clear about model within Type and for a period in late November 1943 through April 1944 range for P-38/P-47 and P-51B. The Mustang shown is P-51B-1 w/o internal 85 gal fuse tank in December 1943; The P-38J depicted from March 1944 for P-38J-15 w/55 gal LE tanks mod to increase internal fuel; The P-47D shown w/2x150 gal is w/305 gal internal and plumbing/pylon kits to equivalent P-47D-16 delivered in March/April.

Also, there is no range 'bar' for P-51B w/269gal internal fuel (incl 85 gal fuse tank), nor 269 gal plus 2x108 gal combat tanks.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Dean reproduced AAF Planning docs for Combat Radius in "America's 100,000".
> 
> Based on the bar chart above, the plotted values are a.) not clear about model within Type and for a period in late November 1943 through April 1944 range for P-38/P-47 and P-51B. The Mustang shown is P-51B-1 w/o internal 85 gal fuse tank in December 1943; The P-38J depicted from March 1944 for P-38J-15 w/55 gal LE tanks mod to increase internal fuel; The P-47D shown w/2x150 gal is w/305 gal internal and plumbing/pylon kits to equivalent P-47D-16 delivered in March/April.
> 
> Also, there is no range 'bar' for P-51B w/269gal internal fuel (incl 85 gal fuse tank), nor 269 gal plus 2x108 gal combat tanks.


I devoted an entire chapter to this subject in my book.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Dean reproduced AAF Planning docs for Combat Radius in "America's 100,000".
> 
> Based on the bar chart above, the plotted values are a.) not clear about model within Type and for a period in late November 1943 through April 1944 range for P-38/P-47 and P-51B. The Mustang shown is P-51B-1 w/o internal 85 gal fuse tank in December 1943; The P-38J depicted from March 1944 for P-38J-15 w/55 gal LE tanks mod to increase internal fuel; The P-47D shown w/2x150 gal is w/305 gal internal and plumbing/pylon kits to equivalent P-47D-16 delivered in March/April.
> 
> Also, there is no range 'bar' for P-51B w/269gal internal fuel (incl 85 gal fuse tank), nor 269 gal plus 2x108 gal combat tanks.


Based on your research what was the maximum radius for a P47 in January 1944?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> I devoted an entire chapter to this subject in my book.


I was unaware that you have a book.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 22, 2021)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I was unaware that you have a book.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 638834



I know what's next in my ordering queue, and I'll certainly buy new to support a forum brotha.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> Based on the bar chart above, the plotted values are a.) not clear about model within Type and for a period in late November 1943 through April 1944 range for P-38/P-47 and P-51B.



Note also it has separate values for 'maximum penetration as target support' and 'maximum penetration in support of bombers.' The latter is the escort range. The source document is, if I recall correctly, an official USAAF one.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> View attachment 638834


I always liked that shot of Rafferty's "The Iowa Beaut" (shown on the cover)


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2021)

Arent those curves also dependent on how much the LW had been pushed back as much as how much the range of machines had been increased? In the early days any L/R P-47 drop tanks would have been dropped early, wouldnt they?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> Note also it has separate values for 'maximum penetration as target support' and 'maximum penetration in support of bombers.' The latter is the escort range. The source document is, if I recall correctly, an official USAAF one.


The Maximum Penetration is support of Bombers' should be focused primarily on P-47 for R/V and Penetration to 'hand-off' for Target Support' escort - with the reverse - R/V with Target Support to relieve them, and then perform Withdrawal Support to some point near the Holland/France coast.

One should recall that no 8th AF course for an attack deep in Germany was a straight line and that 'Combat Radius should be tempered with this understanding. Also recall that P-47s escorting an assigned box of bombers was effectively moving at the same speed as the bombers - all the while Essing at higher cruise speed - whereas the Target escort had much more latitude flying a straight line at high cruise to the R/V point (usually close to the IP for mid-long range) - otherwise, if VLR Target Escort, then fly to a distant R/V (like Berlin area for an attack in Poland) and pick up their assigned boxes and Ess with them same as P-47 to provide 'local hand holding'.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2021)

pbehn said:


> Arent those curves also dependent on how much the LW had been pushed back as much as how much the range of machines had been increased? In the early days any L/R P-47 drop tanks would have been dropped early, wouldnt they?


The only tanks dropped early were the 200/205 gal un-pressurized C/L Ferry tank somewhere 18K - often with half a tank of fuel remaining. Otherwise drop when attacked. BTW that is why ALL Combat Radius charts are prepared based o longest datum for which a fight and return flight home is solely on internal fuel available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> One should recall that no 8th AF course for an attack deep in Germany was a straight line and that 'Combat Radius should be tempered with this understanding.



There is a USAAF Bomb Group website (303rd, if I recall correctly) which has viewable mission documents from some of the missions which include the route maps. Measuring some of these revealed that the 'as flown' flight route was sometimes 40% or more than the straight line 'as the crow flies' distance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 22, 2021)

drgondog said:


> The only tanks dropped early were the 200/205 gal un-pressurized C/L Ferry tank somewhere 18K - often with half a tank of fuel remaining. Otherwise drop when attacked. BTW that is why ALL Combat Radius charts are prepared based o longest datum for which a fight and return flight home is solely on internal fuel available.


I was just referring to the radii with dates for the P-47 and Spitfire, until a certain number of missions had been made to push the LW back, putting tanks to go further didnt make a great deal of sense was how I saw things or is that wrong?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 22, 2021)

As an aside, that phrase "as the crow flies" cracks me up -- as if they fly straight. I'd swear some of them had been hitting the fermented apples or something.


----------



## 33k in the air (Aug 23, 2021)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> As an aside, that phrase "as the crow flies" cracks me up -- as if they fly straight. I'd swear some of them had been hitting the fermented apples or something.



What do you mean, an African or European crow? Er, I mean swallow?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Aug 23, 2021)

From 1943 - did the Germans really bomb Dover in July 1940 with Chesapeakes?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 23, 2021)

33k in the air said:


> What do you mean, an African or European crow? Er, I mean swallow?



I didn't ask them where they were from.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2021)

Graeme said:


> From 1943 - did the Germans really bomb Dover in July 1940 with Chesapeakes?
> 
> View attachment 638877


I never knew Igor Sikorsky had a hand in the Vindicator.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 23, 2021)

Graeme said:


> did the Germans really bomb Dover in July 1940 with Chesapeakes?



RAF pilots fought the He113 fighter in the same time period

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Feb 13, 2022)

The myth of the FAA teaching the USN how to operate Corsairs from aircraft carriers seems to still be going strong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 28, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Yep, that's pure "Caidinism" - the Luftwaffe pilots usually referred to them as "Lightnings" and the American pilots (my great uncle Jimmy included) were the ones who called the P-38 the "Fork-tailed Devil".


Renewing a slightly old thread. Saw this in the 16 Aug. 1943 LIFE magazine just now

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2022)

I always wondered about that German flier, who was "mumbling hysterically".

I could see him being in this state if he flew (and survived) a P-39.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 29, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> I always wondered about that German flier, who was "mumbling hysterically".
> 
> I could see him being in this state if he flew (and survived) a P-39.


Shhh, let's just let sleeping Groundhogs lie.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snowygrouch (Sep 29, 2022)

Not from this site, but on the topic of debunking, a couple of people dug into the story of the RAF dropping a wooden bomb on a fake German airfield which
was occupied by fake wooden aircraft as decoys - to make fun of them.

Seems the root of the story was pretty much a paragraph in a book which amounted to "some guy I once knew said that a thing happened", (a bit like the P-38 story)









Did the British Drop a Wooden Bomb on a Decoy German Airfield?


Did the British Drop a Wooden Bomb on a Decoy German Airfield?




www.snopes.com





The "wooden bomb" which is on display, was pointed out not to be a fake bomb either >







Most people agreed that although it was immensely unlikely to be true, they would carry on 
sort of believing it because it was "a nice story".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 1, 2022)

Graeme said:


> From 1943 - did the Germans really bomb Dover in July 1940 with Chesapeakes?
> 
> View attachment 638877



That has to be true. I saw it in "Catch 22" once! They contracted out to the Germans to bomb their own airfield.
Sic. Transit. Gloriosky.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 33k in the air (Oct 1, 2022)

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Oct 2, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> As an aside, that phrase "as the crow flies" cracks me up -- as if they fly straight. I'd swear some of them had been hitting the fermented apples or something.


They do fly straight when flying home to the rookery for the night.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 2, 2022)

Milosh said:


> They do fly straight when flying home to the rookery for the night.


Not if they have gone to a crowbar first.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 2, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> Not if they have gone to a crowbar first.


You mean one of those circular collections of fermenting apple drops?
"Doan shit under d'appu tree wif anyun elsh but mee..."

Been known to tumble an attitude gyro or two.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Oct 2, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> You mean one of those circular collections of fermenting apple drops?
> "Doan shit under d'appu tree wif anyone elsh but mee..."


No i mean

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Oct 2, 2022)

Of course, this forum finally debunked the myth that the P-39 had an armoured heater in the nose .................

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2022)

Airframes said:


> Of course, this forum finally debunked the myth that the P-39 had an armoured heater in the nose .................


Actually it did have an armored heater, just not very good.





The armor plate went around the gear box, protecting the long heating device behind the propeller with 30 single use fast acting heat tubes in the horseshoe  

I'll get my coat...............................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2022)

Shortround6 said:


> I'll get my coat...............................

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Oct 2, 2022)

Well, I have now discovered that an armoured nose heater *was,* in fact, under trial.
However, as it consisted of two candles inside a coffee tin, it proved to be unsuccessful, as the bleed air draft from the prop, flowing back under the nose panels, caused enough disturbance to blow out the candles.
In addition to this, the melting candle wax had a tendency to move, seriously affecting the CoG .............

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Engineman (Oct 2, 2022)

Yep, the Rooks also fly straight out to their desired feeding location after forming-up at their large roosts. However, smaller groups do gaggle about and on fine breezy days after the breeding/feeding is done, you do see large displays of thermaling, aerobatics and power-diving!

Eng

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 2, 2022)

Engineman said:


> Yep, the Rooks also fly straight out to their desired feeding location after forming-up at their large roosts. However, smaller groups do gaggle about and on fine breezy days after the breeding/feeding is done, you do see large displays of thermaling, aerobatics and power-diving!
> 
> Eng



Maybe that's why rooks in chess can slide the entire eight squares in a straight line ... hmm.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cherry blossom (Oct 2, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Maybe that's why rooks in chess can slide the entire eight squares in a straight line ... hmm.


Alas rook comes from Persian رخ rokh/rukh, meaning "chariot"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 2, 2022)

cherry blossom said:


> Alas rook comes from Persian رخ rokh/rukh, meaning "chariot"



That too makes sense, as a chariot may cross a battlefield quickly.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 3, 2022)

Graeme said:


> From 1943 - did the Germans really bomb Dover in July 1940 with Chesapeakes?


I remember there was a book called "Duels in the Sky" by Capt. Eric "Winkle" Brown, and they mentioned the SB2U Vindicator. With the British calling it the Chesapeake, and me kind of scanning through it, I initially misread it as "Cheesecake" (The RN interestingly did sometimes mockingly refer to the aircraft as the Cheesecake as well, probably because they either made the same reading error I did or thought the spelling looked very similar).

While a good cheesecake is a wonderful thing, it doesn't seem like it'd be a good name for a dive-bomber.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zippythehog (Oct 3, 2022)

Cheesecake can be heavy. Heavy objects fall. So….?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 3, 2022)

Zippythehog

I think it was just the fact that it looked like cheesecake if read quickly.

Unfortunately, I now can't stop thinking about cheesecake.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Oct 3, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> The Me-262 was not produced because Hitler wanted a bomber.
> 
> The SBDs sank the IJN carriers at Midway because their escorting Wildcats dove on the Zeros and shot them down before they could stop the dive bombers.


WOA! Never heard THAT one! VF6 CO Jim Gray neglected to mention it!


----------



## MIflyer (Oct 3, 2022)

None of the SBDs at Midway had any fighter escort. Enterprise F4F's followed VT-8 by mistake, circled over the IJN fleet while VT-8 attacked, never heard a radio call for help, and then left for home when they hit bingo fuel. Hornet F4F's followed their SBD's, did not find the IJN, and all ditched on the way home. Yorktown F4F's were with their TBD's, not the dive bombers, and found themselves outnumbered by Zeros at least 6 to one. 

I wonder if anyone has ever tried to figure out how many Zeros the Yorktown F4F's splashed that day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> I wonder if anyone has ever tried to figure out how many Zeros the Yorktown F4F's splashed that day.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## yosimitesam (Oct 3, 2022)

Snowygrouch said:


> Not from this site, but on the topic of debunking, a couple of people dug into the story of the RAF dropping a wooden bomb on a fake German airfield which
> was occupied by fake wooden aircraft as decoys - to make fun of them.
> 
> Seems the root of the story was pretty much a paragraph in a book which amounted to "some guy I once knew said that a thing happened", (a bit like the P-38 story)
> ...


This thread is dedicated to debunking apocryphal stories. These, of course, are stories that are told and re-told as truth even though the relevant authorities assert it to be untrue, or else the story is so nebulous that no one can ever find any evidence of its truth. 'Apocryphal' is an adjective. Interestingly, the corresponding noun, 'apocrypha', is plural and usually refers to religious books or stories of doubtful authenticity, or even just downright fakes. Now, what is the singular noun corresponding to 'apocryphal'? The only ones that exist in common English are unrelated to the word's origin, re: 'bullsh*t', 'malarkey', 'hokum', 'bunk', 'lie', 'falsehood', etc. (Note how 'debunking' is itself ambiguous in that it could mean the act of affirming it to be true, even though we actually mean it to be the removal of 'bunk.') I think it's time we come up with our own, precise word for this, just for our use on this site. Here are my candidates: aeromyth, aerobunk, aerodung, aerotwaddle. If Shakespeare can invent words, so can we, and we all can help to stop the spread of this scourge on history and humanity. No, I'm not drunk. Not yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Oct 3, 2022)

In my field it was called BOGINT.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 3, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> None of the SBDs at Midway had any fighter escort. Enterprise F4F's followed VT-8 by mistake, circled over the IJN fleet while VT-8 attacked, never heard a radio call for help, and then left for home when they hit bingo fuel. Hornet F4F's followed their SBD's, did not find the IJN, and all ditched on the way home. Yorktown F4F's were with their TBD's, not the dive bombers, and found themselves outnumbered by Zeros at least 6 to one.
> 
> I wonder if anyone has ever tried to figure out how many Zeros the Yorktown F4F's splashed that day.


According to Lundstrom Yorktown F4Fs claimed 11 Zeros, Hornet claimed 3 and Enterprise claimed 1. His analysis indicates altogether they actually got 11. He does not give a split of the 11 amongst the 3. Worst case VF-3shot down 7, best case 11.


----------



## GregP (Oct 5, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> That too makes sense, as a chariot may cross a battlefield quickly.



Some chariots are sweet, swing low, and come to carry you home.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Engineman (Oct 5, 2022)

and, some are Chariots of Fire.

Eng

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 5, 2022)

And some don't have any lyrics at all:


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 5, 2022)

buffnut453 said:


> And some don't have any lyrics at all:



Buffnut,

I flew over that beach in the Eagle enroute to RAF Leuchars for a gas stop (flew back to Keflavik from there). Scottish Mil (ATC) gave us a tour (pointing out the beach and the Old Course at St. Andrews) then asked us to do a practice airfield attack (code for put on a show). What the hell do a bunch of Eagle Drivers know about "airfield attack".

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 5, 2022)

I just saw a video from "Cockpit Interviews"(?) interviewing a Tornado F3 pilot. He discussed simulated combat against various U.S. types. Of the F-15, he said something like
"Tactics? They just came straight on through. The only way to beat them was to cheat." They flew back and forth in a ravine hiding from radar, popping up to look around. They didn't know the ravine was off limits.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Engineman (Oct 5, 2022)

Cheating is, of course, a useful tactic.

Eng

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I just saw a video from "Cockpit Interviews"(?) interviewing a Tornado F3 pilot. He discussed simulated combat against various U.S. types. Of the F-15, he said something like
> "Tactics? They just came straight on through. The only way to beat them was to cheat." They flew back and forth in a ravine hiding from radar, popping up to look around. They didn't know the ravine was off limits.



Well, the Tonka F3 was never designed to be a dogfighter because the RAF (again) failed to learn lessons from WW2 and built an interceptor solely designed to take on Russian bombers. However, the interview sounds accurate and triggered a memory. 

I was at Cope Thunder in Alaska the first time the Brits took part. Knowing that the F3 couldn't compete with the F-15, the Tonkas stayed low and silent (no radar emissions, no comm emissions), relying on AWACS to track the incoming F-15 formation. Once the F-15s had overflown the Tonkas, the latter popped up behind them and promptly shot down all the F-15s in a matter of seconds for no losses. Hardly fair but, then again, who said air combat should be fair?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 5, 2022)

The pilot did say the F3 wasn't properly configured. They were carrying "Graf Zeppelin" wing tanks.


----------



## Engineman (Oct 5, 2022)

RAF got the F3 because UK could not afford a more capable aircraft and developed it from the GR bomber at low-ish cost. There was a certain rationale about the UKADR role and the F3 being a fair bomber killer with Skyflash.
There is no argument about carrying tanks, fact is the F15 fighters are awesome for their vintage and, even with no tanks an F3 is not in the same dynamic league.

Eng

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> The pilot did say the F3 wasn't properly configured. They were carrying "Graf Zeppelin" wing tanks.



The big fuel tanks were actually known as "Hindenburgs"...at least they were on the ground-pounding Tonka fleet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 5, 2022)

Engineman said:


> RAF got the F3 because UK could not afford a more capable aircraft and developed it from the GR bomber at low-ish cost.


Yet the development process yielded a less capable aircraft at considerably higher cost, than just buying F-15's to begin with.

Reminds me of the RAF Eurofighter procurement, as told to me by a Tornado crewman years ago (so take it with a grain of salt). The Typhoon was designed with an internal Bk-27 cannon, but the RAF didn't want the extra expenditure and maintenance costs of the gun, unfortunately the aircraft was off CofG without it. So they initiated a program to develop a ballast that would take the guns place. However, the development and installation of the ballast cost as much as the gun itself, so they abandoned the ballast program and just ordered aircraft with non-functional cannons. 

UK military procurement is long and sad story, perhaps only bested by Canada

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 5, 2022)

I just like the Tornado. I like big tails and that I can't deny.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I just like the Tornado. I like big tails and that I can't deny.



Yabut do you like flying Lego bricks?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Oct 5, 2022)

They got big tails?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Oct 5, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> They got big tails?



They way they stacked that plane, yeah.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 6, 2022)

BiffF15 said:


> What the hell do a bunch of Eagle Drivers know about "airfield attack".


"Not a pound for air to ground."
Is there ever anything on the ground (other than a jet turning up) hot enough to growl a Sidewinder?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 6, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "Not a pound for air to ground."
> Is there ever anything on the ground (other than a jet turning up) hot enough to growl a Sidewinder?


Wes,

Believe it or not the F-15 actually came with air to ground capabilities when delivered new and Eagle units actually dropped ordanance. I started flying it in 1991, and the software was still there, although not used for it's intended mission. The "non MSIP (Multi Stage Improvement Program)" Eagles were all delivered with an Armament Control Panel (looks very similar to what the Phantom came with) and you could dial all sorts of bombs into it. The MSIP mods removed that panel and replaced it with a color MPCD (multi purpose color display) and it allowed for bombs initially, or until software mods needed space and that was pulled. 

The AIM-9M would easily self track (lock on) to hot spots on the ground, the sun, flares, etc. It was an "all aspect" missile, with the ability to track and hit a fighter in idle in the face (hardest shot). The AIM-9X was a whole different animal and literally an exponential leap in capabilities.

Strafing was being introduced to the A-D community as I was leaving (didn't get to do it). The Strike Eagle guys had been doing it for awhile. And that's with an up canted gun just like in the Hornet.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 6, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "Not a pound for air to ground."





BiffF15 said:


> Believe it or not the F-15 actually came with air to ground capabilities when delivered new and Eagle units actually dropped ordanance.


When I worked for Eastern on the Redifon 727 sim at JFK, we had a tech rep from McDonnell Douglas Engineering who was responsible for the simulator/visual system interface. He had been yanked off F15 sim development work and exiled to Kennedy in retaliation for enraging some executive in the chain of command, and "not a pound..." was his mantra. Apparently the recent injection of former Douglas executives into the McDonnell hierarchy had generated a corrosive culture clash, which festered under the surface for decades and eventually contributed to the erosion of Boeing's culture of safety and quality after that merger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> When I worked for Eastern


When you were at Eastern did you know "Barney" Rummel?


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When you were at Eastern did you know "Barney" Rummel?


I read that wrong at first so I shall refrain......no matter how hard I really, really want to

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2022)

fubar57 said:


> I read that wrong at first so I shall refrain......no matter how hard I really, really want to


His given first name is Robert, but he quotes a date in 1964 when for some reason everyone started to call him "Barney."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> His given first name is Robert, but he quotes a date in 1964 when for some reason everyone started to call him "Barney."


Did he have a hot wife and a best friend named Fred?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 6, 2022)

MUST REFRAIN.......MUST REFRAIN.....MUST REFRAIN....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
5 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## PAT303 (Oct 6, 2022)

Haha, thanks for the morning laugh.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yosimitesam (Oct 7, 2022)

Greg Boeser said:


> In my field it was called BOGINT.


Winner.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> When you were at Eastern did you know "Barney" Rummel?


Yaba daba doo! NOPE! Don't remember him or anyone like him. I was there 10 years after "Barney's" alleged name change, wasn't there long, and don't remember that whole episode fondly. The seeds of Eastern's eventual (1987) demise were sown, sprouted, and growing like weeds by 1974: a toxic culture full of "screw you" attitudes and pervasive sabotage of any attempts at cooperation or teamwork.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2022)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yaba daba doo! NOPE! Don't remember him or anyone like him. I was there 10 years after "Barney's" alleged name change, wasn't there long, and don't remember that whole episode fondly. The seeds of Eastern's eventual (1987) demise were sown, sprouted, and growing like weeds by 1974: a toxic culture full of "screw you" attitudes and pervasive sabotage of any attempts at cooperation or teamwork.


He was there at the end of the show - DOM. Got lured there after a career in the USAF and jumped on the sinking ship. I met a few folks at Eastern who always had good things to say about him, one of the 'good guys.' Bailed after the bow went into the water. "Barney" wound up being one of the program managers at the USAFA when I worked there.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 7, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> He was there at the end of the show - DOM. Got lured there after a career in the USAF and jumped on the sinking ship.


Where was he when they needed him? Eastern was already in cancer mode when I was there in 1974. Anyway, our little group of four techs at JFK answered to Flight Training down at MIA, not anybody in Aircraft Maintenance. And everybody at JFK, regardless of company chain of command, answered to Port Authority and the Mafia. (not in that order)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 11, 2022)

TheMadPenguin said:


> We need an emote giving a van gough scream...








This picture?

Edvard Munch

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 11, 2022)

pbehn said:


> Actually, I just want someone to explain why Packard, Ford and Allison didnt have a better engine shooting off a dozen lines in 1939. An obvious question that needs an answer, like why did some Liberty ships break in two?


That second I can answer: the steel used had a high nil-ductility transition temperature, that is the temperature below which steel will undergo brittle failure. Since Liberty ships were welded, there was nothing to stop a crack propagating at close to the speed of sound in steel until the ship broke.

The first, I can only surmise, but it's probably that none of them saw enough money in it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 11, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> That second I can answer: the steel used had a high nil-ductility transition temperature, that is the temperature below which steel will undergo brittle failure. Since Liberty ships were welded, there was nothing to stop a crack propagating at close to the speed of sound in steel until the ship broke.
> 
> The first, I can only surmise, but it's probably that none of them saw enough money in it.


I spent most of my career testing steels. That was the major cause in the steels used, but there were others. The welding process Submerged Arc Welding was new at the time and if you dont do it right, also with suitable consumables and flux it causes problems, also joint and ship design contributed to causes, they had square port holes and access holes. At the start they didnt even have methods to test for brittle fracture, the Battelle DWTT was developed for it and the Charpy test was a little known test developed by a French academic. The UK Welding Institute where I took all my exams grew out of the group that researched into problems with SAW welding on Liberty ships.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 12, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> That second I can answer: the steel used had a high nil-ductility transition temperature, that is the temperature below which steel will undergo brittle failure. Since Liberty ships were welded, there was nothing to stop a crack propagating at close to the speed of sound in steel until the ship broke.
> 
> The first, I can only surmise, but it's probably that none of them saw enough money in it.



The first was that the USAAC did not foresee the need for any liquid cooled engine plus the USN and airlines were anti-liquid engines so no one would fund them. This stayed a problem until late in the war. Allison could have gone integral two speed and/or two stage early on but nobody in the USAAC/F wanted them. By the time the USAAF decided to wake up the end was in sight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Geoffrey Sinclair (Oct 12, 2022)

This is taken from the book Liberty by Peter Elphick, the chapter entitled "close to calamity" which deals with the emergence of structural failures in US built WWII merchant ships and the investigations undertaken to solve the problem.

As of 1 September 1944 some 558 ships had reported a total of 785 incidents of cracking, and this is known to be an underestimate of the total. The US "Final Report", containing data to 1 April 1946 noted of some 5,000 Maritime Commission built ships some 972 had reported a total of 1,442 incidents. Top of the list were a tanker and two non liberty ships which had suffered 8 incidents, the "top" two liberty ships had suffered 6 incidents.

One of the first incidents was when building the ship Ocean Justice, a welder was amazed to watch cracks propagating, on a cold morning in February 1942, the damage was classified as serious and the ship was not launched for another two months. Of the 60 Ocean class some 9 would suffer some sort of failure. The next major incident reported was on 10 November 1942 and the third on the 11th. By 12 January 1943 another 10 ships had reported major cracking problems. The US assigned the category class I to these, with class II being bad with the potential to become class I and class III for other reports. There were 18 class II and III incidents between November and January.

The Germans were well aware of the problem, even publishing an account in the journal Nauticus in 1944. The US allowed the New York Times to carry an article on the topic in April 1944. There is little doubt a problem in sorting out what was going on were the rumours, some of which were axis fuelled, as you would expect.

By the end of 1942 the cracking defects were clearly recognised as a problem and on 16 January 1943 the new tanker Schenectady nearly broke in half while being fitted out on the Columbia River. The break sounded like an explosion. Air temperature was 26 degrees Fahrenheit. The cracking had occurred so quickly the raised sections of the hull had almost no chance to ship water. (The ship broke into an inverted letter V as the bow and stern were carrying ballast). It was clear the crack did not follow the welds but went through the steel plates. The initial reaction was to blame the welds but that was not sustainable. The steel was taken for experiments and passed all the standard tests. The key observation was the steel had behaved as if it were brittle, with the pieces able to be reassembled into their original shape, whereas it should have been ductile, with some ability to "bend and stretch" before breaking and the distortions before breaking would mean the pieces could not be reassembled so neatly.

Since a majority of the early incidents came from Kaiser yards it was easy to assume it was a problem for that builder alone but as the incidents continued from February 1943 onwards it was clear there was a more systematic problem. It was across all yards and all types of ships. The next 11 class I failures resulted in the loss of two ships at sea. Then the Esso Manhattan, a tanker, effectively split in two off New York on 29 March 1943, with its two escorting ASW blimps granted ringside seats to take lots of photographs. In this case the crack had started at a defective weld. The ship made harbour and was put back together.

The US started an official inquiry on 20 April 1943 with an "utmost urgency" brief, to find out what was going on. At about the same time the British initiated a similar investigation, both countries gave the investigations considerable authority and resources, and exchange visits were organised to keep each investigation up to date with the other. The US started by circulating to masters of US ships a survey form requesting reports on cracking problems, accepting the inevitable rumours that fuelled. The available data collected revealed by 30 April 1943 there had been 28 class I events and over 100 events in total. Later the British circulated a similar survey. These surveys were continued throughout the war but they inevitably missed some incidents. It seems the reporting system stayed in use until the late 1960's.

Looking at the official US final report, which was data collected to 17 March 1946, there had been 132 class I failures. Peak class I failure month had been January 1944, with 20, worst month for all types of failures was March 1944 with 138. It would appear it was not until November 1943 that a failure resulted in US lives being lost, and that was from a lifeboat going missing.

Some 8 US and 6 British ships were used as tests, taking ships out of commission as required. The British tests were more elaborate than the US ones, using still water trials of sister ships, one welded and one riveted, and ocean trials with a ship whose master was instructed to go through storms as much as was safely possible. Incidentally these full size trials run in the 1944 to 1947 period were published by the Admiralty and remain to the book publication day the most modern set of data on the stresses full size merchant ships encounter. Elphick hints that maybe it is time for another set of trials. It took the sea trials to finally convince the die hards that it was not a case of riveting being superior as a joining technique.

The first obstacle any investigation had to overcome was the fact ship building rules were not codified, they were a collection of rules of thumb developed over the years. So no one knew what sort of stresses a "normal", that is riveted, merchant ship would see. This enabled those who preferred riveted construction to hold the view it was welding causing the problem, ideas like faulty welds or because riveting made the ship overall less rigid and so able to absorb stresses better. It took the full size trials to disprove the claimed superiority of riveting when it came to handling stress. In simple terms the difference between riveting and welding was minor. The crack resistance superiority came from the fact the welds created one metal sheet, riveting kept the sheets separate. As another example of the time needed it took about a year, that is until sometime in 1944, before any researcher reproduced the cracking in a laboratory experiment.

One of the actions first approved was the fitting of crack arresters, 4 long slots were cut in the ship's plating and covered by a strap that was riveted into place, it was easy to do this for new ships but expensive for ships already built, about 1,000 already built Liberty ships received the modifications. Apart from structural failures the crack arresters helped limit damage from bomb etc. hits. Ships meant as troop transports were given additional strengthening.

The first sets of data showed as expected cracks started from parts of the ship under high stress and strengthening was ordered for key areas. Welding remained a favourite candidate for the ultimate cause and more care was taken to ensure welding was to proper standards and the crack down did uncover problems, where welds were simply done incorrectly. A practice of poor welding was wide spread enough to have its own word, slugging, to describe the technique. Yet tests on slugged welds showed if anything they were superior to the "correct" welds, as opposed to other cases where the weld was simply faulty. Another clue was British built welded ships were not suffering the same defect rate.

It was also clear from the incident reports the cracks did not normally follow the welds, indeed they often seemed to quickly move away from them. Extensive US tests showed welds did not create "locked up" or residual tensions which then created failure points. The way the plates were cracking suggested the steel was the problem and like welding more effort was put in to ensure quality control was improved. As expected some quality problems were found in the steel supply but again standard testing on cracked plates kept coming up with pass marks. The Bethlehem Fairfield yard used part riveting in its ships and they suffered a much lower rate of cracking, which was another point in favour of the riveting was better belief. There was also the suspicion Bethlehem was managing to make sure its best steel went to its own ship yard.

The original April 1943 survey was also clearly pointing out low temperatures were a problem. As an aside whoever produced the survey questions managed to do a very good job, covering almost all the information needed to solve the problem. As the incident numbers built it became clear that ships built in lower temperature environments were more at risk. It also seemed to be ships in ballast were at more risk, and ballasting instructions were changed. Another complicating factor was ships in US service had a higher risk of seeing structural problems, ships in UK or Norwegian service a lower risk, but in Soviet service the risk was higher than for the US. While the Soviets were operating in lower temperature environments Elphick points to the average US merchant marine officer had much less sea experience than the British and Norwegians and this may have lead to the US ships being subjected to greater storm stresses as seamanship is more experience than theory.

In the end the metallurgists came up with the answer. The Cambridge (UK) team was lead by Dr Constance Tipper. The term notch brittleness is used to describe a plate having a higher stress area, a notch, and when it would break in a brittle manner at low temperatures. No tests were done for this at the time and it turned out US steels with their lower manganese to carbon ratios showed the problem more than UK steels. In almost all cases it required temperatures so low that they were rarely encountered however some of the US steel batches were so sensitive they could crack in tropical waters. It explained why welding was not a problem, why UK welded ships were not giving the same amount of problems, why it was worst in winter and why temperatures when under construction seemed to matter.

It would appear, despite the problems, the US wartime built ships lasted in service in bulk until the 1960's when their age and the superiority of the new diesel driven ships meant the wartime ships were uneconomic. In one sense they had to last, as of 1945 the US merchant fleet was bigger than the rest of the world combined.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
 4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

MiTasol said:


> The first was that the USAAC did not foresee the need for any liquid cooled engine plus the USN and airlines were anti-liquid engines so no one would fund them. This stayed a problem until late in the war. Allison could have gone integral two speed and/or two stage early on but nobody in the USAAC/F wanted them. By the time the USAAF decided to wake up the end was in sight.


This seems to have been posted in the wrong thread, so I am not sure what you were replying to. 
The myth that the USN was anti liquid-cooled seems to be based on some flippant remark that some Admiral (Power?) supposedly made about liquid-cooled aircraft and air-cooled submarines.
The reality is that the USN was funding the development of Pratt & Whitney's liquid cooled engines right up to the start of American involvement in WWII. The following are from "Development of Aircraft Engines" by Schailfer














The navy was also supporting the Lycoming H-2470.





The Toledo factory was later repurposed to produce components for the V-1650

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 12, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> This is taken from the book Liberty by Peter Elphick, the chapter entitled "close to calamity" which deals with the emergence of structural failures in US built WWII merchant ships and the investigations undertaken to solve the problem.
> 
> As of 1 September 1944 some 558 ships had reported a total of 785 incidents of cracking, and this is known to be an underestimate of the total. The US "Final Report", containing data to 1 April 1946 noted of some 5,000 Maritime Commission built ships some 972 had reported a total of 1,442 incidents. Top of the list were a tanker and two non liberty ships which had suffered 8 incidents, the "top" two liberty ships had suffered 6 incidents.
> 
> ...


The Japanese had much difficulty with the welded Mogami class. The lead ship of the follow up class, Tone, was too far advanced so it was built with mixed riveted and welded construction, while its later sister ship, Chikuma, was all riveted.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Oct 12, 2022)

Geoffrey Sinclair said:


> It would appear, despite the problems, the US wartime built ships lasted in service in bulk until the 1960's when their age and the superiority of the new diesel driven ships meant the wartime ships were uneconomic.


Some Liberty-class vessels were employed in the Far Eastern Shipping Co. (USSR) until the end of the 1970s. One of them served as a training ship even longer. I saw her in Vladivostok in 1989 - mothballed but still used for fire-fighting and other training.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 17, 2022)

Clayton Magnet said:


> UK military procurement is long and sad story, perhaps only bested by Canada



Type 42 Destroyer, anyone? "Let's make it shorter and then it'll be cheaper..."


----------



## EwenS (Oct 17, 2022)

nuuumannn said:


> Type 42 Destroyer, anyone? "Let's make it shorter and then it'll be cheaper..."


Was it? A 10 year debate here throws up a recent suggestion that it might not have been (see the Aug 2022 post onwards)





Type 42 Batch 1 Hull Cut


I am trying to get to the truth behind the story about the Type 42 ending up with a hull shorter than the designers wanted. The sources that I have available are contradictory. Norman Friedman states that there is no indication that the Type 42 was shortened from the a preferred 434ft (the...




www.secretprojects.co.uk

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 17, 2022)

EwenS said:


> Was it? A 10 year debate here throws up a recent suggestion that it might not have been (see the Aug 2022 post onwards)



I can be forgiven for my slip since I haven't been on that forum for months. A ten-year debate yet you've highlighted to read from August 2022? Have I been away from the forums that long?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

